Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you care to prove that anything contrary toIt’s doesn’t matter it’s contradictory to scripture therefore it cannot be true. The only thing science has proven is there are similarities, they can’t actually prove that we are descendants.
Are you familiar with the word "science"?Are you familiar with the definition of the word “evidence”? Evidence isn’t proof of anything, evidence is merely information that can support a proposition or idea, but can also be false.
"Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."Are you familiar with the definition of the word “evidence”? Evidence isn’t proof of anything, evidence is merely information that can support a proposition or idea, but can also be false.
It's contradictory to your interpretation of the scriptures. Plenty of other Christians throughout history have had other ways of interpreting the Bible. Isn't it a little arrogant to assume, without proof, that yours is the only correct one?It’s doesn’t matter it’s contradictory to scripture therefore it cannot be true.
That's not true.The only thing science has proven is there are similarities,
You want scriptural proof no problem.It's contradictory to your interpretation of the scriptures. Plenty of other Christians throughout history have had other ways of interpreting the Bible. Isn't it a little arrogant to assume, without proof, that yours is the only correct one?
Why did you give the definition of the word “proof”?"Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."
It's contradictory to your interpretation of the scriptures. Plenty of other Christians throughout history have had other ways of interpreting the Bible. Isn't it a little arrogant to assume, without proof, that yours is the only correct one?
That's not true.
So you think God is human? That our role as God's image is about our physical form and that God has literal arms and legs and a gall bladder? You don't think that God was made out of dust, do you? So we can bear God's image even though we were made out of dust and he isn't, why would it be a problem to bear God's image if we were made out of monkeys? (Also, you really should study some about what "God's image" likely meant.)“Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1:26-27 NASB1995
Is God a monkey?
So I'll quote Origen on the correct interpretation of the creation account:“Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”
Paul was engaging in a kind of loose, typological interpretation of a sacred text that is, if not actually midrash is as at least related to. Such interpretations do not require that the original passage had the literal meaning being applied to it. Do you really think Moses wore a veil in Exodus to conceal the fact that the Law was passing away? Yet that's how Paul interprets the passage in II Corinthians.“So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
1 Corinthians 15:45 NASB1995
So how do you interpret these verses in such a manner that they don’t contradict your idea of evolution?
Because it shows that evidence supporting the truth of something is exactly what 'proof' is, which you denied.Why did you give the definition of the word “proof”?
Oh by all means please do enlighten me. Simply saying I got it wrong with no explanation is just a cop out to hide your inexperience on scriptural comprehension.(Also, you really should study some about what "God's image" likely meant.)
Oh absolutely I believe I’m a better interpreter than Origen. He was the absolute worst Bible interpreter of all the early church writers. Which is why the 5th ecumenical council issued 19 anathemas on his writings some of which included his teaching on the salvation of satan, preexisting souls, and universal reconciliation. You couldn’t have picked a worst person to quote.My question was, what reason do you have to think you're a better interpreter of the Bible than Origen?
You didn’t accomplish anything here other than to say that the scriptures can mean whatever you want them to mean. There is only one truth and it is not subjective to personal or popular opinion.So you think God is human? That our role as God's image is about our physical form and that God has literal arms and legs and a gall bladder? You don't think that God was made out of dust, do you? So we can bear God's image even though we were made out of dust and he isn't, why would it be a problem to bear God's image if we were made out of monkeys? (Also, you really should study some about what "God's image" likely meant.)
Remember, I was asking why you thought your approach to interpreting scripture was the only correct one. Simply quoting a bunch of Bible passages and offering your interpretation does nothing at all to answer that question.
So I'll quote Origen on the correct interpretation of the creation account:
"So that what we say may be understood quite concretely, let us now bring the argument to bear upon actual passages in Scripture. To what person of intelligence, I ask, will the account seem logically consistent that says there was a "first day" and a "second" and "third", in which also "evening" and "morning" are named, without a sun, without a moon, and without stars, and even in the case of the first day without a heaven? And who will be found simple enough to believe that like some farmer "God planted trees in the garden of Eden, in the east?" and that He planted "the tree of life" in it, that is a visible tree that could be touched, so that someone could eat of this tree with corporeal teeth and gain life, and, further, could eat of another tree and receive knowledge "of good and evil"? Moreover, we find that God is said to stroll in the garden in the afternoon and Adam to hide under a tree. Surely, I think no one doubts that these statements are made by Scripture in the form of a type by which they point toward certain mysteries. . . But there is no need for us to enlarge the discussion too much beyond what we have in hand, since it is quite easy for everyone who wishes to collect from the holy Scriptures things that are written as though they were really done, but cannot be believed to have happened appropriately and reasonably according to the narrative meaning."
My question was, what reason do you have to think you're a better interpreter of the Bible than Origen?
Paul was engaging in a kind of loose, typological interpretation of a sacred text that is, if not actually midrash is as at least related to. Such interpretations do not require that the original passage had the literal meaning being applied to it. Do you really think Moses wore a veil in Exodus to conceal the fact that the Law was passing away? Yet that's how Paul interprets the passage in II Corinthians.
There’s a distinct difference between evidence and proof. Evidence can appear to support an idea that is absolutely false while proof can ONLY support an idea that is absolutely true. What you are referring to about evidence for evolution is inconclusive evidence, it’s not proof of evolution it’s information that supports the possibility of evolution.Because it shows that evidence supporting the truth of something is exactly what 'proof' is, which you denied.
I'd much rather deal with the evidence itself that talk about what we call it, though. So are you willing to look at some evidence for common descent?
Could you please please please justThere’s a distinct difference between evidence and proof. Evidence can appear to support an idea that is absolutely false while proof can ONLY support an idea that is absolutely true. What you are referring to about evidence for evolution is inconclusive evidence, it’s not proof of evolution it’s information that supports the possibility of evolution.
No, not only on paper. The evidence for shared ancestry with chimpanzees is in the fossil record, in our blood, in our anatomy, in our metabolism and in our genes.Only on paper.
If the " you guys" referred to had anythingNo, not only on paper. The evidence for shared ancestry with chimpanzees is in the fossil record, in our blood, in our anatomy, in our metabolism and in our genes.
What you guys have is just a paper book.
Have you looked at the evidence with an open mind?
Of course not. Looking at the evidence for evolution works much better with a closed mind. A mind so closed it is impermeable for even the tiniest piece of new information. That is why creationist are ruminating the same wrong talking points over and over again, incapable of even understanding that what was wrong and irrelevant 40 years ago still is wrong and irrelevant. See Kent Hovind (and his son Eric) still using the same material over and over again.No, i don't need to
There are many pieces of evidence that only make sense if we actually are the descendants of apes, or at least no one to date has offered any alternative explanation that makes sense.
So is Pi= 3.14
No, not only on paper.
The evidence for shared ancestry with chimpanzees is in the fossil record, in our blood, in our anatomy, in our metabolism and in our genes.
What you guys have is just a paper book.
If the " you guys" referred to had anything there'd be no reason to just say things, with no regard for truth or accuracy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?