just wondering!

[Maccie]

But this is happening. The OP asked

...I just started wondering if there was a biblical explanation as to why different races have different characteristics and why there are so many races to begin with.

Yet many people posted with scientific observation and philosophical responses.

Ok, if that is what you are worried about - the answer to the OP is NO. There is no Biblical explanation for the question asked.

I answered the OP very clearly, and politely. How was I to know she was going to dismiss my truthful explanation as a "load of crap"? Which is fairly offensive anyway.

If she wanted an unscientific reply, then why didn't she post in the Creationist section? It is quite clearly there, just before the various threads are listed.

 

[53Isaiah]

If she wanted an unscientific reply, then why didn't she post in the Creationist section? It is quite clearly there, just before the various threads are listed.

It is in a Theology forum.

 

[random_guy]

I agree that the post is in the wrong forum, and understand your fustration.

There are times people ask me (knowing I am a Bible believer) to explain to them things without using the Bible because they do not recognize it as authoritative....

Just to point out, we all accept the Bible. It's our interpretations that differ.

 

[vossler]

A scientific question warrants a scientific answer, don't you think?

The thing is she wasn't asking for a scientific answer. I wish TEs would keep from wanting to make all creation issues to be scientific. This is a theology forum and a biblical response to a question should be the first option, instead it becomes the last one. It's bad enough that TEs ask primarily scientific questions and give scientific responses, now you expect the same from YECs.

What would you say if someone came here asking for a biblical answer re: mitosis?

I'd tell them I didn't have one and if you didn't have a biblical answer to her question that's what you should have said.

 

[heatherwayno]

I am sorry I didn't know that there was a creationilist forum.

 

[heatherwayno]

creationist i mean

 

[heatherwayno]

Ok, if that is what you are worried about - the answer to the OP is NO. There is no Biblical explanation for the question asked.

I answered the OP very clearly, and politely. How was I to know she was going to dismiss my truthful explanation as a "load of crap"? Which is fairly offensive anyway.

If she wanted an unscientific reply, then why didn't she post in the Creationist section? It is quite clearly there, just before the various threads are listed.

I am really sorry if I have offended you. Just to be clear- I don't think you have to be YEC to be a christian! :-0

 

[rmwilliamsll]

creationist i mean

http://www.christianforums.com/f425-creationism.html

in case you haven't already found it.

 

[heatherwayno]

If you actually knew how wrong that reply you just quoted was, you might not think it was that intelligent.

wrong in your eyes- but not according to the bible

 

[heatherwayno]

And why do you put so much faith in a book, not even in it's original language that has gone through thousands of years of changes and translations and debates? Do you know how involved the creation and translation of the modern day Bible actually is?

Correct me if I am wrong- but doesn't the dead sea scrolls show that the translation is still very close to the original meaning?

 

[Melethiel]

wrong in your eyes- but not according to the bible

According to whose interpretation of the Bible?

 

[heatherwayno]

Out of all that I posted, this is what you pull out of that? And the Bible doesn't say anything about Satan being Lucifer, or the fall of the angels.

So you say. Is it not the beleifs of Jewish that angels do not have free will and cannot rebel against God?
God did not create robots. We all have free will and yes angel can fall.

But I seem to remeber that the OT does not specifically mention the fall fo Satan. I will have to think about that and get back to you.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Correct me if I am wrong- but doesn't the dead sea scrolls show that the translation is still very close to the original meaning?

there are several interrelated but distinct issues

1. transmission *how we got the hebrew and greek texts today*
which includes:
transcription *how the texts were copied*

2. canonicity *how the Bible's form gets to us, mostly what is in it and what is not*

3. translation *hebrew and greek into your language*

the dead sea scrolls speak to transmission issues not translation although perhaps are tangentially involved in canonicity issues.

Is it not the beleifs of Jewish that angels do not have free will and cannot rebel against God?
God did not create robots. We all have free will


angels are most likely a zoroasterian import into Jewish thought from the exile in Babylonia.

on the topic of free will, the church is pretty much split into reformed and arminian branches. reformed are in general strong determinist with the will a secondary not primary cause.

 

[Leah]

What I find hilarious is whenever evolution gets brought up in GT, african-americans (or blacks) seem to be the target more so than any other race. It's as if we're some kind of odd race to people.

And what's equally funny is some of these people who think this of us are christians.

Gets kinda old and a bit offensive after awhile.

 

[heatherwayno]

What I find hilarious is whenever evolution gets brought up in GT, african-americans (or blacks) seem to be the target more so than any other race. It's as if we're some kind of odd race to people.

And what's equally funny is some of these people who think this of us are christians.

Gets kinda old and a bit offensive after awhile.

If I have offended you- I am sorry. I do not think you are an odd race. I think color is a description of someone- should never be a difinition.

 

[Melethiel]

Excellent point!!! What the heck is happening in American churches today? Is there no teaching going on? We have church leaders who are now saying that you can interpret the bible to suit yourself- it doesn;t have to be taken literally.

Church history goes back a lot further than the Enlightenment, and definitely a lot further back than the modernist mindset. Believe it or not, the literalist view is very recent. If you read the writings of the Fathers, the literal reading of Scripture was the least important way to read it. Theological and archetypical meanings were far more important.

And I resent the remark that implies that all who do not read Genesis literally are interpreting the Bible to suit themselves.

 

[theFijian]

We have church leaders who are now saying that you can interpret the bible to suit yourself- it doesn;t have to be taken literally.

Never mind what church leaders say...where does the BIBLE say we must read the Bible literally? Come on now shoudn't be so hard for you...chapter and verse please.

 

[vossler]

I am sorry I didn't know that there was a creationilist forum.

Don't worry they'll follow you in there too.

 

[vossler]

Never mind what church leaders say...where does the BIBLE say we must read the Bible literally? Come on now shoudn't be so hard for you...chapter and verse please.

Obviously to many it isn't to be read literally but in whatever way that suits you.

 

[Mallon]

The thing is she wasn't asking for a scientific answer. I wish TEs would keep from wanting to make all creation issues to be scientific. This is a theology forum and a biblical response to a question should be the first option, instead it becomes the last one. It's bad enough that TEs ask primarily scientific questions and give scientific responses, now you expect the same from YECs.

I'm surprised you accuse TEs of making theological issues into scientific ones. I think perhaps you ought to point the finger at AiG, DI, CMI, ICR, CRS, etc. They're the ones trying to get creationism taught in the science classroom, not TEs.

I'd tell them I didn't have one and if you didn't have a biblical answer to her question that's what you should have said.

Personally, I never replied to the OP in the first place. And as we have now established, if heatherwayno wanted to hear a creationist response, she ought to have posted in the creationist subforum (can't blame her for not seeing it, however). In any case, again, she asked a scientific question and got a scientific answer. Better to provide the right answer than none at all, even if you would rather not hear it. Again, refer to Proverbs 11:14 and 27:17.