Something I need to get off my chest about the whole creation/evolution thing.

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟23,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
I posted this on another site, but thought it would fit here as well.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like some stuff really needs to be said about this, because we as a church as a whole keep wanting to follow the "well we need to agree to disagree" concept on this issue, and its not some small issue like the color of the carpet that we need to just push to the side.Thats not how the bible tells of to treat false teaching (and the fact is, both sides can't be right, which means at least one is false teaching). This is as big issue, and I'll explain why.

Ultimately, this is NOT an issue on if god created the earth in 7 days vs millions of years. This is not an issue that just has to do with "is science right", its not just an issue of "well, thats just an interpretation of the bible", its an issue of trust.

Do you trust Yahweh?

We have two sides of this. On the on one side, we have the word of God. It says that the earth was created in 6 days by God(on the 7th he rested).

On the other side we have "science". Saying, well frankly science says a whole lot of different stuff, but very few theory's say the earth was created in 6 days by god. A popular theory is Evolution, so thats what I'm going to focus on.

You have to pick a side. But before we get down to it we need to get something straight. Science, is only our attempt at understanding the world around us. Most of what we know, is probably wrong if history shows us anything. I mean, at one point in the last hundred years we were lobotomizing people (destroying part of their brain) to "heal" mental illness, but we could also look at something much more modern. Just in the few years I was in school the model of the atom changed several times. We are always finding out new things, but every time we learn something new we are probably also finding something we thought to be true to actually be false. This is growth, I love science, however personally, I don't believe it should be looked at for the answer to the "big questions" (how did we get here, what is the meaning of life, ect.), but rather the practical uses (the computer I'm typing this on, my phone, tv, the microwave, improvements in medicine and food production, ect.)

Now,so what we have, is science and God. You can only put your trust in one. You can't say "well, I'm going to believe that science is ok on this one and god is wrong". No. You are putting your trust in humans, over GOD the creator of the universe.

When you say your are a christian and you tell me you believe in evolution, it tells me something immediately, you do not trust god. You can argue with me all you want but the fact is the bible says everything was made in 6, not through millions of years. Seriously, take a look at your life. Do you read your bible every day? Do you spend time in prayer (and actual prayer, not just a quick little one minute diddy before you go to bed or something, but do you actually set time aside every day for prayer). I'm going to hazard a guess that the answer is no, because if you did you would grow closer to god and you would trust him, rather than man.

The choice is yours, you can trust in the creator of the universe, a god perfectly just and full of love, for you, so much that he DIED for you, a god who is perfect. OR you can trust in mans attempt to understand the world around us. However you can't put your trust in both.

Genesis 2:4

> This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

To be honest, I think creationists take the cake when it comes to not trusting God. They are scared to death that if we come to the conclusion that Scripture is not entirely literalistic, they will be unable to know God, or they will be sucked into atheism or flawed beliefs and end up in Hell.

They do not trust God to express truth through the natural world and Scripture both, and they do not trust that if at times there seems to be contradiction or confusion in our understanding, God is still God and still loves us.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,588
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Gen 1....... GAP...... Gen 2.
What about the period before Gen1?

Note that the land BECAME waste and void in verse 2, which one would think would be just the opposite of inhabited:

Genesis 1:
1 In a-beginning 'Elohiym created the heavens and the land
2 and the land became waste, and void and darkness over faces of abyss
and a spirit of 'Elohiym fluttering over faces of the waters

Ancient Hebrew Research Center - Home Page

Biblical Hebrew Poetry


Biblical Hebrew Poetry Index
Biblical Hebrew Poetry

[FONT=Tempus Sans, Tempus Sans Serif, Tempus Sans ITC][SIZE=+2]The Poetry of Genesis Chapter One[/FONT]
[FONT=Tempus Sans, Tempus Sans Serif, Tempus Sans ITC][SIZE=+1]By Jeff A. Benner[/FONT][/SIZE]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]When we read Genesis chapter one we usually see only one story there, but there are actually many stories. Why don't we see these multiple stories? Because we read the Hebrew Bible from a Modern Western thinkers point of view and not from an Ancient Eastern thinkers such as the Hebrews who wrote it. The Hebrews style of writing is prolific with a style of poetry unfamiliar to most readers of the Bible. This poetry is nothing like the poetry we are used to reading today and therefore it is invisible to us.................[/FONT]

Creation Story Number 1

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]The first story is found in Genesis 1.1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The Hebrew word "bara" is a verb and is usually translated as "create". To really understand what this word means let us look at another passage where this word is used........[/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]Creation Story Number 2 [/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia][FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]The second creation story paralleling Genesis 1.1 is Genesis 1.2 - "and the earth was unfilled and empty and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Wind of God was hovering over the waters." In this passage we see that the earth was formless and empty before it was filled up, then the Wind of God hovers over the waters of the earth. This hovering would be the action of the Wind of god filling up the earth. .............[/FONT]

Creation Story Number 6

The sixth story is the whole of Genesis chapter one. Though we have looked at five different stories of creation, they are all combined together to form one complete story of creation. [/FONT]


[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]CONCLUSION [/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]It must be remembered that modern western thinkers view events in step logic. This is the idea that each event comes after the previous forming a series of events in a linear timeline. But, the Hebrews did not think in step logic but in block logic. This is the grouping together of similar ideas together and not in chronological order. [/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]Most people read Genesis chapter one from a step logic perspective or chronological, rather than from the block logic so prevalent in Hebrew poetry. [/FONT]





[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia].[/FONT]





[/SIZE]
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi MK,

Well, one can draw threads of deceit along pretty much anyway they'd like, but one being a liar doesn't make them more or less reputable at everything they say. It just means that we should check what they say perhaps a bit more carefully.

Let me ask you: Have you never lied to someone? Your personal stats say you are 66 years old. You've never lied to someone? As a follow up. How many people do you hold up as reputable that you know have never lied. I honestly don't know of anyone who has never lied about something. I think your argument would still be classified as 'ad hominem'.

I don't see any correlation between someone lying about their tax liability as necessarily carrying over to their ability to know the truth about something else.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,588
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by miamited
Hi RMS,

No, you didn't make that drawing up. That's the work of someone else's imagination. That picture has been touted in science books for decades as the natural progression of the evolution of man. It's a great picture, but understand that there is no supporting evidence for it. It is merely a drawing that an evolutionist drew at some point to show how he, and those who believed that the theory of evolution was the answer to how man became man, understood it to have happened. It's just a drawing my friend.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
And its what evolutionists actually believed at one time. And some still do.
Originally Posted by Restoresmysoul
The truth is that Science actually disproves evolution. The science of genetics proves it to be a bad theory. Genetic code cannot evolve past what the code itself allows. Just look at genetics and you will see how absurd evolution really is.
This guy is a reputable creationist and scientist.

Originally Posted by Mama Kidogo
Also a convicted tax cheat. Along with Hovind.
Shhh....let the revisionists have their fantasy world.
:D

Reminds me of this scene in the movie "Back to School"

Professor: "..now where to build our factory"
Mellon: "How about fantasy land"

Rodney Dangerfield's First Economics Class - YouTube




.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Mama Kidogo

Τίποτα νέο μυθιστόρημα τίποτα
Jan 31, 2014
2,944
307
USA for the time being
✟19,535.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Hi MK,

Well, one can draw threads of deceit along pretty much anyway they'd like, but one being a liar doesn't make them more or less reputable at everything they say. It just means that we should check what they say perhaps a bit more carefully.

Let me ask you: Have you never lied to someone? Your personal stats say you are 66 years old. You've never lied to someone? As a follow up. How many people do you hold up as reputable that you know have never lied. I honestly don't know of anyone who has never lied about something. I think your argument would still be classified as 'ad hominem'.

I don't see any correlation between someone lying about their tax liability as necessarily carrying over to their ability to know the truth about something else.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

I agree that it doesn't have much to do with knowing the truth. But it has a good deal to do with presenting the truth. That is unless we have two different definitions of reputable.
But as taxes and science are two completely different things let's deal with said "Creation museum's" science. They proclaim that in Texas, as Nova was filming a recently dried river bed, there was a dinosaur's footprint with a man's footprint inside it. The claim goes on that the Nova scientist also saw it but ignored it as it didn't line up with their science but that they saw it. Oddly they must have forgotten their cameras for the entire eight months the riverbed was dry. And sure enough the river flowed again hiding it forever. well, not quite. It dried again but oddly no one tried to find this mysterious fossell with they claimed both dino and the man were running for high ground from the worldwide flood. Seems it really wasn't important to prove their theory of young earth.
Now here's the big problem. It wasn't just Nova and the Creation scientists there. Many groups were studying this group of fossils. But no one except the Creation guy's saw said fossil.
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The only thing that is actually evolving is the theory itself.

That's how science works.

Darwin himself admits that his theory isn't sound if we dont find evidence in the fossil record. And we have not found any, in all this time we have not found any evidence at all.

Except that there is plenty of it.

We can prove that different species of birds can interbreed and create new kinds of birds, and most animals can do this. However this is not the theory of evolution is it?

Since your premise is not true, then your objection is invalid.

So, basically you do not know where literal history begins in Genesis - the transition is just too seamless and smooth. If this is true, how can you say with certainty what is literal history and what is legend?

Show us on a continuous color spectrum where green ends and blue begins.

No thats not what i think. Evolution suggests that new animals can be created through a process of evolution.

Fallacy of Circular Reasoning. Nothing defining here.

But this is genetically impossible. Please dont try to tell me that evolution is simply the process of two kinds of dogs interbreeding and creating a new breed of Dog, because thats not a theory, its just a fact that man has observed for thousands of years.

That isn't what the theory of evolution postulates, so your opinion is invalid.

Evolution suggests that animals themselves evolve into new animals, but this is genetically impossible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU&list=UUsXVk37bltHxD1rDPwtNM8Q

Why is this so hard to believe? This world doesn't believe in God the creator, so why should it shock us if they believe in an impossible theory of evolution

Since your objection is a Straw Man, your entire objection is invalid.
 
Upvote 0

SnowyMacie

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2011
17,007
6,087
North Texas
✟118,149.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
To ask "Is Genesis 1 literal" is the wrong question. Genesis 1 isn't concerned with scientific facts or explaining how the world came to be. That's not the point Genesis 1. Genesis 1 ultimately is about the God behind Creation. It's about a God that create the world by just speaking it into existence, not about Creation. It doesn't matter whether or not the world was created 6,000 years ago or 4.5 billion years ago, Genesis doesn't care about that question. No one is concerned, no one cares, and no one really did care until about 150 years ago about the age of the Earth. think that's because they understood the point of Genesis 1, it's about God, not creation.
The point, and it's addressed above. We have forgotten how to read it. People became so concerned with trying to reject scientific knowledge that challenged their worldview, they placed an interpretation on the text that Hebrews in their wildest imaginations would never understood it. Truth cannot contradict truth.

As far as the OP is concerned, no. The Bible is not contradictory to science, a literal interpretation of scripture is, but not scripture or God. It's not a matter of trusting God, nor should it be a big issue for Christians. That's simply your interpretation of the text, even if you claim "Well, that's what the Bible says", it's still your own view of scripture.


There's my two cents, and I'm not replying because I think it's a waste of time to argue this.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mama Kidogo

Τίποτα νέο μυθιστόρημα τίποτα
Jan 31, 2014
2,944
307
USA for the time being
✟19,535.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
To ask "Is Genesis 1 literal" is the wrong question. Genesis 1 isn't concerned with scientific facts or explaining how the world came to be. That's not the point Genesis 1. Genesis 1 ultimately is about the God behind Creation. It's about a God that create the world by just speaking it into existence, not about Creation. It doesn't matter whether or not the world was created 6,000 years ago or 4.5 billion years ago, Genesis doesn't care about that question. No one is concerned, no one cares, and no one really did care until about 150 years ago about the age of the Earth. think that's because they understood the point of Genesis 1, it's about God, not creation.
The point, and it's addressed above. We have forgotten how to read it. People became so concerned with trying to reject scientific knowledge that challenged their worldview, they placed an interpretation on the text that Hebrews in their wildest imaginations would never understood it.
Sounds reasonable. And does not doubt God one iota.
 
Upvote 0

Jig

Christ Follower
Oct 3, 2005
4,529
399
Texas
✟15,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They are scared to death that if we come to the conclusion that Scripture is not entirely literalistic, they will be unable to know God, or they will be sucked into atheism or flawed beliefs and end up in Hell.

I'm afraid you do not fully understand what it means to read the Bible literally. No fundamentalist reads the Bible purely "literally". If this was the case, they would have to believe Herod was a fox (Luke 13:32). :D

The Wikipedia page of Biblical literlism does a pretty good job at explaining what it is.

"[Bilbical literalism] can refer to the historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. It emphasizes the referential aspect of the words in the text without denying the relevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor)."

Biblical literalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Targaryen

Scripture,Tradition and Reason
Jul 13, 2014
3,431
558
Canada
✟29,199.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
I'm afraid you do not fully understand what it means to read the Bible literally. No fundamentalist reads the Bible purely "literally". If this was the case, they would have to believe Herod was a fox (Luke 13:32). :D

The Wikipedia page of Biblical literlism does a pretty good job at explaining what it is.

"[Bilbical literalism] can refer to the historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. It emphasizes the referential aspect of the words in the text without denying the relevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor)."

Biblical literalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering your whole premise is reading the Bible at literal face value, specially when it comes to Genesis 1, this is a hilarious and ridiculous counter point.
 
Upvote 0

Tzaousios

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
Dec 4, 2008
8,504
609
Comitatus in praesenti
Visit site
✟26,729.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm afraid you do not fully understand what it means to read the Bible literally. No fundamentalist reads the Bible purely "literally". If this was the case, they would have to believe Herod was a fox (Luke 13:32).

This isn't always clear, though, with the reticence of fundamentalists to reflect on their methodology and hermeneutics. If there is not an outright denial of engaging in interpretation, observing the methodology in actual practice does not seem consistent at all.

It is the same type of problem when lip service is paid to the concept of Sola Scriptura, but in actual practice it is more like Solo Scriptura to observers.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree that it doesn't have much to do with knowing the truth. But it has a good deal to do with presenting the truth. That is unless we have two different definitions of reputable.
But as taxes and science are two completely different things let's deal with said "Creation museum's" science. They proclaim that in Texas, as Nova was filming a recently dried river bed, there was a dinosaur's footprint with a man's footprint inside it. The claim goes on that the Nova scientist also saw it but ignored it as it didn't line up with their science but that they saw it. Oddly they must have forgotten their cameras for the entire eight months the riverbed was dry. And sure enough the river flowed again hiding it forever. well, not quite. It dried again but oddly no one tried to find this mysterious fossell with they claimed both dino and the man were running for high ground from the worldwide flood. Seems it really wasn't important to prove their theory of young earth.
Now here's the big problem. It wasn't just Nova and the Creation scientists there. Many groups were studying this group of fossils. But no one except the Creation guy's saw said fossil.

Hi MK,

Maybe. As to the rest of what you posted in response, let me be clear. I don't support Mr. Hovind's understanding of the creation either. I am a young earth creation believer, but I'm satisfied with God just 'desired and said' for such and such to happen and it did.

As an example: I believe Mr. Hovind has some rather wild tale that explains the days of the flood of Noah. No! I don't agree that he has wisdom as regards that subject and I absolutely do not agree that he is speaking the truth as regards that event and its cause. I'm satisfied that God merely desired and said, "Let the springs of the deep burst forth and the water of the heavens fall", and these things happened. It didn't take some frigid icy comet to fall upon the earth to cause the flood.

Similarly, as to the day the ball of dirt and rock and oil and magma and water, etc. that make up the physical properties of the earth was created, I firmly and faithfully believe that it appeared near instantaneously just because God said that it should exist. God spoke and boom the earth appeared. Spinning all by itself in the vast emptiness of 'space'. Its original configuration was covered with water just as it was restored to in the day of the flood. Then God spoke again and the waters gathered and allowed the dry ground beneath to be revealed on the surface of the earth. He merely spoke and it became as He desired it to be. Each day thereafter, God spoke and something came to exist by nothing more than His command that it be.

He did all of this creating within the time span of 6 revolutions of the earth upon its axis. He created a realm. An existence, if you will, that would support a the life of a creature that He had always intended that this realm of His creation would support. Man! God merely created, out of absolutely nothing, everything that exists in this realm. It is by His power, authority, wisdom and command that every 'thing' in this physical realm, from the smallest micronano piece that makes up all things physical, to the very greatest of the great heavenly bodies of stars and planets exist. He merely said, "Let it be so!", and it was. It came into existence.

This explains how water could stand as a wall on both the right and the left hand of the Israelites as they passed through the sea on dry ground. God merely commanded that the water stand at attention and it did! This explains how the sun could merely stop in the middle of the noon day middle eastern sky. God merely command that it do so, and it did!

Now, Mr. Hovind thinks differently than I do on this. He thinks that God caused other natural things to happen that caused upon the earth the 'unnatural'. Not me! Others try to time the day of Jesus' crucifixion by determining when there might have been a 'natural' phenomenon such as a solar eclipse to explain the darkening of the sun. Not me! God just commanded that the sun not give its light and it didn't! However, there is very good reason for 'why' God caused this phenomenon. The law of the passover was that the lamb was to be slain at twilight.

Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the members of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight.

God commanded that the passover lambs be slaughtered at twilight and so God Himself caused the law to be upheld in this matter. He literally caused it to be twilight when Jesus, His perfect lamb, was slaughtered before all of the people. This twilight did not come about because there was some solar body in the way of the light of our sun. God made it twilight. The sun of our solar system was still right where it was supposed to be shining just as brightly as it always had but God caused the light of the sun to not be visible upon the earth. God did it! And He did it because He was preparing the final passover lamb whose blood would atone for the sins of all men. Because it was God's own passover He caused all that was necessary that this final passover would meet with His command of the first and succeeding passovers since Israel had left Egypt.

That's the God I know. He created this realm, this physical place of existence. He created it all so that man could have life. Nothing evolved. Nothing existed for millions or billions of years before now. About 6,000 years ago, according to the genealogies of the old covenant and adding 6 days before the day of Adam's creation, God spoke and this realm came into existence.

So, I'm not a believer in Mr. Hovind's theological explanations either, but I don't use 'ad hominem' arguments to discredit him. I choose to discredit him on the issues themselves based on the 'truth' as I understand it and as God seems to have clearly explained to me all that He has done in His Scriptures. That he is or isn't a tax cheat doesn't, for me, have any bearing on the veracity of his theology.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,588
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
To ask "Is Genesis 1 literal" is the wrong question. Genesis 1 isn't concerned with scientific facts or explaining how the world came to be. That's not the point Genesis 1. Genesis 1 ultimately is about the God behind Creation. It's about a God that create the world by just speaking it into existence, not about Creation.
It doesn't matter whether or not the world was created 6,000 years ago or 4.5 billion years ago, Genesis doesn't care about that question.
No one is concerned, no one cares, and no one really did care until about 150 years ago about the age of the Earth. think that's because they understood the point of Genesis 1, it's about God, not creation........................

There's my two cents, and I'm not replying because I think it's a waste of time to argue this.
YEC vs OEC had been debated for years. Always an interesting topic.......

http://www.christianforums.com/t7395286/
Young Earth Vs. Old Earth


Okay. Sounds good, no attacking, just a listing. I can do that.

Reasons I am a TE who accepts and old earth and evolution both:

1. Fossil record.
2. Starlight from more than 6-10k light years away.
3. ERVs and other genetic evidences.
4. Ancient cultures going uninterrupted thru the time the flood supposedly happened.
5. Well, the greeks and the romans and the babylonians and the egyptians all had creation myths, why do those of the jews have to be 100% literally correct?
6. Two versions of the creation story with different chronologies just in the creation story, not to mention 2 of every animal versus 7 clean and 2 unclean, etc.
7. The general dishonesty of most 'professional' creationist organizations.
8. The fact that people make predictions and base money-making decisions on evolution and an old earth and they WORK.

EDIT: I realized that this was in the creationist sub-forum, not the origins theology one. FACEPALM. If you request it, I will remove my post. :( I apologize, i didn't look at the subforum before posting.

Metherion



.
 
Upvote 0

Jig

Christ Follower
Oct 3, 2005
4,529
399
Texas
✟15,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's about a God that create the world by just speaking it into existence, not about Creation. It doesn't matter whether or not the world was created 6,000 years ago or 4.5 billion years ago, Genesis doesn't care about that question. No one is concerned, no one cares, and no one really did care until about 150 years ago about the age of the Earth.

The age of the Earth question is not merely 150 years old. People have been discussing this for centuries. People did care.

However, the age of the Earth is gathered not from Genesis 1, but instead from genealogical lists (and dated events) found in the Bible. These same lists trace back to Adam. So this leaves one questions: How reliable do you find these lists?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,588
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by Jig
I'm afraid you do not fully understand what it means to read the Bible literally. No fundamentalist reads the Bible purely "literally". If this was the case, they would have to believe Herod was a fox (Luke 13:32).
This isn't always clear, though, with the reticence of fundamentalists to reflect on their methodology and hermeneutics. If there is not an outright denial of engaging in interpretation, observing the methodology in actual practice does not seem consistent at all.

It is the same type of problem when lip service is paid to the concept of Sola Scriptura, but in actual practice it is more like Solo Scriptura to observers.
Surely this thread isn't going to turn into a debate between those 2 Christian doctrines.

FWIW, I am Solo Scriptura :thumbsup:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7547378/
Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura...is there a difference?

"According to Keith Mathison, over the last one hundred and fifty years Evangelicalism has replaced sola scriptura, according to which Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority, with solo scriptura, the notion that Scripture is the only ecclesial authority. The direct implication of solo scriptura is that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority.

Solo scriptura is, according to Mathison, an unbiblical position; proponents of sola scriptura should uphold the claim that Scripture is the only infallible authority, but should repudiate any position according to which individual Christians are the ultimate arbiters of Scriptural truth. In this article we argue that there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority, and that a return to apostolic succession is the only way to avoid the untoward consequences to which both solo scriptura and sola scriptura lead."

Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority | Called to Communion

Read and discuss! :wave:




.
 
Upvote 0

Jig

Christ Follower
Oct 3, 2005
4,529
399
Texas
✟15,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Considering your whole premise is reading the Bible at literal face value, specially when it comes to Genesis 1, this is a hilarious and ridiculous counter point.

My whole premise has never been to read the Bible "at face value". I have simply identified the text of Genesis 1 as being within a different genre than you have.
 
Upvote 0

Targaryen

Scripture,Tradition and Reason
Jul 13, 2014
3,431
558
Canada
✟29,199.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
The age of the Earth question is not merely 150 years old. People have been discussing this for centuries. People did care.

However, the age of the Earth is gathered not from Genesis 1, but instead from genealogical lists (and dated events) found in the Bible. These same lists trace back to Adam. So this leaves one questions: How reliable do you find these lists?

Not very reliable according to actual fact.

And yes, the age of the earth question is about 150 years old. Modern scientific findings with carbon-14 dating is a far more recent innovation. Hence why the question has been asked and proven in recent times.
 
Upvote 0

Jig

Christ Follower
Oct 3, 2005
4,529
399
Texas
✟15,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not very reliable according to actual fact.

And yes, the age of the earth question is about 150 years old. Modern scientific findings with carbon-14 dating is a far more recent innovation. Hence why the question has been asked and proven in recent times.

I could have scientifically tested the alcohol content of the wine Jesus created in Cana and could have "proven" that it must have been fermenting for at least 45 days. However, as we both know, the wine was only minutes old. :D
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Targaryen

Scripture,Tradition and Reason
Jul 13, 2014
3,431
558
Canada
✟29,199.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
I could have scientifically tested the alcohol content of the wine Jesus created in Cana and could have "proven" that it must have been fermenting for at least 45 days. However, as we both know, the wine was only minutes old. :D

Nice attempt to misdirect but not at all working.

Try dealing with actual fact there.
 
Upvote 0