- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,582
- 52,504
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
Which came first? miracle or evidence?Reality came first, then man came around and asked questions about it - some making less sense than others.
Google Translate has nothing on the Holy Ghost!My 17 year old son knows a lot more about sound then I do. He was telling me about the science they teach them in the 10th grade is a lot more advanced then what they were teaching me back then.
Huxley were wrong. If science was common sense then we would not need science. Religion is based common on sense and that is why it is wrong.
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
God created Science. God gave us the natural record and the evidence that science studies. When you study science you study what God gives us to study. You use the understanding that God gives us. As Sagan says: We are star stuff. .
Science can run clockwise ... in the next Indy 500!Anyway, snake or dragon, the point was that science doesn't confirm everything in the Bible as Joshua19 claims.
I asked you in another post you failed to answer and avoided.
Why should we translate "hayah" incorrectly???????
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm
The earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste, and darkness "became - hayah" upon.....
I told you then.
You are right that they are wrong, but wrong as to the reason you are right.
You are right because they translate hayah incorrectly, but wrong because you do as well.
Its been raining here for a couple of days but now the clouds have cleared and the Sun has appeared in the sky to warm the day and I'll be able to see the moon tonight as well....am I right or wrong?If the Bible says that plants came about before the Sun appeared, would that prove the Bible wrong since science has the Sun appearing before plants?
Its been raining here for a couple of days but now the clouds have cleared and the Sun has appeared in the sky to warm the day and I'll be able to see the moon tonight as well....am I right or wrong?
Not irrelevant to the Genesis account however since it states that the Sun and the Moon appeared in the sky (whatever that means) during the 4th day of creation, not that they were necessarily created at this point.Irrelevant. The sun was shining before any plant grew on land.
Not irrelevant to the Genesis account however since it states that the Sun and the Moon appeared in the sky (whatever that means) during the 4th day of creation, not that they were necessarily created at this point.
Plant life is known to purify the atmosphere and makes it suitable for habitation by oxygen breathing organisms.
Here is one way to look at it:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
God MADE two great lights on the 4th day. Also, Earth's sky wasn't shrouded for hundreds of millions of years until plants grew on land.
http://godandscience.org/youngearth/six_days_of_creation.html#70Jon W Greene said:While English translations can make it sound as though God created the Sun, Moon and stars that instant, the Hebrew text indicates otherwise. First, the text states God “made” (‛āśāh) the lights, not that He “created” (bārā’) them. Asah expresses the idea of producing something from pre-existing material, not the idea of bringing something into existence that did not exist before (bārā’).60 Also, the verb asah does not specify when God created the heavenly bodies, only that he completed the action. Second, the Hebrew “Let there be...” does not imply the creation of the heavenly bodies in the sense of their coming into existence.61 “Let there be” is completed with the purpose clause “to separate.” Thus, the narrative focuses on the function of the lights rather than their origin.62 Third, the Hebrew “and it was so” denotes a completed action–that the sun and moon had performed the functions God commanded, serving as signs for years, seasons and days. This could not be accomplished in a 24-hour period. All of these things argue against an instantaneous creation of the Sun, Moon and stars.
It is also important to remember that the Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim we ha ‘erets) in Genesis 1:1 encompasses everything in the physical universe. As previously discussed, this interpretation is supported by the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,63 Vine64 and Grudem.65 Bruce Waltke also confirms that hashamayim we ha ‘erets refers to the totality of the physical universe, all matter and energy and whatever else it contains.66 Thus, the Hebrew text clearly states the Sun, Moon and stars were created “in the beginning” and not on the fourth day.
For these reasons, many Bible scholars believe Genesis 1:16 is more accurately interpreted as meaning God had made the heavenly bodies prior to the fourth day. Gleason Archer states: “The Hebrew verb wayya`as’ in verse 16 should better be rendered ‘Now [God] had made the two great luminaries...”67 Wayne Grudem states: “[had made] can be taken as perfects indicating what God had done before... This view would imply that God had made the sun, moon, and stars earlier... or allowed them to be seen from the earth on Day 4.”68 Harris, Archer, and Waltke state: “Verse 16 should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day; rather it informs us that the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day 1.”69 And, James Montgomery Boice states: “It is not said that these [sun, moon, and stars] were created on the fourth day; they were created in the initial creative work of God referred to in Genesis 1:1.”70
Nevertheless it is a plausible solution to an apparent problem.That doesn't mean that the sky would be dirty without them.
Most scientists would say that "science is a way of knowing".
I googled it. There were hundreds of thousands of results for: "science is a way of knowing" there were hundreds of millions of results for "testing ideas". Perhaps the difference is that you say Science is a process to test and verify more then a way we live our life.
Close but no cigar. Everything in the Bible is accurate and true. OF course Science can not confirm everything because Science is not able to be used to that extent. But as much as science is able, science confirms the Bible to be accurate and true. So we just fill in the pieces and assume everything else is true in the Bible. Because no one has ever proven the Bible NOT to be accurate and true in the 3500 years sense it was written. Of course Science is shown to be not true all the time. They consider that to be a part of the process. In religion our understanding is not always accurate. The Bible itself has always shown itself to be beyond reproach. Even God watches over the Word of God to perform it. That is why we as Christians have to be very careful what we say. Because God is watching over our words to make sure what we say proves to be true. We are told that: "God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist." Science can test the word, Jesus is the Word of God that became Flesh. He lived as an example for us to follow. So we know how to live our life.the point was that science doesn't confirm everything in the Bible as Joshua19 claims.
There are seven (7) churches in the Bible and seven (7) Spirits of God. It does not matter what name they put on the door. If you like big churches some cities have some pretty big churches but clearly you can not get all Christians into one building at one time. We have to test the Spirit. In fact I am told that is what Science is all about. We are to put what people say to the test to see if what they say is true or not. Once they have been shown not to be true then we can pretty much disregard everything else they say.At the present time there are in excess of 40,000 Christian churches, denominations, cults and sects but only one bible. The problem, in my opinion, is not the bible itself but in its interpretation. The first evidence that God gave us is in the stones, the bones and the stars. That is the purview of science. Does God contradict himself? This is why I believe the problem lies with how we interpret the bible. A literalistic interpretation can be quite misleading in a great many instances.
I googled it. There were hundreds of thousands of results for: "science is a way of knowing" there were hundreds of millions of results for "testing ideas". Perhaps the difference is that you say Science is a process to test and verify more then a way we live our life.
Which Bible? No, I'm not here so much troubled by translation issues (though they are exist and are genuine). One, just one, of the issues of transmission and preservation that I used to develop my thinking in this area: how do we rightly tackle the question of the different existing endings to the gospel of Mark, plus regard the implications of them existing in the first place?The Bible itself has always shown itself to be beyond reproach.
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?