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.
You have comprehension issues. I defer to the word of God in my posts, not any interpretation whatever. "The evening and the morning" is pretty darn specific, I think.
You miss the point. I was challenged by a person who identified himself as a devout Christian, son of a missionary, and an authority on the Bible. He accused me of misinterpreting the Bible, so I challenged him to prove it.
There are scientific issues with evolution, as with all theories.
However, science is limited to the physical world.
However, since it cannot study the past, . . .
You miss the point. I was challenged by a person who identified himself as a devout Christian, son of a missionary, and an authority on the Bible. He accused me of misinterpreting the Bible, so I challenged him to prove it. My contention has never been that the Bible is a scientific text, nor have I insinuated that creationism is a scientific theory. The physical world and the spiritual world coexist without being codependant. There are scientific issues with evolution, as with all theories. However, science is limited to the physical world. It cannot prove or disprove the spiritual world because such things are not reliably testable. Science can tell us much about the world around us. However, since it cannot study the past, only make assumptions based on the evidence. It cannot invalidate or support creation. It all comes down to faith, which was as it was always intended.
Why would you make such a foolish statement?
False. Show how the Scriptures support your conclusions and invalidate mine and I'll give your position credance. I do not put so high a value on science as to think that the physical world is all that exists, especially after I have already experienced things which are non physical.You're a fundamentalist set in your ways to sufficient degree to deny reality itself because it fits better with your delusion.
Apparently Jesus did, since He mentioned Noah and the flood specifically. The first three chapters of Genesis are referenced in the New Testament over 200 times. Apparently others believed it as well. As for Origen, I don't know much about him. However, if he didn't believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ then he was the biggest fool of all.You can read for example Origen (1st century). He basically said that he thought no-one would be dumb enough to read genesis or the flood story literally
I would put it this way. When the science of man conflicts with the truth of God, then man is wrong.Augustin is another example, who said that when an interpretation conflicts with reality, the interpretation is wrong. NOT the universe.
Actually, I use my toes. I love the way the words make them tingle.Thing is you read the bible with your eyes.
False. I read the Bible for myself. I never relied on anyone else's interpretations.Your cultural perception.
My mom was OEC.And other factors like upbringing,
Foolish, unbiased speculation.irrational fear of the world around you
What an ignorant statement. Do you REALLY think anyone believes that they wrote the Bible? Or that it was written for them alone? Do you even read this stuff you write?You fail to realize it wasn't written by or for you.
If you're going to talk about the Scriptures, the ultimate authority on theological veracity would be God Himself. Why is it that your side can never seen to post verses to support your DISTORTIONS of the truth? I'm not interested in man's misrepresentation. Show me where it is written.Even if I bothered to drop you a few links or even schedule appointments with theologians to talk with you, you'd find some way to wrest yourself free from rational thought and continue on as before.
So states the person who insinuates that Christ lied.Angry, uninformed and un-christ-like.
False. I insist that the word of God is infallible.The problem is your foundation, it's way off. You insist that your interpretation is infallible.
There is no conflict between Genesis one and two, only differing descriptions of the same creation. What about Exodus 20:11? Where is your answer to that?No matter what I show you will change that. Not the conflict that arises between Genesis 1 and 2.
Irrelevant. Show the text.I can show you how others read the bible
Show me the text.But I do not think, given the way you argue, that you'll change.
When you lie, I'm not going to call you a hairdresser.Or stop calling me a liar either.
Yes, and mostly to themselves when they deny that there is a God. Besides. Why would an atheist put credence in the interpretations of others about a Bible they reject or a God in whom they do not believe? You arguments make no sense.I'm an atheist after all, and atheists always lie, isn't that so?
The Bible acknowledges it. If you want to see how God really feels about it, read the Exodus.Just like whoever does something wrong - like condone slavery - is not a true christian, even though the bible condones it.
Nonsense. They exist. They just aren't accurate.I do not think you have the prerequisite self-insight to see that other perspectives exist.
There is no hard evidence for evolution. It's a theory of origins that cannot be replicated, observed or falsified. There is no hard evidence for God because He demands that we come to Him through faith. It all depends on where you put your beliefs; in the rocks or in the one who Created them.You deny empirical knowledge after all, so I should think as hard evidence goes in your 'rejected' bin rational thought or other perspectives go out the window even faster.
More falshoods. I'm not angry and I don't hate anyone. You're the one making false statements about me when you don't even know me. You're the one misrepresenting my arguments when I base them on specific verses, which I cite and use in context.I think I'll add you to my ignore list actually, I've had it with your anger and hatred.
Yes, by quoting Jesus?Awesome way to show the world who Jesus is.
So states the person who insinuates that Christ lied.
Fortunately, "The evening and the morning" leaves no need for interpretation.
No he is arguing with your interpretation, not with God. First of all, God didn't write any part of the bible. It was written by Men. Transcribed by Men. Translated by Men. And now, interpreted by you... a Man. Regardless of whether you believe scripture was inspired by God, he never actually wrote any of it himself. The presumption that God wrote the Bible is the biggest mistake that Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians make today.You may have noticed that I support my argument by Scriptures, which means I am re-stating what God has said. These aren't my words. You're arguing with God. You don't have a different interpretation, you simply say they are false. Here's what you cannot comprehend. God made the universe (at least our universe) in six days. We know this because God said so.
While I agree with the latter, you are wrong on the former. We can study the past because the past has left its mark on the present. Indeed, the present is made up of that which occurred in the past. We can thus study the past by examining the rocks of the earth, the DNA of our bodies and the light from distant stars.Science cannot disprove this because science cannot study the past nor can science prove or disprove God.
Wrong. Evolution does not produce an "advanced" organism. This is an out-dated idea, though we still sometimes talk of "primitive" and "advanced" features. In reality these are ancestral vs. derived features. If you can prove that evolution has not happened as you claim, then I would suggest that you write a paper and claim your Nobel prize.Speciation is the adaptation of an organism to different surroundings. Evolutiion is the changing of an organism to a more advanced organism; klike when you erradiate fruit flies and they morph into house flies. The trouble is, all you ever have is messed up fruit flies. Evolution has been proven NOT to happen.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. MEN wrote it, and YOU interprete it. YOU can be wrong!God's opinion. He wrote it. I just read it.
Inspired does not mean "written by."We call ourselves "Christians" because we nelieve, like Christ did, that the Bible is the inpired word of God.
Science is used to understand and explain the laws of nature. If you believe these laws were created by God, then you can say that science is used to explain the laws of God. Why would God create such laws, just to violate then later?. I know that God exists and that His laws rules the universe, not the laws of science.
Whenever "day" is modified by a number, like second day or six days, it can only mean a true solar day. There are no exceptions in Hebrew. Evening to morning ends a single day; a single rotation of the earth.Even so, verysincere has told us that the phrase actually means something akin to "from start to finish." Whether you agree or not with this translation, you cannot be certain either way.
Matthew 15:It was written by Men. Transcribed by Men. Translated by Men. And now, interpreted by you... a Man. Regardless of whether you believe scripture was inspired by God, he never actually wrote any of it himself. The presumption that God wrote the Bible is the biggest mistake that Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians make today.
No, we study the present and make assumptions about the past, basing what think happened on what we know. It's called inductive reasoning.We can study the past because the past has left its mark on the present.
Whenever "day" is modified by a number, like second day or six days, it can only mean a true solar day. There are no exceptions in Hebrew. Evening to morning ends a single day; a single rotation of the earth.
Except it is not until the 4th day that God makes the Sun.
Ooops
One rotation of the earth will do.
Since there is no way the earth could rotate without the gravitational pull of the sun, your argument is flawed (but reality can take a hike, right?).
That may be for some, but those who try and defend the Creation from a scientific standpoint usually --- if not always --- get pwned.
As they should, in my opinion.
There is no science in Genesis 1, and as Thaumaturgy pointed out: Genesis 1 is roughly 71% "God did it".
(Thank you, Thaumaturgy.)
Baseless assertion on your part. You know there are no exceptions? Do you speak old Hebrew???Whenever "day" is modified by a number, like second day or six days, it can only mean a true solar day. There are no exceptions in Hebrew. Evening to morning ends a single day; a single rotation of the earth.
You are the one using tradition over what the bible actually says and does not say.[Matthew 15:
3 Jesus replied, And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, Honor your father and mother[a] and Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is devoted to God, 6 they are not to honor their father or mother with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules."
Tell me this: Is the present created from past events or not. Yes or No, please.[No, we study the present and make assumptions about the past, basing what think happened on what we know. It's called inductive reasoning.
More later.
No, we study the present and make assumptions about the past, basing what think happened on what we know. It's called inductive reasoning.
More later.
Let's put it this way, since according to your standards, there's no way the universe could consist of just the earth at the time, your point can take a hike.
Baseless assertion on your part. You know there are no exceptions? Do you speak old Hebrew???
No, I was quoting someone who does. Believe it or not there are actually people who study that stuff in the seminary.
Blatant falsehood. When talking about the Scriptures, everything I say is based on the Scriptures and backed up by chapter and verse.You are the one using tradition over what the bible actually says and does not say.
No. The present is not "created" at all. It's a snapshot in history that we see passing by at 16 frames per second. Time was created many years ago. "In the beginning..." was the beginning of time as we know it. Nothing related to time has been "created" since. Things that exist have two sorces; they were created, or they came from other things. We can use various methods of dating things, but much of that is subjective because it presumes static conditions that we can't validate. A fossil can form in a few thousand years. It can also form in days. Without knowing the conditions, we can only speculate as to formation. That's why it's all theory. That's why bones that are supposed millions of years old have sooft tissue. Nobody knows what the condition of the earth was like before the flood.Tell me this: Is the present created from past events or not. Yes or No, please.
Whenever "day" is modified by a number, like second day or six days, it can only mean a true solar day. There are no exceptions in Hebrew.
Evening to morning ends a single day; a single rotation of the earth.
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?