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.
It does not matter how old the Earth is. The Bible begins 6,000 years ago with Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden. The Bible talks very little about what happened before that point in time. Most of what we know comes from the natural record that we find in the natural world.He also doesnt claim we have a young earth and admits the earth is millions of years old, because again, he recognizes the evidence is overwhelming towards an old earth.
We do not assume anything. We test the Bible to see if the Bible is true and credible. We do what the Bible says to do and then we look to see if we get the results the Bible says we will get.
It does not matter how old the Earth is. The Bible begins 6,000 years ago with Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden. The Bible talks very little about what happened before that point in time. Most of what we know comes from the natural record that we find in the natural world.
Doesn't the bible also begin with creation of the earth as well?
The title of the thread is "Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?" If you reject the miracles of the Bible you reject the Bible in its entirety, which defeats the purpose of the thread. This is a derailment of the topic. It's not about why people believe the Bible, but rather a specific interpretation.
When people accuse me of not believing the Bible due to accepting evolution, I just think of it this way.
The Bible was never meant to be a science book, and the fact that it doesn't work as a science book doesn't mean it's wrong though.
Say you have a lawnmower, which does its job (mowing your lawn) perfectly fine, but then you try to use it to cut your hair. Obviously that is not going to work out very well.
Does that mean the lawnmower is flawed because it can't cut your hair? No, you're just using it in a way it was never meant to be used.
The Book, I believe, is God inspired, not just in idea but in every Word. If He chose to write it in a familiar way for readers, that is good. I don't see how comparing God's Word with the writing of men should have any effect on the Word's accuracy. If other people wrote allegory, that doesn't force God to.
I accept that science has its place and can do cool stuff, especially when it doesn't try to defy the Word of God. A scientist doesn't need to rely on a universe billions of years old to make a car that can take me on a road trip, to broadcast the 50th Anniversary special of Doctor Who, or to remove my gall bladder. Science can do all those things with an earth 6,000 years old as well.
When science decides it doesn't need God and sets out to find "evidence" specifically trying to "disprove" the Bible, that's where they lose me, not in car rides, broadcasts or surgeries.
False. Acceptance of the Bible does not mean that science is wrong. There is no connection between the Bible and science.Accepting evolution as taught requires total rejection of many parts of the Bible, including creation, the destruction and reconstruction of life, and the Fourth Commandment. I don't seen any scenario by which such important components could be false and the remainder of the Scriptures be true. If so, there are hundreds of other miracles which cannot happen in a purely natural world, so those must be false as well. Of course, we all know that the dead cannot return to life after three days, so there goes that "myth."
Maybe believing in evolution doesn't require atheism, but it requires a total rejection of most of the Bible. It also requires you to believe that things like origination of life, origination of matter, and the fact that there is no mechanism for the magical acquisition of genetic information do not matter and are not a part of science.
Comparatively speaking, Marvel comics and evolutionary biologists make exactly the same claims, only Stan Lee never tried to claim his work was factual.
Not everything is literal. But Genesis 1 and 2 seem quite literal and consistent to me.
Your interpretation is obviously different from billions of others who read the Bible daily, including the New Testament.
Here is where many of us stand on the subject:
Genesis 2 is simply a recap or brief summary of additional information not included in Genesis 1, information surrounding the creation of Adam.
It is not intended to be a day by day report of events in sequence as was already done in Genesis 1.
It is simply a brief summary of events surrounding Adam's creation, with no particular sequence.
Therefore, Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1, but rather, it complements Genesis 1
CAn you prove me wrong or are you just blowing smoke?
That is one of the saddist comments a skeptic can make. That was the ignorance of the time and based on a false doctrine and the Bib le does not say such a thing. Try coming into the 21st century
Your ignorance continues.
Talk is cheap. Present your facts. Don't forget to bring along your evidence. Then we will see who loses.
There is no connection between the creation of man and evolution either. Which do you believe?False. Acceptance of the Bible does not mean that science is wrong. There is no connection between the Bible and science.
There is no connection between the Scriptures which tell us that we struggle against principalities not of this world and scientists who claim that anything they cannot see, touch, hear, smell, taste or test simply does not exist. Which do you believe?
What evidence would you accept that you are wrong?
What features would a geologic formation need in order for you to accept it as being millions of years old?
What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with other apes?
From where I sit, you have accepted a dogma that requires you to ignore all evidence.
What evidence would you accept that you are wrong?
What features would a geologic formation need in order for you to accept it as being millions of years old?
What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with other apes?
From where I sit, you have accepted a dogma that requires you to ignore all evidence.
I will first wait for you to come into the 19th century where they discovered that the Earth was quite old, that there was no global flood 4,000 years ago, and that diverse species share a common ancestor.Here is a perfect evo example of saying something but not offering any evidence to support it. Thanks. What was the common ancestor of the whale? Don't just quote Gringich, post the biological evidence of how a dog-like animal can lose its legs and and nose and develope fins and a blowhold.
Says the person who ignores the last 200 years of scientific discovery.
I don;t ignore science . Real science can prove what it says. I ignore what evolution says becaue it cannot prove what is preahes.
You first. Present the evidence that supports your claims.
Matter cannot create itself out of nothing.
Life cannot create itself out of what ever you want to say the first matter was.
If the first life form was a single celled organism, it had no bones, no need for bones to survive, and no gene for bones, genetically speaking, it could not produce a kid with bones.
Now refute my evidence and produce your version of how simple life became complex. I wont embarass you by asking how plant life started, you will have an impossible task of explaining how the universe and life came into being.
kermit
Back to my question I asked before; what assumptions do you utilize to assume the bible is true and credible?
Can you provide an example of how you test the bible to determine if it is true and then what results you get related to these tests?
I am not the one making the claim the bible is God's inspired, infallible word.
Those that do, don't want to hear about the; contradictions, errors, lost originals, unknown authors, added stories centuries later etc. etc. If God is who the bible explains him to be and he inspired a book that was directly attributed to him and was inerrant, than I understand the push back when these glaring issues are pointed out.
Why couldn't God assure his own book did not have so many errors, contradictions and doubts? Why couldn't he assure the originals were preserved, if the book was his word?
I never pointed out the Jesus seminar, you did and the historians and scholars I have studied were not involved in that seminar. In fact the scholars I have read have criticized the Jesus seminar and their methods.
Even conservative scholars have come around to admit the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were unknown and they were written decades after Jesus lived. Even conservative scholars admit stories were added to the NT centuries later (women taken into adultery) and they were likely simply made up to add to Jesus' reputation.
I understand you don't care for an objective critique of the book, but it is what it is, when historical method and objective scholarship is applied to it.
Evolution is an explanation for the so called "evidence" that they find in the natural world. Just because the evidence is real does not mean their explanation is true. For example in geology catastrophic theory can be valid at times. The scabland is an example. Yet evolutionists want to disregard the evidence to say catastrophic theory is not valid.Can your provide and example of how you test what evolutioon preaches to determine if it is true and the results you get to these tests?
Really, studying historcity is of no use in your mind? Whynis that?
Because they all turn out not to be true. What we believe is based on the truth and what can be shown to be true.Those that do, don't want to hear about the; contradictions, errors, lost originals, unknown authors, added stories centuries later etc. etc.
So the assumption that; "God did it" is not an assumption?
That may be true of you personally, but has does not align with my experience dealing with many other christians.
Please answer these 2 simple questions:
Were A&E created at the same time? Or not?
When were the animals created? Before or after A&E?
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.
Evolution is an explanation for the so called "evidence" that they find in the natural world. Just because the evidence is real does not mean their explanation is true. For example in geology catastrophic theory can be valid at times. The scabland is an example. Yet evolutionists want to disregard the evidence to say catastrophic theory is not valid.
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?