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.
As with nearly all generalizations, this is wrong. The earth is billions of years old. Creationists disagree on this and many other things.Creationists here all have one thing in common they use The Inerrant Word of God as their sword and shield. Why is the earth not billions of years old?
Wow if I post smileys will that make automatically make everything I say correct too?
Your critique of sola scriptura is a straw man as are your misrepresentations of Luther. Just throw out an accusation without supporting it and people are bound to believe you eh!
Another incarnation of consol?
Incorrect. I made two different points. First, that The Bible is assumed to be inerrant, despite the fact it was written by fallible humans and despite the fact that no where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant, just inspired by God. Second, I made the point that any interpretation of The Bible is not inerrant, as those interpreting are also fallible.You have constructed an invalid syllogism.
God's word may be inerrant, but various interpretations can still be in error.
No your "logic" does not make sense.
Very True.The Catholic Church, Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed Jews, and scholars from a variety of Christian denominations all agree that interpreting Genesis 1-11 as a "parable" - like Christ himself used to teach the people, then there is no contradiction with science.
Agreed.God's message is important and inerrant.
God's message can be conveyed through figurative language.
Therefore, God's message about the creation of the world and life on Earth, can be conveyed through figurative language.
Agreed, again.Occam's Razor (the explanation that covers all the evidence is true):
ALL the evidence can not be explained through a literal interpretation of Genesis. Therefore it can not be true.
I certainly think it is a more reasonable way to interpret scripture. Most creationsts, however, would disagree.All evidence CAN be explained within a metaphorical framework of Genesis, therefore, a metaphorical interpretation is true.
As with nearly all generalizations, this is wrong. The earth is billions of years old. Creationists disagree on this and many other things.
but how would you know if yours is right and theirs is wrong? oh yeah because you think you are infallible?You have constructed an invalid syllogism.
God's word may be inerrant, but various interpretations can still be in error.
No your "logic" does not make sense.
maybe so, but its mostly because they believe god isn't a god of confusion and the earth is better evidence than a 3000 year old storyThe Catholic Church, Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed Jews, and scholars from a variety of Christian denominations all agree that interpreting Genesis 1-11 as a "parable" - like Christ himself used to teach the people, then there is no contradiction with science.
tell me again how "gods word", you mean the bible right? is inerrant, if it gets basic science wrongGod's message is important and inerrant.
God's message can be conveyed through figurative language.
Therefore, God's message about the creation of the world and life on Earth, can be conveyed through figurative language.
wait what? thats not occam's razor, occam's razor says that the choice with the least amount of entities is probably the correct one.Occam's Razor (the explanation that covers all the evidence is true):
ALL the evidence can not be explained through a literal interpretation of Genesis. Therefore it can not be true.
i think this just adds too many entities, the best answer is this: the people that wrote the text believe genesis to be 100% fact, they were just wrong.All evidence CAN be explained within a metaphorical framework of Genesis, therefore, a metaphorical interpretation is true.
how about this then from wiki:"Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable, provided that it takes all circumstances into account"Actually, Occam's Razor is that the explanation that makes the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct one.
What evidence?Occam's razor discredits the Bible's account of creation because it makes YEC's have to make up stories to explain evidence that goes against the creation story.
Here's my 'needlessly complicated scenario' --- ready for it?All of these examples go out of there way to attempt to explain or wave-away evidence while using needlessly complicated scenarios that become more unusual as more evidence in support of evolution appears.
The thing is, in God's loving foresight, He didn't do it that way so as to give them time to repent and get saved.
As the saying goes, 'There's no atheists in foxholes', and I believe that most (if not all) of those who drowned repented and went to Heaven.
So even though they left God no choice but to destroy them, God still ended up adopting them as His children.
What evidence?
Here's my 'needlessly complicated scenario' --- ready for it?
It's very technical and complex, so you may want to prepare yourself.
God did it.
Here's my 'needlessly complicated scenario' --- ready for it?
It's very technical and complex, so you may want to prepare yourself.
God did it... through evolution.
Not at all, it simply subtracts dreamed up anti God entities."Embedded age", non-PO past, "hyperevolution", etc. All of those scenarios needlessly multiply entities to try and encompass all of the necessary information.
A non-PO past ignores all scientific evidence that shows the earth is older than 6,000 years. Radiometric dating can be used to date something to 4,000 years but anything older cannot be reliably dated using the same method. If it is dated to 4,100 years it is wrong but if dated to 3,999 years it is right. It doesn't make sense.
In other words, it fits the evidence and time frame. It also does not deny evolving. wiw win. Except for same state so called science, then it is lose lose."Hyperevolution" is an attempt to explain why we have evidence for evolution by saying a few "kinds" taken on the ark "hyperevolved" into the myriads of species we have today.
Nothing needs to be waved away, except what so called science waved here to begin with, and that does deserve blowing away.All of these examples go out of there way to attempt to explain or wave-away evidence while using needlessly complicated scenarios that become more unusual as more evidence in support of evolution appears.
Not at all, it simply subtracts dreamed up anti God entities.
It only makes sense as long as present rates and decay itself existed. That you don't know.
In other words, it fits the evidence and time frame. It also does not deny evolving. wiw win. Except for same state so called science, then it is lose lose.
Nothing needs to be waved away, except what so called science waved here to begin with, and that does deserve blowing away.
The truth does not begin to exist when you (or I) see it. It is already there, long before any of us has the remotest idea what it is. I do not need to prove to you that Luther was rather challenged in many areas, not least personal morality, for that to be, in fact, the case.
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?