Results 81 - 100 of 281
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Parable Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46952 | ||
And that more scientists will come to faith! I specialize in chemistry, physics and materials science/engineering. Grace and Peace My Brother, Parable |
||||||
82 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46953 | ||
We seem to know, without anyone telling us, right from wrong, real from imaginary and true from false. Yet how often we choose wrong, imaginary and false over right, real and true. The knowledge of good and evil is indeed dangerous if all you have is a fallen nature! I have come to a point in my life where the "line and rule", although useful for the world, is more like a shimmering mirage, and the truth of faith, although unmeasureable, is the oasis in the desert. |
||||||
83 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 47084 | ||
Sharonrose, I once read that the first rule of consulting is that the problem is always with the people, not the equipment, policies, software, infrastructure or anything else the people use. In the case of the "science vs faith" conflict, the problem is with people. To address the needs of people, then, I recommend the following approach. Regarding faith, I believe the facts of our faith are best understood in light of the Godly principles they demonstrate. I think we agree that knowing all of "what" the Bible says and having it at your fingertips is no small task, but knowing the "how" and "why" of the Bible is much more feasible and fruitful; when we understand the lesson God wants us to know, we can better understand the details he uses to teach that lesson and we can apply those lessons in the circumstances of our lives. Of course, learning both the lesson and the facts happens together. Likewise for science, no one can know all of what science has to say. I've heard physicists talk about biology and biologists talk about astronomy and when they do, they reveal how even learned scholars can be like novices in another field. So, rather than learn the "what" of science, i.e. science facts, which are static, I suggest you learn the "how" of science, which is dynamic, so you can apply proper scientific method to any subject or line of reasoning you face. For me, I have to remind myself that sometimes, no matter what I say, people will continue to believe what they want, perhaps in order to justify what they want to do. As a friend of mine once said about those who raise objections to faith, "if you yank those objections out of the ground like a weed, what you find clinging to the roots is sin." So, what people need is to be convicted of their sin, rather than intellectually convinced that, without God, science is empty and dead. Indeed, conviction is the first step in understanding this; science can do nothing for the fundamental condition of human depravity. |
||||||
84 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 47086 | ||
Dr. Ross is the founder of Reasons to Believe; the website is www.reasons.org The Genesis Question is a book, so I doubt the full text is available on-line. The website has lots of info, so go there for more. In the future, I'll try to post some of the many scientific insights found in the bible. To me, by demonstrating a clear understanding of creation, centuries before science "discovered" these things, those insights give skeptics something to think about. |
||||||
85 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 47166 | ||
TOMN, Thanks for your kind words about my post. However, I disagree with you about Lionstrong's note. For the record, I agree with his basic premise that good scholarship does not mean bending the Bible. I think all of us agree that good scholarship only helps us to understand the Bible better. For example, if we don't understand the difference between salt in biblical times and the highly purified chemical sodium chloride we use today, Jesus' teaching about salt losing its flavor has no meaning for us. Sodium Chloride never loses its flavor and because it dissolves in water, is not useful for paving roads. However, the salt of old was not pure, containing many other ingredients that were not water soluble and had no taste. If the sodium chloride were leached out of that mixture, the remainder was thrown out. Accordingly, we must be able to consider what good scholarshlp says and what it means to our understanding of the Word. If scholarship is contrary to the fundamental principles God has clearly revealed throughout, then we must be skeptical. However, in those areas where our understanding of specific details is reasonably open to discussion, we must not be stiff-necked in our willingness to review well considered explanations, that if correct, can only add to our understanding of God's message to us. |
||||||
86 | How do we interpret scripture? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 47290 | ||
A most excellent response! There is no doubt it is God's mercy and grace alone that reveal His truth to us through His Word. To illustrate the magnitude of this miracle, consider this: the Word has been delivered faithfully to us through the many people who served God with their lives devoted to Him. The Word was given through His prophets and apostles, recorded by His faithful servants, translated by competent linguists, interpreted by sincere cultural historians, scholars and theologians and applied by the faithful. Clearly, even with our best efforts, alone we could never have done it! |
||||||
87 | How do we interpret scripture? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 47307 | ||
Before I attempt a synopsis of Dr. Ross' method, in another note, I respectfully submit my basic concern: For me, the issue is this. We risk imposing "non-biblical" premises on Scripture by the very act of reading Scripture in any way, including a "straight-forward" way, depending on what that reading entails. To me, "straight-forward" sounds like a path WE decide, based on our limited view of the local landscape and distant horizon. Not only must we look down at our footing to avoid tripping, but also we must look up toward our destination, to correct our path and avoid getting hit on the head by low-hanging branches. We cannot do this alone, we need the counsel of others (Proverbs 15:22) and we need God to guide us over the rough terrain on our way to Him. For this, we must be open to His guidance. So, for me, I accept the fact that it is not possible to determine if a premise is non-biblical until I established what is biblical, i.e. contained expressly or derived from Scripture according to sound principles. But that understanding is exactly the goal of reading the Word, in a "straight-forward" way or otherwise. So, because I am confounded in myself, I am forced to abandon my own methods, no matter how dependable they seem. In other words, it is not possible to read Scripture in any way without necessarily imposing something from ourselves that may or may not be biblical. We take our chances no matter how we read it. I believe this is the point addressed by 1 Cor 2:6-14. In my opinion, we cannot know what it means to read Scripture in a "straight-forward" way, for that term embodies more than a few assumptions about us that may or may not be biblical. Yet, we must start somewhere. I believe we should begin by meekly submitting ourselves to God, then heed the wisdom and counsel of the most learned and Godly among us, then jump in with eyes and ears open wide. Parable p.s. I will retrieve Dr. Ross' book from a friend and see what I can do to outline his approach. |
||||||
88 | How do we interpret scripture? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 47341 | ||
I suspect the problem is with postings from jmscott2 and lovefountain3, on another branch of this thread. I have asked lockman if there was anything in my posts that are a problem. Perhaps we should wait until they reply. I will do my best to answer your question. I have enjoyed our dialogue. I know I can learn much from you, and I appreciate your willingness to consider my arguments. |
||||||
89 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 73379 | ||
Greetings Lionstrong, It has been some time since I have posted to this forum. Since then, I have been exploring your question. I can't speak for Dr. Ross, but I think the following are true and speak to your question: 1) God created Adam. Gen 2:7 God planted the Garden of Eden. Gen 2:8 Scripture does not say how long it was between the time of Adam's creation and his arrival in the Garden. 2) God created Eve in the Garden. Gen 2:22 Scripture does not say how long Adam lived before God created Eve. 3) Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Gen 3:6 Scripture does not say how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden before they disobeyed God. 4) God walked in the Garden and Adam and Eve hid themselves from him. Gen 3:8-9 Scripture does not say how long it was after eating the apple that Adam and Eve hid themselves from God. 5) Because of the serpent's role and the disobedience of Adam and Eve, the world was cursed by God. Gen 3:14-19 The curse brought humanity: conflict with the serpent (Gen 3:15), pain (Gen 3:16), dominance of the husband over the wife (Gen 3:16), surviving on the meager fruits of painful toil (Gen 3:17), and death and decay (Gen 3:19). 6) The curse is contrasted sharply with the Garden, implying life in the Garden had none of the troubles of the Fallen world, most notably death and decay. As these are how we measure time, in both the cosmic and personal sense, our Fallen understanding of time is wholly inadequate to understand time in the Garden, before the Fall. Peter alludes to God's view of time in 2Peter3:8b "... with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." 7) Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden and entry was barred by cherubim and a flaming sword. Gen 3:23-24. 8) We are the decendents of Adam and Eve, Gen 3:20. We live in that same Fallen world and likewise cannot access the Garden in ANY way, including through the use of logic to infer anything about the timing of Creation or the nature of the Garden, as might be extrapolated by science after examination of the Fallen world. I conclude: Science is constrained to reveal the nature of the Fallen world only and cannot address it before the Fall in any way whatsoever. If the Fallen world appears by all scientific measures to be very old, that fact has no bearing on when Creation was established nor the nature of the Garden before the Fall. Peace and Blessings, Parable |
||||||
90 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 73415 | ||
Not exactly. I concur with Dr. Ross that there is nothing in scripture that refutes our scientific understanding that the earth is very old and indeed, what scripture describes agrees with what nature itself has revealed to us through science. His argument is this: Our scientific understanding of nature is consistent with what the bible teaches, if the Genesis texts are understood from the perspective of an observer on earth at a time after the planet had formed. Ross suggests there is nothing in scripture that precludes this "observer perspective" and "system initial condition". I agree with him that this is a not a "non-biblical imposition" on the text. I say this because I believe this perspective is just as valid as the conventional interpretion unknowingly imposed by modern readers that the text was written from the perspective of a detached observer somewhere in the cosmos at or before the beginning of universal space-time. Nowhere in the text are we given information that refutes or supports either of these positions, so Ross' approach could be valid. A fellow committed Christian and PhD physicist with many years in advanced research once told me this: "If your television works, the earth is old." By this he means that the science that produces such demanding technology is the exactly same science that suggests an ancient earth, for both are derived from the same observations and reasoning. Regarding the many scientific dating methods, I agree that this forum is not an appropriate venue to dispel the fallacious arguments that have been put forth to discredit them. As far as I am concerned, they are as sound as any other scientific technique we use. Any errors in results are due to sample conditions that do not meet the requirements of the technique rather than any flaw in the method. For example, we cannot date a mineral that has melted after its original formation because the process of re-melting re-sets the ratio of isotopes that is used to mark time zero. Hence, we can only date the most recent melting. Peace, Parable |
||||||
91 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 73659 | ||
Yes, Lionstrong, I also enjoy sharing on this forum with you. I have learned much from your many postings and this one is no exception; your reply about the duration of creation events is cogent. However, I'd like to clarify a point. I said: "Our scientific understanding of nature is consistent with what the bible teaches, if the Genesis texts are understood from the perspective of an observer on earth at a time after the planet had formed. Ross suggests there is nothing in scripture that precludes this "observer perspective" and "system initial condition". In your reply, you said: "Positively let me start by saying that it is false that nowhere in the text are we given information that refutes or supports either a six-day creation or a many-years creation. The plain reading of the text supports a six-day creation." The point of the original question for this thread is about the order of events, not how long they may have taken. Ross' contribution is his explanation of how the order of creation events, as suggested by planetary geology, are the same as the order given in Genesis, if one adopts the perspective and initial conditions he describes, which to me are not unreasonable. In your conclusion, you said it well "we must honestly deal with the Scripture even though it may seem to go against the prevailing doctrines of our day." In this matter of creation sequence, Ross' exposition clearly demonstrates that God's word is indeed true. To me, it is a simple question of what is meant by "plain reading". I submit that Ross' reading is plain, but it just has a different perspective and initial condition than what most people impose on the text. Peace, Parable |
||||||
92 | Ever Doubt God's Existence? | Gen 3:1 | Parable | 78271 | ||
Yes, I will pray for you and all of us in this regard. I have found that The Message, by Eugene Peterson, is an excellent version of the bible in that it is a faithful witness to the text and combines meaningful commentary into the text, which is presented in contemporary language that is sensitive and relevant to our culture today. Of course, some may prefer other versions for various reasons, depending on their purposesm. For example, when I want to study the Word, I use the Nelson NKJV. When I want to learn how to apply the Word, I use the Life Application NIV by Zondervan, but when I want to experience the Word, the way I do when I read a novel, I read The Message. We cannot transform others, only the Holy Spirit can do that, so rather than campaigning, I suggest that we be transformed ourselves and let others see us for what we have become. |
||||||
93 | Ever Doubt God's Existence? | Gen 3:1 | Parable | 78320 | ||
My mistake. Instead of "novel", I should have said "biography". No, make that "autobiography" :) I did not mean to suggest reading for entertainment, but rather the type of engagement that comes from reading smoothly in one's own language, so understanding flows naturally, like how it must have been for His listeners when Jesus was teaching. Parable |
||||||
94 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Parable | 84424 | ||
First, I'd like to remind everyone not to underestimate our capacity to destroy ourselves and our home. Indeed, we are doing so as we speak. Over population, global pollution, epidemic disease, social injustice, nuclear proliferation, mass extinction and ecological collapse are ever-expanding realities. Second, I respond to the comment "...Darwinism is being rejected by true scientists in increasing numbers as they examine this theory anew and find it seriously flawed." If it is seriously flawed, there would be many articles about these flaws in referreed scientific journals, not just on the internet,which is completely unregulated by peer review, and many "true" scientists would be proposing viable alternatives in the hope they would gain a place in the history of science. To date, none of this is happening. Furthermore, assuming for the moment we can know who the "true" scientists are, the statement about them rejecting evolution is absolutely incorrect. Rather, evolutionary models are being demonstrated in ever more powerful ways. Evolution ranks with quantum mechanics, relativity and atomic theory as foundational to the modern scientific understanding of the physical universe. "True" Christians need not fear the truths that science reveals, for science, when done properly, can only reveal God's creation. Attempts to promote biblical truth by discrediting science will continue to turn people away from God. Fortunately, not everyone believes science and faith are mutually exclusive, including the bible itself. See Romans 1:20. Parable |
||||||
95 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Parable | 84433 | ||
1. I'll try to respond the original question of this thread, i.e. about the possibility of nuclear winter or global warming, in light of Gen 8:22. Neither of these manmade catastrophes would cause the natural cycles to stop, but they would be greatly altered, so much so that we would be most uncomfortable if not dead. This scripture does not preclude this alteration, so I submit that scripture does not say nuclear winter or global warming will not be permitted to occur, if that is what we bring upon ourselves. 2. You asked "why should anyone accept the "modern scientific understanding of the physical universe" as being the absolute truth,when it is an incontrovertible historical fact that "scientific understanding" has changed and often reversed itself since the idea of "scientific understanding" came into being? I never said that that science is absolute truth and do not endorse the idea that it is. However, Romans 1:20 speaks to our being able to see God's fingerprint on His creation, and the most rigorous way we look at creation is through the scientific method. Clearly, the scientific method is constrained in ways beyond the scope of this forum to discuss. That does not imply it is necessarily incorrect, rather only that it may be incorrect because it is not complete nor the only way to examine the world. I note that James enourages us to "test everything, keep what is good". Science tests everything. Please note, I do not deny the truths expressed by art, music, history or literature and in a similar manner, do not deny the truths of science. I merely accept them for what they are and don't stake my life on them. I stake my life on God. 3. You asked, "Who is the judge of whether science is "done properly?" Science done properly is science done in the open, subject to refinement and revision by public discourse and agreement based on evidence, reason and yes, faith, i.e. faith in the method. There is no science fact or theory that is not subject to rejection in light of new evidence. 4. You asked "How does evolution "reveal God's creation" and since when has this theory been elevated to the status of one of "the truths that science reveals"? Evolution attempts to explain such things as adaptation, diversity, growth and interdependence, in other words, characteristics of life, which is what God is all about. You asked "How can the theory of evolution be reconciled with the Genesis account of creation?" I fail to see why this understanding contradicts Genesis because science can only study the fallen world and Genesis describes events that happened before the Fall, in a time/place we cannot penetrate in any way whatsoever. The gates to the garden are guarded from entry, even by our attempts to extrapolate scientific theories past them. The nature of paradise is completely distinct from the nature of the fallen world. Evolution applies to the fallen world only. Regarding the status of evolution, one need look no further than the fact that it has enabled man to manipulate the machinery of life in unprecedented ways, in much the same way nuclear physics allows us to manipulate energy. Both views have predictive utility as well as provide ways to destroy ourselves. If that's not a good standard for validity, then nothing is, at least in demonstrable practice. 6. You said "The truth is that attempts to promote science by discrediting the Bible will continue to turn people away from God." I agree completely. 7. Regarding your comments about the role of Christ, I agree. Parable |
||||||
96 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Parable | 84444 | ||
I agree and will also recommend a site for those interested in a scientists perspective... www.reasons.org Peace, Parable |
||||||
97 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Parable | 84454 | ||
I value your insights and look to you as an example for how to deal with many topics on this forum. We may disagree from time to time, but I always respect how you justify your positions. Regarding dusty tomes, let us not put our treasure where moth and rust destroy, but in heaven... Parable |
||||||
98 | Circumcision reduces HIV rates by half | Gen 17:11 | Parable | 181258 | ||
The following research results were reported at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec06/malaria_12-14.html "Results of two studies conducted in Africa show that circumcision can cut the rate of HIV infection in heterosexual men by 50 percent." "The evidence has been growing for about 10 years that male circumcision is protective against HIV infection, not only to the man, but also to the partner of the man, if the man is HIV positive and his partner is not." "...male circumcision is highly protective, and it helps to explain the pattern of HIV-AIDS that we see around the world." Makes one wonder what health benefits might have been realized at the time of Abraham.... |
||||||
99 | Circumcision reduces HIV rates by half | Gen 17:11 | Parable | 181273 | ||
Apparently, there are medical reasons, not just behavioral. One cited was that the foreskin is like a sponge for viral particles, and uncircumsized men are generally less hygienic. Even in a monogamous marital relationship, if one partner has HIV, the rate of transmission to the other is reduced by half, in either direction, man to woman or woman to man. Also, I'm not sure that your belief about the sexual ethics during Abraham's time is supported. Indeed, I expect it was not all that much different from today, perhaps due to cultural/religious factors. |
||||||
100 | Circumcision reduces HIV rates by half | Gen 17:11 | Parable | 181275 | ||
Sure. Sharing of needles for IV drug delivery (by resource-limited health care providers or by illicit drug users), transfusions of infected blood or clotting factors, during birth as a child passes through the birth canal, after birth through breast milk, accidentally when health care workers are stuck by infected needles or are otherwise exposed to infected fluids at open wounds or mucous membranes. It is possible to get HIV without being sexually immoral. My point about circumcision was that perhaps modern science is finally catching up with at least part of God's wisdom imparted so long ago. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >> |