Results 521 - 540 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
521 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19417 | ||
Steve: Welcome aboard. 1. While theistic evolution is a MORE accurate way of looking at the origin of biological life in comparison to purely naturalistic evolution, that is not to say that theistic evolution is the correct view. I do agree with Behe's "irreducible complexity" scholarship, but that fits both theistic evolution and special creation of species. 2. Again, this is not how the Bible tells it. Why would God inspire Moses to write a make-believe story? We get into dangerous waters when we start talking about reconciling the Bible with the natural order. Perhaps our interpretation of Scripture is incorrect on this point or that one (such as the idea of a geocentric universe, which is never directly stated in Scripture), but to take a whole, detailed account and say, "This isn't the way it REALLY happened" is to deny the authenticity of Scripture, not its interpretation. --Joe! |
||||||
522 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19436 | ||
Parables are never presented in the Bible as historical accounts. Genesis 2 is not a parable. It is presented as a historical account. --Joe! |
||||||
523 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19438 | ||
I am not worried that you are trying to convert me. I am concerned that you claim that Scripture is reliable, except for this case. Why should I believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, then? The Jehovah's Witnesses don't. Maybe the gospel accounts of a risen Christ were parables, speaking spiritually about his "spiritual renewal" or something? Do you see how "spiritualizing" passages which are presented as historical realities is a slippery slope? It regards the supernatural explanation as invalid. This is precisely what happened in Europe during the modernist controversy, and now Europe's churches are largely empty. --Joe! |
||||||
524 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19493 | ||
So what about the resurrection? Did Jesus bodily rise from the dead or not? Why should I not take the next step and deny the historicity of that? --Joe! |
||||||
525 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19494 | ||
SO what you are saying is that you are UNCERTAIN about the OT. What does this mean? That you think it is unreliable as a historical document? What about the Flood? Babel? Abraham? All of those events happened a long time ago as well. --Joe! |
||||||
526 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19495 | ||
What teaching on leprosy are you referring to? --Joe! |
||||||
527 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19497 | ||
We do not compromise what is revealed in Scripture as truth for the sake of the fallacies of neo-Darwinism. The origin of the diversity of species via descent with modification is not scientific fact. That is the bottom line. It is a theory based on a metaphysical rejection of the supernatural and a false extrapolation of something that actually does occur in nature (natural selection). The authenticity of Scripture IS an essential, Steve. If we say that Genesis 1-2 are "spritualized" versions of the truth, where do we stop with the spiritualizing and concede that "all the rest" REALLY happened the way it was written? --Joe! |
||||||
528 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19546 | ||
Steve: I am not questioning whether you place your faith in Christ alone for your salvation. I would love an answer to the question I asked, however, if you wouldn't mind. --Joe! |
||||||
529 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19553 | ||
Steve: Webster's definition of parable does not fit your use of it. In the Bible, all the parables meet the following conditions: 1. It is clearly identified as such in Scripture as a STORY. 2. The narrator of the parable utilizes everyday events to illustrate Scriptural truths. 3. The MEANING of the parable is clear from its context. 4. As you stated above, it is an extended, overt comparison between one thing and another. Therefore, Genesis 2 does not fit the characteristics of a parable at all. You accuse the modernists of "de-mythologizing" Scripture, but how are you not committing the same error here? The only difference is a matter of degree, not of kind. "God might have done it that way" is not an acceptable answer. God might have hatched the earth out of an egg. God might have created human beings out of tree sap. The point is that the Bible clearly explains in no uncertain terms how both events occurred. It does not suggest that it was some poetic way of describing an underlying reality. It is presented as an event in history. By the way, I would encourage you to read a book entitled "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells of the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (http://www.discovery.org/crsc) for a clear revelation of how much "credible scientific evidence" there is for the notion of common descent. --Joe! |
||||||
530 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19581 | ||
Steve: Then we come back to Tim's earlier question: why did God need to be involved at all? What evidence is there of a God-directed program? Really...go find the book I mentioned. Wells is not some hick who thought he should write a book. He is a professor at UC-Berkeley. You seem scientifically-minded, so this book should be right up your alley. --Joe! |
||||||
531 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19584 | ||
Steve: Actually, the thrust of my question was, "Why should I not take the next step and deny the historicity of the resurrection of Christ?" Is there one scientifically-documented story of a person dead and buried who came back to life after a few days? If the preponderence of "scientific evidence" suggests that such a thing is impossible, why should anyone who denies the literalness of Genesis 2 (which is the detailed description of man's formation from dust) accept something so "scientifically unsound"? --Joe! (not JOEL) :) |
||||||
532 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19587 | ||
Steve: When the Bible was penned, the only cure for leprosy WAS divine intervention. In addition, there is no passage that states that "never will there be a cure for leprosy apart from God's supernatural intervention." That is far different from saying that we were evolved in God's image, rather than specially created in God's image. Like it or not, define a "parable" in any out-of-context way that you want, if humanity indeed came about via descent with modification, then the Bible is lying. No one heard a parable of Christ and says "Wow, I wish I could meet that Good Samaritan. I wonder where he lives" or "Just where can I find that good soil in which the seed fell? I want a good harvest this year." That's because Jesus explicitly stated, "The kingdom of God is LIKE this..." or something to that effect. Drawing a direct, clear comparison is precisely what a parable is. If you think that the Gensis 2 account of man's creation is not literally true, then you are calling the account an ALLEGORY, which is a complete work of fiction representing a concrete reality. The creation account in Genesis simply does NOT fit the literary genre of parable. --Joe! |
||||||
533 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19622 | ||
Steve: Thsi will be my last post on this thread. Sorry you found my two questions so overwhelming. :) Holding to theistic evolution and adhering to intelligent design at the same time is possible, but they are not the same thing. For example, I fall into the latter camp but not the former, because I hold that the evidence put forward to support macroevolution is weak and extremely circumstantial. My faith is based on the truth that is revealed in the Scriptures, as was Paul's (1 Corinthians 15). You experience of realizing that Jesus was the Son of God simply by "asking God" apart from the Bible is pretty darn close to the Mormon practice of praying over the Book of Mormon to determine whether Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. One last comment: you seem to place a lot of credit for your salvation on you "intellectually figuring out" the Gospel. The problem of the rejection of Christ is not an intellectual one. Any intellectual difficulties are usually smokescreens for the real problem: a sinful will opposed to following Christ. It is the Holy Spirit who changes our hearts so that we will embrace Him. And the way that the truth is revealed is via the completely trustworthy, factual accounts found in the word of God. The Holy Spirit works through the Bible. "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." --Romans 10:17 --Joe! |
||||||
534 | Gen. l:26,27 | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 23182 | ||
Actually, if Adam had type A blood and Eve had type B, then all four blood types were possible in their offspring. --Joe! |
||||||
535 | Gen. l:26,27 | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 23244 | ||
Well, not too get too far away from Scripture, but if Adam and Eve were an identical genetic match, they would have had a great deal of trouble producing offspring! God was not limited to simply "growing a rib" into a new person, being limited to the genetic arrangement he had already placed in Adam. After all, he came from dirt! --Joe! |
||||||
536 | The bible is a work of fiction - discuss | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 72307 | ||
I disagree. Going to hell has everything to do with being a bad person. --Joe! |
||||||
537 | The bible is a work of fiction - discuss | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 72327 | ||
I agree with everything you say here. And all those who will be in hell deserve to be there for being bad people. So it has everything to do with being a bad person. --Joe! |
||||||
538 | The bible is a work of fiction - discuss | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 72347 | ||
You wrote: "actually it has to do with whether or not accepted christ" That is what determines whether one is FORGIVEN of their sins or not. Nevertheless, the ones who will be suffering in hell for all eternity will be suffering for the sins they have committed: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." --John 8:28 You wrote: "even though we are bad people the reason one goes to hell is for denying christ" Read Romans 1:18-22. What brings God's just wrath upon human beings? Rejecting Christ? Not initially. It is our rejection and rebellion of God the Father (i.e. our sin, our violation of God's law) that puts us under His wrath and curse. The additional sin of rejecting Christ just compounds the wrath further. "think about it if being bad people is the basis for going to hell, we would all go to hell" In a redemption-less universe, we would all go to hell for being bad people, yes. Because of Christ's sinless life and substitutionary death, those who belong to him WILL NOT get what they deserve for their sins. Those who do not belong to him, however, WILL get what they deserve for their sins. People bound for hell have earned hell. Those going to heaven have not earned heaven. "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die." --Ezekiel 18:4 You wrote: "I maintain, based on biblical principles that being a good or bad person doesnt get us into or outof hell, but rather the redemptive work of christ" How does the redemptive work of Christ get anyone into hell? This is an important issue, because it has to do with how a Christian answers the skeptic's challenge: "How could you believe in a God who is so cruel as to say that just because I do not believe in Jesus that I am going to hell?" I reply that all of us were under God's wrath before conversion (Ephesians 2:3), before we even add Jesus to the equation. Jesus gets some sinners OUT of hell, but that does not mean that being a bad person doesn't get us into hell. It is the ONLY thing that gets anyone into hell. --Joe! |
||||||
539 | Please explain the Trinity | Gen 1:2 | Reformer Joe | 77369 | ||
You wrote: "Kindly read this passges it is stated that Christ after all things subdued unto Christ He subject himself to God the Father, its mean God the father is powerful than He is." No, what it means is that the Son is obedient to the Father, which is not anti-Trinitarian at all. The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. It says nothing about the roles that the three Persons have in relationship to each other. --Joe! |
||||||
540 | Chronology of Creation | Gen 1:3 | Reformer Joe | 72458 | ||
You are mixing metaphor with reality. God is not literally composed of photons. God is a spirit which has eternally existed. Light, a physical phenomenon, was created by God, as was the rest of the things that are visible. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ] Next > Last [97] >> |