Results 21 - 28 of 28
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: nimrod2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 44581 | ||
Dear Tim, My second attempt at a reply. The first was rejected because it exceeded 5,000 characters! Whoops! Live and learn I guess. That hurt because I couldn't retrieve any of it by clicking my "back" button. A discussion of the interpretation of Genesis would be too long a digression here. I will just say that I have come to believe that the main message of the parts in question is simply that God created everything, including humans. The vehicle by which that message is delivered is an account that the original audience could relate to, but which does not try to be a scientific account of origins any more than the parable of the Good Samaritan tries to be an account of road conditions in ancient Palestine. The line attributed to Galileo is relevant: "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go." It is worth mentioning what the Bible does tell us about creation. The primary teaching is that everything, including us, owes its existence to God. The Bible also teaches us that the creation reflects God's own nature. One thing I take from that is that God made an "honest" universe that will not give us false answers if we ask it the proper questions. This means that, while science (like all human endeavors) is not infallible, it does not have to worry about getting false results because God is playing tricks on us. For example, while we can question the interpretation of fossil evidence, it is not a Biblical option to say that God is deceiving us by putting the fossils there to testify to a history that never happened. Christians through the years have affirmed that God has given us "two books": the Bible and his creation in nature. Since God is the ultimate Author of both, we need not fear that either revelation, properly interpreted, will lead us into falsehood. If there seems to be a conflict, it means that either our interpretation of nature (science) is wrong, or our interpretation of the Bible is wrong, or possibly both. There can be no warfare between "scientific truth" and "Biblical truth," because both come from the one truthful God. What we often find instead of conflict is that the "two books" offer complementary insights into a single God-given reality, like pictures taken from different angles. The insights of science may be of less eternal significance, but they are no less valid.* (*source Allen Harvey) Peace and blessings to you Doug aka nimrod2 |
||||||
22 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 44634 | ||
Dear Tim Don't assume....you know what happens! I believe Adam and Eve were the creation of God. However, I don't recall reading anywhere in Genesis where it states Adam was created at a specific age, do you? My thinking is this: You believe I may compromise scripture to accommodate science whereas I believe you may compromise reading the scripture for what it is because of a preconceived notion of what someone else told you it is saying. In other words, someone told you the world is young, and now you feel any interpretation outside of that will cause the entire message of salvation to come tumbling down like the walls of Jerihco. It hasn't happened to me. 2 Corinthians 13:11 |
||||||
23 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 44635 | ||
Bravo, well stated my brother. | ||||||
24 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 44787 | ||
Hello again Tim, No offense taken. Regarding your concerns: 1. Yes I do. Again many of the details of this process are left out. I don't claim to know the supernatural abilities God used. I would say this however. Take away the water from a human's body, take what is left over, and you basically have minerals...aka....dust. The rib bone, I believe contains all the DNA and RNA needed would be found in the marrow, not that God couldn't create without it, but the processes that occur in the body at the micro-cellular level are still vastly unexplored. Rib periosteum has a remarkable ability to regenerate bone, perhaps more so than any other bone. Add to that the complexity of things like reproduction, it is amazing. One thing is dislike about science is reductionism, meaning how we tend to discount how amazing life is and how everything (almost) perfectly meshes together. I see God written all over it. 2. Yes. Why not? Some things I'm not sure about to be honest. The question of hominid fossils etc. I believe Adam, at the very least, was the first human with a spirit and a soul. 3. I would not disagree with scripture in any case regarding location because it is remarkably accurate in its historical and archealogical descriptions. Again I would revert back to my earlier post. Ultimately all truth is God's truth. Any apparent conflict between true science and scripture is human error. You say: "Current scientific thought would make Genesis a total lie. God did not create in order He says. God did not create where He says. God did not create how He says. Regardless of the time issue, it makes Genesis dishonest. I trust Scripture, but I don't trust, at least to the same extent, the changing views of man." We agree on much more than we disagree on. God is unchanging. Man has constantly tried to usurp God's authority, it started when we became aware-- when man's mind became like that of God, aware of good and evil. As for the chronology of Genesis and the fossil record. I'd say it is open to one's interpretation. It is known that events like the "Cambrian Explosion" of life and the "Burgess Shale" harmonize because it clearly indicates life exploded on to the scene. If you look at Genesis chapter one, the fifth day seems to read very much like the fossil record we see now because it talks about all the creatures teeming in the oceans. Now, to me that sounds like the Cambrian explosion. But I don't recommend you try to use scientific findings as evidence to support Biblical creation. All science does is begin to tell us what happened, the little tantalizing bits and pieces. I agree man's beliefs about the world around us change all the time, we ought not let it interfer with our faith. |
||||||
25 | Why carry on like a playground dispute? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 45591 | ||
Hmmm. Quote: "PLEASE. DO NOT just reply out of impulse. This gets nowhere. Spend 3 years researching first. Order books. Etc. Then come back with your reply." I have been studying the origins debate in depth for over 4 years. So I qualify according to your standards. Quote: "No reason to doubt the Bible or to bend it to our understanding." I agree. No reason to doubt or bend any truth for all truth originates from God, whether it be scientific or scriptural, unless you believe God is a deceiver? It is the literalist who is required to produce evidence of a young earth which not only flies in the face of honest science but actually requires more evolution than the most die-hard atheistic scientist would propose. I've read dozens of books on all kinds of origins theories and perspectives, including some very persuasive ones from the young earth perspective. To date, the young earth perspective is the least valid scientifically and scripturally. You may agree with Ken Hamm and the others at AIG but you do so not because the science makes sense to you but because it conforms to what you were taught to believe and is neccesary to fit with your interpretation of Genesis. I don't fault you for it. I have many friends and a dear pastor who also shares your perspective. You have to deal with the fallout as each tenative "evidence" falls. Paluxy River fossils are but one example. Dr. Carl Baugh? Nice of him to disappear after his credentials were questioned. Ken Hamm is very critical of Hugh Ross. You'll note the recverse isn't true. Dr. Ross has never said an unkind word about Mr. Hamm. Dr. Ross has presented the view of long creation days in front of the faculty of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and not one of them was willing to dispute the conclusions. In fact they were enthusiastically endorsing the conclusions. This issue was also debated by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy and again they refused to say that the Bible requires six consecutive twenty four hour days. |
||||||
26 | Why carry on like a playground dispute? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 45833 | ||
I don't want to sound like I don't care about this interesting debate, because I do, but I feel like I am on a never ending conveyor belt whenever I discuss the age issue with any literalist young earther. I am trying to spend less time on this issue and more on scriptural studies. First off. Where did I ever say anything about evolution in the larger sense of its meaning? I believe in "Creatio Ex Nihilo", in other words the supernatural creation of life by God. I don't believe in Ussher's chronology as any reason to require belief in a young earth. It isn't a requirement to believe it in order to become saved. Adam and Eve were created as exceptions to the subsequent natural rule. God's own report says that Adam and Eve were created as adults. Where does God tell us that the universe was created with the appearance of age? On the contrary, God said "Let the earth bring forth vegetation" and that He "made to grow" a garden in Eden, events which take long periods of time. Do you really think Adam had to speak like one of those radio announcers when he named all the animals? He would have had to speak at a phenomenal rate, naming animals within milli-seconds of each other. You may counter argue that Adam was able to perform these tasks at superhuman speed, since he was without sin at this point. However, Scripture makes no connection between intelligence and sinfulness. Additionally, Jesus was without sin and did not perform tasks at a superhuman rate. "Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned..." says Romans. This text is commonly interpreted to mean that there was no animal death before the fall of man, since this would place death before sin instead of after sin. Therefore, only a small period of time could have passed between the creation of the first life forms and the fall of man. Otherwise, the world would have been severely overpopulated with animals. However, this verse says nothing about animal death; it only says that death came to men--human beings. Romans 5:12 cannot be used to support the position of no animal death before sin since it does not even mention animals. When Paul writes that "sin entered the world" he is most likely using "the world" in the same way as it is used in John 3:16, where world obviously refers to mankind, not "planet earth." "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son..." does not mean that God gave His Son for planet earth out of His love for it, but that He gave His Son for the world of mankind out of His love for them. Also, animal death is not related to sin, as man's death is. Only man can experience "death through sin," since animals never sinned. You may feel strongly that to believe in a universe which is more than 6,000 is an unsound Christian doctrine, that is your perogative. I could spend all day replying to your inquiries but I do not feel a need to rationalize my perspective on science and the Bible any further. I hope you find peace and security in your own heart and that God guides you to understanding that His plan is big enough for all of us, the young earth and the old earth believer. |
||||||
27 | what is up with eternity | 2 Peter | nimrod2 | 42073 | ||
But it was man who delineated the days (and weeks) into periods of seconds, minutes and hours, and further man created the calendar(s). Therefore it is man that "marks" time, while God is, as you correctly noted, the creator (establisher) of the cycles. |
||||||
28 | How did Peter die? | 2 Peter | nimrod2 | 42092 | ||
Yes Joe, That is what was meant by "head down". No arguement from me. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |