Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | Hank | 35691 | ||
fredcs, good day! Modern man has found himself always "between Scylla and Charybdis" as Homer put it -- we call it "between the devil and the deep blue sea" -- when it comes to trying to prove or disprove the creation account of Genesis. Believers and non-believers alike have attempted to prove their positions by science. Both have fallen short of proof. One of the problems that has confronted both believer and skeptic when they have tried to base their proof upon scientific evidence is that science is not eternal truth. It is a demonstrable fact that the only constant of science is change. In the 17th century Dr. William Harvey, by feeling his pulse while in a hot bath, educed that arteries carry blood. Galileo, by holding his pulse while watching a swinging cathedral lamp, evolved a theory that made clocks possible. Not many years ago it was common to believe that a speed of 30 miles an hour in those new-fangled 'horseless carriages' (early automobiles) would do permanent damage to the human body -- they were talking about the speed itself, not the possibility of accident. It has not been far back in the history of the world when the printing press, airplanes, radio, television, and the computer/internet, to name but a few of modern 'miracles,' were unheard of. Much of what was considered scientific truth in ancient times, or even a decade ago, has now been debunked. And what is considered the orthodox science of today will likely become the fables of tomorrow...... It is an interesting thing about myths and legends. They are generally based on, or borrowed and copied after, something that mirrows truth. The mere fact that a number of ancient legends about creation bear in some respect a resemblance to the Genesis account of creation suggests that they could, in fact, be borrowed and copied from the genuine. It has been suggested, and not without merit, that the main reason the Bible has been so severely scrutinized and maligned for centuries is because it is the genuine article. If it were not so, if it were obviously fake, who would go to the trouble to try to disprove it? It is because the Bible is true, and because for sinful human beings truth is so often painful, that man has, time and time again, set out to bring it to shame and discredit. The Bible puts an uncomfortable wrinkle in the garment of secular humanism that is the chic apparel of our time. Yet even now in this year of our Lord 2002, the word of our Lord stands firm. Neither philosophy nor science, folklore nor legend, or sage nor fool, has ever proved a word of it untrue. A sure prophecy is they never will. --Hank | ||||||
2 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | Morant61 | 35709 | ||
Greetings Hank! One can only reply - Amen! One of my favorite stories was the position of most scholars about a 150 years ago that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible for the simple fact that written language had not yet been developed. A few years later, more ancient documents were discovered which pushed the advent of written language back by several thousand years. Yet, if you read the earlier commentaries, whose author's relied upon the Scientific knowledge of the time, you will still find that the Bible was only attributing these books to Moses, since we all "know" that he could not have written them. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | Hank | 35719 | ||
Right, Tim! Your thoughts bring to mind also the "Higher Criticism" of the book of Isaiah. At last count I believe they had "drawn and quartered" him; that is to say, they, the advocates and practitioners of Higher Criticism, in going about their business of being modern scholars, had determined that there were perhaps as many as four Isaiahs. This determination has been based on no hard evidence, but ostensibly by a subjective impression that somehow the style of writing seemed not quite uniform throughout the book. This is flimsy "evidence" indeed. If you have ever read any of the detective stories of Dorothy Sayers featuring the witty and charming Lord Peter Wimsey, and compared them with some of her more serious theological dramas and verse, you will see a distinct difference in style. Are we to conclude, therefore, that Dorothy Sayers was two or more different people? Nonsense! ..... The case for differences in style is only a cover-up for the real reason to suggest multiple Isaiahs. The thrust of the message from the Higher Criticism school is that it gives them opportunity to air their belief that supernatural prophecy is impossible. So they postulate that there was more than one Isaiah in order to align the book of Isaiah more within the parameters of their own skepticism. In the same manner, translation of the Bible in the hands of liberal translators frequently yields watered-down readings. An example of note is in Isaiah 7:14, in which some less conservative versions render the Hebrew ALMAH as "young woman" instead of "virgin." In their view, everybody ought to have sense enough to know that a virgin can't give birth to a child. --Hank | ||||||