Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | Morant61 | 44612 | ||
Greetings Doug! I too have lost long posts before! Ouch! I finally started using my word processor for any long posts. It saves a lot of time and effort and I can file away any answers worth keeping! :-) I say this in all honesty, not trying to be a wise guy nor pick a fight. But, it seems that you don't hold Genesis to the same standard to which you hold science. If nature must be honest, why musn't Scripture? Laying aside the issue of the length of days or the age of the universe, Genesis clearly says that God created Adam and Eve as full grown and fully fuctioning adults. Why shouldn't this be taken at face value? Would it be 'honest' of God to say that He did something which He did not really do? I agree that scientific truth will never conflict with Biblical truth. However, much of science is not truth but opinion and theory. This 'kind' of science can and often does conflict with Scripture. As I mentioned ealier, my concern is that once we start accomdating Scripture to science we arrive at a slippery slope that never ends. Each time a new theory comes along, Scripture must be conformed. When, in the end, we will more than likely find out that the one in error was the false science. Even in your post, if I can assume some things from you abbreviated comments, you would probably say that Adam and Eve were not created as adults. This is exactly why the issue of a 'day' becomes so important, because most who argue that a day is not a day then go on to say that Adam wasn't Adam either. ;-) As I've posted before, this leads to some serious theological issues as well since human depravity is based upon the headship of Adam. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | stjones | 44621 | ||
Hi, Tim; It’s been a while. I'd like to address a couple of points in your replies to Doug. 1. You commented here that "most who argue that a day is not a day then go on to say that Adam wasn't Adam either". This is a classic straw man argument, not at all worthy of you. It is very common in these kinds of discussions. It often shows up as "if you assume Genesis 1-2 is not literally true then there's no reason to assume that the gospels are literally true". Or "belief in 'theistic' evolution leads to belief in godless Darwinian evolution". This argument always addresses some potential consequence of the assertion, not the assertion itself. I, for one, believe that "day" does not necessarily mean a literal 24-hour day and I believe that Adam and Eve were the result of special attention by God the Creator that set them apart from all other creatures on Earth. 2. Wise Christians have always accommodated their understanding of Scripture to the revelations of science. The church's pathetic response to Galileo's discoveries is the prime example of failure to do so. But let me say most emphatically that faithful Christians do not accommodate the spiritual truths - i.e. everything related to Jesus, his person, his work, and the necessity of it - to science. These truths can never be contradicted by honest science (see below) because they are beyond what honest science can address. 3. Modern science is indeed deceitful. The validity of science rests solely on the integrity of its deductive logic (reasoning upward and inferring large principles from small observations). Many modern scientists have discredited their own work by reasoning deductively - they start with an assumption that there is no God and reason downward from there. Many "creation" scientists do the same thing – they reason deductively from a particular interpretation of the Bible. They may be faithful believers and good theologians but they do bad science. Being a good scientist and being a good Christian are not mutually exclusive. Good scientists can be faithful believers. Their faith allows them to approach their work inductively, knowing that eventually every truthful path will lead to God. There is no need to discredit the science by starting out deductively. 4. Evolution does not provide an alternative explanation for creation. Atheistic scientists hate the Big Bang model because it opens the door to something they cannot tolerate – a first cause. Stephen Hawking himself has tried to discredit this aspect of his own work. But we old-earth Christians know who the first cause is – God the Father Almighty. Hope you’re enjoying this lovely Hoosier spring. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
3 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | srbaegon | 44627 | ||
Good morning Steve I'm not sure Tim set up a straw man. My own experience has shown that the vast majority of those who reject a literal 24-hour day also reject a literal Adam. I would add that this majority I just described also believes one can earn his way to heaven; that there's no devil and probably no hell; that only bad people would go to hell, but "I" am not that bad; the Bible can't be taken seriously or literally;... In other words, unbelievers. Steve |
||||||
4 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | stjones | 44631 | ||
Hi, Steve; Thanks for your comments. But of course, I have to disagree - I'm living proof that it's a straw man. I doubt a literal 24-hour day and accept a literal Adam. And I have a logical, consistent, and (IMO) Biblically-based reason for the distinction. There are grounds for attacking my belief regarding creation days. But an assumption that rejection of Adam's historicity is the inevitable consequence of that belief is not one of them. And I hope you understand that I don't insist on anyone's agreeing with me. Some of my best friends are young-earth Christians. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||