Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
3 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | Morant61 | 44664 | ||
Greetings Doug! I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth. I freely admitted that I was making an assumption, so no offence - okay? Concerning their age, you are correct that it never says they were 33! :-) But, they are called 'man' and 'woman' not child. They are commanded to reproduce. They are given instructions on how to work the garden. So, the natural inference would be that they were adult. Concerning the age of the earth, I really don't have a care! If you read my posts on this subject my only concern is the spiritualization of history, not defending a young earth. The age of the earth is not really an issue with me. Like I said, my concern is that most who argue for an older earth then go on to also spiritualize the rest of the historical account. Here are some specific concerns I have with trying to harmonize Genesis with Science. 1) Do you believe that God created Adam from the dust of the earth and then took his rib and formed Eve? Or, do you believe that Adam and Eve evolved from something or someone else? If the later, how does this harmonize with the direct statements of Scripture? If the former, how does this harmonize with current scientific thought? 2) Do you believe that all people are descended from Adam? 3) Do you believe that they lived near the Euphrates river in the Middle East and not in Africa? If the later, how does this harmonize with the clear statements of Scripture? If the former, how does this harmonize with current scientific thought? Current scientific thought would make Genesis a total lie. God did not create in the 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. These are my concerns my friend! Hopefully I have been able to disagree without being disagreeable! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | 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. |
||||||
5 | What was infused? | Acts 1:3 | Morant61 | 44801 | ||
Greetings Doug! You are right! It does sound like we agree more than we disagree. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||