Results 141 - 160 of 494
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19515 | ||
Throughout the Bible, the only cure for leprosy was divine intervention. Fortunately, someone thought to look for a microorganism and a way to kill it. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
142 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19516 | ||
Please see my other notes "AT THE RISK OF ANNOYING..." and "Well, yes, I did mean 'parable'..." Let me just reiterate that the Bible is 100 percent reliable and authoritative - history, parables, the whole thing. We just disagree on whether one particular passage is a parable or history. By definition, the spiritual truth is the same either way. |
||||||
143 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19535 | ||
Hello and thank you. Believe me, this is a discussion I have had in person with many beloved brothers and sisters who still manage to put up with me. I always learn something new; I hope I have brought something new to the discussion myself. I have certainly been treated with courtesy and nobody has really questioned my faith. And of course, you're right; the simple answer to the original question is just "Yes". It does seem to cry out for further explanation though. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
144 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19536 | ||
Thanks, Tim; I hope everyone I've replied to sees that I have tried to give a thoughtful response. The grilling I've taken ;-) has forced me to think more deeply about some of these matters. And I hope I haven't offended anyone; certainly no one has offended me. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
145 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19539 | ||
Hi, Joel; I hope you're satisfied that I'm really a pretty orthodox Christian. Believe it or not, I'm actually rather conservative in my understanding of Jesus and the Christian faith. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
146 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19545 | ||
Hey, we're both named after the first martyr of the church. We gotta suffer one way or another. Nothing wrong with earnestly contending. It may not be obvious, but I am too. Maybe I'm just an apostle to the scientists. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
147 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19547 | ||
Sorry, Joel; I thought that was an answer. ;-) Of course I believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. As I said, I really am orthodox, boringly so. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
148 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19567 | ||
Hi, Joel; In my notes, I have used "parable" as it is defined in the dictionary. The word used in that way conveys my meaning when I say that I see Genesis 1 (not 2) as a parable. I assume your definition, like mine, comes from a non-inspired source, so I don't see that either is any more authoritative than the other. The difference between my reading of Genesis 1 and the "de-mythologizing" of the Bible by Bultmann and his followers is profound. Bultmann and his crowd denied all supernatural intervention and claimed that biblical instances of the surpernatural were myths that could be disposed of. Since I proposed an evolutionary process specifically directed by God and harnessed to his will, there's really no similarity. Can't we just agree to disagree? I'm sure we have much more in common than not. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
149 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19617 | ||
Hi, Joe! (sorry); Addressing three notes in one: 1. I visited the CRSC web site. Can I just change my label from "theistic eveolutionist" to "intelligent design-ist"? 2. The leprosy comment was a throw-away, not worthy of our discussion. I apologize. 3. "why not take the next step and deny the historicity of the resurrection?" Or the next - why believe anything in the Bible? I can only give a highly personal answer to this. [Note to everyone who is tired of hearing about me: I'm perfectly willing to stop talking about myself; get Joe to stop asking questions that call for a personal answer. ;-)] You and others seem to describe a slow (dare I say evolutionary?) erosion of faith starting with doubts about a literal reading of Genesis 1. It seems to me that this is a danger only if one's faith is based on the Bible. For example, someone might believe the Bible is truthful because it says it is or because there is external evidence that parts of it are historically accurate. Based on that belief, faith in Jesus might be a logical next step. And a crack in the biblical foundation might bring the whole house down. But I think this puts the cart before the horse. The foundation rock in Matthew 7:24-27 is Jesus himself, not the Bible. As my spiritual jouney unfolded, I came to believe that the Bible is truthful because I believe in Jesus Christ - not the other way around. I think it is a proper paraphrase of Romans 10:17 to say that "faith comes from hearing the gospel of Christ". With respect to faith, the Bible is a resource, not THE source (catchy, eh?). I realize that those who were able to convince me of the believability of Jesus' claims about himself based their knowledge on the Bible. But the Bible did not directly influence me. I wrote earlier that my faith is a gift of God and cited a couple of scripture references. But I didn't need the Bible to tell me that. After a few faithful witnesses had opened my mind, I asked a God whose very existence I still questioned to tell me if Jesus really was his son. He did. Only then did I begin to pay any attention to the Bible. I suppose that's the reason I've written before that we should never allow the Bible to be a stumbling block to acceptance of the gospel. The proof of the gospel should be in ourselves, not just the Bible. But within the body, we can duke it out over this stuff. ;-) When I study the Bible, I'm mostly interested in learning about Jesus and his ministry and discovering the mind of God. Science has nothing to say about such things. Science can't prove a negative and so has nothing to say about Jesus' bodily resurrection either. Science cannot threaten the spiritual truths of the Bible. I am just unable to see the mechanical details of creation as a significant spiritual issue. [Note to the scripture-reference-counters: I know I'm an upstart newcomer here, but it seems to me that part of studying the Bible is thinking about why it's worth studying in first place. ;-)] Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
150 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19620 | ||
I find your attitude toware me low, casual, and offensive as well, but I'm willing to ignore it. ;-) The Bible is either truthful or it isn't; my opinion doesn't make it one or the other. But every one of us is free to decide (and indeed must decide) whether or not we beleive it is truthful. I gave my reason for believing that it is. Let me re-phrase that sentence slightly: Because I first believed in Jesus Christ, I came to believe that the Bible is truthful. Is that better? I apologize if my wording created a false impression. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
151 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19631 | ||
Kalos, you are too kind. I was composing a really, really blistering response when the Spirit restrained me. If the truth be known, I am a bad-tempered, prideful, opinionated, argumentative curmudgeon. If I show any of the characteristics you named, they are truly the fruits of the Spirit. I am sorry I have offended you with some of my views on the Bible. We probably share much in our views of scripture. Maybe someday I'll write a book; it's hard to fully explain some things in forum sound bites. Anyway, no apology needed, but accepted in the same spirit it was offered. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
152 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19640 | ||
Hello again Sir Pent; As you can see, Kalos and I have made our peace and I don't think either of us suffered any lasting injury. If anyone is interested in summary of my views on the Bible, I have posted a new note "What is the Bible for?", referencing 2 Timothy. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
153 | Gen. l:26,27 | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 23214 | ||
Hi, Joe; Adam's rib contained red marrow which produces blood cells, so we might expect that they'd have the same type. Of course, God would have changed the chromosomes in the rib (at the very least get rid of the Y and add an X), so I suppose he could easily have modified the marrow as well. I envision Heaven having a huge library where every question of this kind can be answered. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
154 | Must we justify incest among Adam's kids | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 74612 | ||
Hi, Steph; Allow me a belated welcome to the forum. I've read your profile and your posts and I think are a valuable addition to our little "club". I know that God will honor your desire to better understand his word and I am confident that you will help us to understand as well. I also "approve" (as if you needed my approval!) of your desire to know where people on this forum are coming from. If you have the time to spend here, you will come to recognize folks whose posts reveal wisdom and discernment and who seem to approach spiritual truths with "the mind of Christ". (1 Cor 2:16) But be a Berean (Acts 17:11). Sooner or later, you will disagree with every one of them. At least I have, but I may just be a curmudgeon. I am not convinced that incest is the only possible explanation. I try to be careful about assuming naturalistic explanations for supernatural events. Did Adam and Eve's children commit incest? The Bible is silent. Did God the Provider provide partners in some other way? The Bible is silent. As a part-time dabbler in theistic evolution, I could propose a quasi-naturalistic solution. But it would be pure speculation - and probably get me flamed. ;-) No one this side of Heaven knows who they married. I have come to the point where I don't spend too much time thinking about things God has chosen not to reveal (but I do spend some). And you noted in another post that it's not possible to derive a moral principle that permits incest. You have expressed an interest in Jesus' "testing" of Phillip. Perhaps God is testing your willingness to accept with certainty that his solution was right, holy, and completely consistent with his character and his truth as revealed throughout the Bible - despite possible evidence to the contrary. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
155 | Must we justify incest among Adam's kids | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 74623 | ||
Hi, Steph; As I said, I don't know that incest is necessarily the answer. So, no, I'm not asking you to believe that "God would pre-destine incest, or would He simply permit it" for the simple reason that I don't know if there was any incest for God to have either predestined or permitted. I don't see any theological conclusions that can be drawn from not knowing where Cain's wife came from. Sorry I'm not pushing one view or another. Unless my view is that there's none to be pushed. ;-) Job is one of my favorite books. You can peel it like an onion and find worthwhile answers and new questions in every layer. I believe it reveals God's love for us in ways no other book of the Bible does. Although I'm a layman, I preached on this subject a couple of months ago. And, yeah, I'd be lost without the email notification. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
156 | What is the most quoted verse in the Bib | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 103926 | ||
Ed; That's scary. Maybe all the respondents were New Hampshire Episcopalians? (I hope that comment does not constitute "denominational bias".) Peace and grace, Steva aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
157 | What is the most quoted verse in the Bib | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 103933 | ||
You're right. It's the way my own denomination is headed (though some of us have yanked on the emergency brake and grabbed for the wheel). - Indy |
||||||
158 | 24 hour days are based on what? | Gen 1:2 | stjones | 43546 | ||
Hi, Doug; Thanks for the reply. It's amazing how God speaks to us when he calls us to himself. He really does meet us where we are. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
159 | image of God | Gen 1:26 | stjones | 54489 | ||
Hi, kalos; I agree with you. In the context of creating man in his own image, Genesis 1:27 says "male and female he created them". Men and women are both created in God's image, so his image (and his nature) must transcend gender. Further, the differences between the genders must be human and physical since they divide humanity but God himself is not divided. God chose to identify himself as a father, so I can't countenance the liberal who wants to worship "God the Parent". But I can't see much sense in insisting that God is a male when, as a spirit, he has none of the attributes that distinguish males and females. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
160 | image of God | Gen 1:26 | stjones | 54494 | ||
Thanks, kalos; Have a wonderful week. Peace and grace Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [25] >> |