See rsewell? A successful argument that made my point and ended the fast one jammy tried to pull.
I’m familiar with the Peshitta. I don’t see your point. Yes it was Jeshu (Jesus) who answered them. And it was Aloha (Eloah/God) who made them male and female from the beginning.
Go on…
Yes I know all about that. What about it?
This is the discussion I’m trying to have here, bness. Please show me one of the non-six days 6000 years ago interpretations so we can discuss it.
Do ALL scientists subscribe to this theory?
Since you put “teaching” in quotes, I assume you have a valid argument for why the Bible DOESN’T actually teach those things. I’m all ears.
When you look at it in isolation it might seem to fit, but go back and read it in context. It is referring to the Israelites not Jesus.
Actually the Bible does teach those and many others that are not actually correct. The question is how do we handle this? I assume the Bible is not trying to teach science so when it gets something wrong it is because God chose not to educate the author and we have to adjust our understanding accordingly.
1 Like
Is there a scriptural reason why you shouldn’t accept that the earth is flat and doesn’t move since that’s clearly what it appears to be saying? Or is it okay to come to the conclusion that scripture was not intended to measure up to 21st century scientific journalistic standards?
You can do whatever you want to do – I and others here have given you some resources to read if you’re interested in considering how the ancient people Genesis 1 was written to might have understood it rather than how the post-enlightenment materialistic culture we live in wants to understand it.
I discovered that I had been lied to by hardline young-earth creationist pundits who were unwilling to consider the possibility that their interpretation of Genesis may not be the ultimate truth holding all of Christendom together.
False dichotomy, again. The Bible is not a litmus test for scientific data. If it was the earth would be sitting on pillars and have a hard dome over the top of it. Does modern chemistry pass the “test of the Bible”? What about 5G broadband, insulin pumps, the James Webb space telescope, or the second law of thermodynamics? Do any single one of those things pass “the test of the Bible”? That’s not what the Bible is for. The Bible tells us about God and our relationship to him – science tells us about the world he made. Both are important, but the Bible isn’t here to teach us science any more than a microscope is here to teach us about salvation.
I’d invite you and anyone else who’s interested to read more about the cosmic temple view of Genesis – it can help avoid trying to force to the Bible to bow to materialism:
6 Likes
No Mike, it’s not a good argument. It is not a good argument because it is not as different a matter as you think it is. Both knowing how a wheel works and trying to determine the origin and age of things in general have certain underlying principles that work exactly the same in both cases.
Both involve mathematics for starters. Maths works exactly the same whether you are trying to figure out how a wheel works or how old it is. Whether you are talking about your times tables or about differential and integral calculus, there are underlying rules and principles that are exactly the same.
Both involve measurement. Measurement works exactly the same whether you are trying to figure out how a wheel works or how old it is. Sure, you may be measuring different things, but there are underlying rules and principles involved in determining error bars, uncertainties and unreliabilities that in both cases are exactly the same.
The test of the Bible is, as I’ve said already, the need for accurate and honest weights and measurements:
¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
As I’ve said before, any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1, must obey these verses in how it accounts for the evidence that we see in nature. This means that there are rules that must be followed and standards that must be maintained. Any creation model that does not follow the rules and maintain those standards is not honest and is therefore not Biblical.
Well I think that before you try to pass judgment as to whether something that we say is “faith-based” or evidence-based, and whether we discovered it or “came to believe” it, I suggest that you make sure you have properly understood why we take the positions that we do.
Many of us learned the basic rules and principles of how measurement and mathematics work through hands-on experience in multiple different settings. Having been taught them in school and at university, we then had to apply them in our jobs. Or face the consequences of people not following the rules and clear up the mess afterwards. That is discovery, not “coming to believe” anything.
We then read the arguments for a young earth and we saw many, many cases where they did not follow the rules. We read things that they say and thought to ourselves, “If I were to apply that line of thinking in the workplace I would lose my job.” Or “If you applied that line of thinking to any other area of science, you would kill people.” That is discovery, not “coming to believe” anything.
3 Likes
Rather let me ask you a question. How if God actually did create life on earth long before humans, and humans evolved from primates, how would explain this to pre-scientific people who have no knowledge of biology in such a way that it would make sense to the people of that time and would be equally correct and understandable to scientists today?
Second question. Why would God go to all the trouble to try and teach scientific explanations to pre-scientific people if His primary goal it to make sure that humans know that God is the creator, rather than how he actually created things in detail?
Reasonable consideration of these questions should make it clear why God would not feel a need to teach science in that ancient setting, and how impossible it would be to do so in a way that would make sense to all cultures in all times from then to the present. God has left enough evidence in nature itself to answer our origins questions as far as needed.
4 Likes
The sun was created in Gen 1 - but not until the 4th day. The sun isn’t the reason for the 24-hour dark/light cycles that God named “days”. Those began with the first “day”, when God created light and separated the light from the darkness. Then two more of these same dark/light cycles went by before God created the sun, moon, and stars to serve as signs to mark the passing of days, months, and years. It’s important to note that the sun wasn’t the origin of or reason for the existence of days, nor did it alter the length or timing of days when it was created. It just marked their passing.
That being the case, the 24-hour periods that the sun now marks out are the same 24-hour periods of dark/light that were already occurring before God made the sun to mark them out.
Hmm… Are you asserting that Moses made the creation account up?
I wonder why Jesus said that God created Adam and Eve male and female from the beginning of creation - which was about 6000 years ago. Is it possible that God is telling YOU something other than He told Moses and Jesus?
Many prophecies about the forthcoming Christ have dual applications.
After two days will He revive us (or quicken us, give us life,) in the third day He will raise us up - The Resurrection of Christ, and our resurrection in Him and in His Resurrection, could not be more plainly foretold. The prophet expressly mentions “two days,” after which life should be given, and a “third day, on” which the resurrection should take place. What else can this be than the two days in which the Body of Christ lay in the tomb, and the third day, on which He rose again, as “the Resurrection and the life” John 11:25, “the first fruits of them that slept” 1 Corinthians 15:20, the source and earnest and pledge of our resurrection and of life eternal? The Apostle, in speaking of our resurrection in Christ, uses these self-same words of the prophet; “God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us - hath quickened us together with Christ, and hath raised us up and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus” Ephesians 2:4-6.
I handle it by believing exactly what God’s written word says.
Romans 3:4… Let God be true and every man a liar.
Furthermore, I don’t have any dilemma’s or discrepancies to deal with, because I have yet to find anything in the realm of science that contradicts the Bible.
So no problem with the sun moving around the earth?
True, but we are talking about what the Hebrew means and here it means a small interval of time so there is no rule on a ordinal with yom always means a 24 hour day.
So you apparently believe, then, that Jesus is a wooden door on the side of a sheep. Because this is what the words “exactly say” in John 10:7: “So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep” ESV
3 Likes
Not a single one. Nor is there a single scientific reason.
Laura, your faith has already been shaken, and I fear that I may be a stumbling block to you. But remember that our Lord who told us that scripture cannot be broken and that not the least pen stroke would disappear from the Law and the Prophets also said this…
John 3:12… If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?
I believe, Laura.
I’m not sure how any of these things don’t “pass the test of the Bible”.
Are there any of these rules that I am personally not following, or any dishonest weights/measures that I’ve used?