Originally posted by Proper KnobYou have to bear in mind that, while robbie might not go so far as admitting to being completely unprincipled all the time, he may have made his comment in order to be expedient at the time, in what may have been a reactionary stance rather than a calculating one. 🙂
Opposed you at every turn?! LOL!!!!
Originally posted by KellyJayThere are a million other 'truth issues' which do not carry the emotional charge this issue carries. So there must be some other dimension to it than truth or falsity.
It is a truth issue, foundational for those who reject God and those that
accept God.
Kelly
Originally posted by SwissGambitNo. I am suggesting that the Hebrew wording was not taken literally enough. If you read the verbiage the wording changes after day 6 when referring to time.
Yes, but if you believe in an old earth, you probably do not think that the 6 days of creation in Genesis are literal days. Right?
Here is a something to watch if interested.
His entire premise rests on the ancient writings in the Talmud because the premise that the 6 days were far longer had already been proposed pre-modern science.
Originally posted by Proper KnobIndeed we are 😀
Opposed you at every turn?! LOL!!!!
You are a fundamentalist Christian, and I am, using your own words, a 'rabid base materialist', of course I'm going to oppose you. We're at complete opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to matters in this forum.
What Benedict thought about evolution:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-447930/Pope-Benedict-believes-evolution.html
http://io9.com/does-the-new-pope-believe-in-evolution-453874239/all
A rather equivocal position, it seems. I can't definitively place him on SG's list of pro- or anti-evolutionists.
Originally posted by moonbusWoa what treachery is afoot joining the camp of the evolutionists, he's well named Benedict! is his second name Arnold per chance?
What Benedict thought about evolution:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-447930/Pope-Benedict-believes-evolution.html
http://io9.com/does-the-new-pope-believe-in-evolution-453874239/all
A rather equivocal position, it seems. I can't definitively place him on SG's list of pro- or anti-evolutionists.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBenedict was not the first (Pope) to embrace evolution (albeit somewhat equivocally); his predecessors did and he followed suit.
Woa what treachery is afoot joing the camp of the evolutionists, he's well named Benedict! is his second name Arnold per chance?
BTW, Benedict Arnold was a patriot, to the other side!
Originally posted by moonbusIts not entirely clear what motivated Arnold, i read recently that he may have been aggrieved at being overlooked for promotion or was underrated or may have incurred some serious debts, he was by all accounts an excellent strategist and tactician, one of the best the continental army possessed. Yes it depends on perspective whether you consider him a traitor or a patriot.
Benedict was not the first (Pope) to embrace evolution (albeit somewhat equivocally); his predecessors did and he followed suit.
BTW, Benedict Arnold was a patriot, to the other side!
The problem that the Pope and all Christian who face this issue is that the Bible is rather unequivocal, God created man and the animals according to their kinds, which leaves no room for the idea of common decent, so either they must relegate the Biblical account (which poses all kinds of problems by doing so) or find some kind of way of marrying the two essentially mutually exclusive ideas. The way that this has traditionally been done is to state that the Biblical account in Genesis is purely allegorical, but that faces further problems in that both Christ, Paul and Peter refer to it as a literal account, so they are opening a serious can of worms for themselves. I have yet to hear a logical and coherent argument from Christians that is able to marry the two accounts.
I have 2 questions which I would like people who think they are putting faith in Christ for forgiveness of sins and salvation to answer. . .
Number 1
------------
Why would anybody who puts faith in Christ for their forgiveness of sins and for salvation, which puts a person's soul into Christ's "hands," for eternal life, and then deny God created the earth, plants, animals, people, light, the sun and moon which doesn't reach the level of putting one's soul in the hands of God to believe in creation?
Why would anybody that thinks that Christ can save your soul for eternal life, not believe God can create and do even greater things besides?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe problem for creationists like yourself, is that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming (for those who aren't s too scared to look at the evidence), thus rendering your literal interpretation of the Biblical creation account in a rather precarious position. Or in other words, the Bible is wrong
Its not entirely clear what motivated Arnold, i read recently that he may have been aggrieved at being overlooked for promotion or was underrated or may have incurred some serious debts, he was by all accounts an excellent strategist and tactician, one of the best the continental army possessed. Yes it depends on perspective whether you consider him ...[text shortened]... lical account or find some kind of way of marrying the two essentially mutually exclusive ideas.
"The problem that the Pope and all Christian[s] who face this issue is that the Bible is rather unequivocal, God created man and the animals according to their kinds, which leaves no room for the idea of common decent, so either they must relegate the Biblical account (which poses all kinds of problems by doing so) or find some kind of way of marrying the two essentially mutually exclusive ideas."
"Or in other words, the Bible is wrong"
I don't think it is as cut and dried as that. The Biblical account may indeed be unequivocal, but nonetheless open to interpretation as being allegorical (i.e., what Nature means to man), rather than a putatively factual-historical account of how natural phenomena (flora and fauna) came to be. The Koran is equally unequivocal on this point, that man is the custodian of Nature, that man is to care for animals--however they came into being. The Biblical account is interpretable in a similar way.
The Vatican position is curious indeed, but typical.
The Vatican has embraced evolution only because it was compelled, by overwhelming evidence, to abandon its previous position, much as the Vatican was eventually compelled to abandon the flat Earth and the young Earth positions it had previously maintained against a gradual tide of evidence which at some point because overwhelming. The Vatican doesn't really like the idea of evolution, but it recognized that maintaining its previous position was making a mockery of its claim to be in sole possession of Absolute Truth and was driving people away in droves.
The Vatican embraces evolution as a porcupine embraces a balloon: the effect is deflationary. 'Evolution happened,' the Vatican concedes (at long last), 'But don't forget that God had His hand on the tiller...'
Whodey and Others,
While I don't believe that a "day" in Genesis during creation had to be 24 hours, why can't we just take it literally that a day was a time of evening plus a time of morning? Maybe it was 36 hours or 19 hours, but certainly God is powerful enough and knowledgeable enough to create in 6 days and not in 6 billion years.
Why is it so difficult to believe God can create? Also, man has less data for belief in cosmological origin than he has data for belief in evolution. And neither are a scientific law!
King James Version
================
Genesis 1: 5
. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Genesis 1: 8
. . .And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Genesis 1: 13
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Genesis 1: 19
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Genesis 1: 23
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Genesis 1: 31
. . .And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Originally posted by moonbusit should also be noted that scientific data may be open to interpretation also and the very same data that materialists use to establish their position creationist use to establish theirs.
"The problem that the Pope and all Christian[s] who face this issue is that the Bible is rather unequivocal, God created man and the animals according to their kinds, which leaves no room for the idea of common decent, so either they must relegate the Biblical account (which poses all kinds of problems by doing so) or find some kind of way of marrying the tw ...[text shortened]... ' the Vatican concedes (at long last), 'But don't forget that God had His hand on the tiller...'
Originally posted by Proper KnobSpoken like a true Sith Lord!
The problem for creationists like yourself, is that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming (for those who aren't s too scared to look at the evidence), thus rendering your literal interpretation of the Biblical creation account in a rather precarious position. Or in other words, the Bible is wrong
ProperKnob,
If you are saying that God did not create as it says in Genesis, then why don't you prove it by science to the point of making it "law." Also, do the same of cosmological origin. If Darwin posted that his hypothesis could be debunked, then there is still "proof" that needs to be presented by scientists.