Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 6 of 75 (791167)
09-12-2016 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by GDR
09-12-2016 11:32 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
The point is that the creation accounts should be understood in the context of the culture of the time. By reading them scientifically we completely distort the point that the authors had in mind.
It's either God's communication to us or it isn't. If it is then whatever it says is truth and if that truth happens to be about the nature of the physical world then it's no less true whether you call it "scientific" or not. God's revelation is simply true, period. His revelation was naturally couched in the cultural and personal styles of His chosen spokesmen but it is no less His revelation of truth no matter what style was used. And by the way I don't know of any good theologian or Bible teacher who doesn't take the cultural context into account, but it is always understood to be vehicle and never to contradict God's message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 11:32 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 12:53 PM Faith has replied
 Message 12 by GDR, posted 09-12-2016 1:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 09-12-2016 2:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 9 of 75 (791178)
09-12-2016 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
09-12-2016 12:53 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Of course, even if you assume that it is Gods communication - in some sense - which is the most that you could actually get from the Bible that hardly means that it was intended to tell us what happened in the distant past.
Why not? If it says something about the distant past then it's telling us the truth about that distant past. It tells us about Creation, it tells us about the Flood. If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.
And it is far from clear that your views are correct even from looking at the text.
Why should your views of my views be taken seriously at all?
For instance, if God wished to give us an accurate account of the Flood it seems rather odd that He would do it by mashing two versions of the story together.
I see, and you've had a conversation with Him about this and know He wouldn't do it that way? But nobody but unbelievers read the Flood accounts that way, unbelievers including the "scholars" who come up with such stuff, and some presumptuous people who call themselves "believers" but are in for a very rude shock. There's no "mashing" involved, believers know that everything in the Bible is to be read as dovetailing with everything else in the Bible.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 12:53 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 09-12-2016 1:05 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 1:10 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 16 by Diomedes, posted 09-12-2016 3:19 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 17 by jar, posted 09-12-2016 3:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024