If Evolution

[2003cobra]

Good, so they, with PhD's and bible college against you with your 'nothin' to start with. No question I'll go with the pro over the amateur.

That's where laymen can all beat you. After that? I haven't really seen anything from your supposed prowess of 'education' or other credentials. Your much repeated pure and only assertions are telltale signs of the lack. The ball is in your court to "PROVE" something and substantiate it, rather than undemonstrated learning asserted in fake I.D. delivering hot air. See my links? You: Nadda lain:

That attack-your-education dog wouldn’t hunt the first time.

I suppose you missed the post with the education of the five Torah translators of the NET Bible, who describe the forming of man as occurring “back before anything was growing...There was no uncultivated, general growth because there was no rain, and there were no grains because there was no man to cultivate the soil.”

And I suppose you missed my quotation of the Oxford NRSV notes.

And I suppose you missed the quote of Augustine from 1600 years ago.

And I suppose you systematically reject the evidence that God has given us in creation.

And worse, you deny what the Bible actually says —- leaving no basis for discussion.

So I have done my part in encouraging you to stop turning people away from the gospel with your wrong-headed demands of literal readings of figurative language. The rest is up to you and the Holy Spirit acting on you. Do not ignore the still, small voice in your head. It may not come today, or next week, or next year even. But I will pray that the Lord convict you of this rejection of the text and His works in creation.

Perhaps it will be your children or nieces and nephews or friends who will struggle with your insistence on obviously wrong positions. Listen to your doubts and open your minds to the truth. Whatever you do, don’t try that arrogant “you’re not supposed to think about that, it is above your pay grade” nonsense. You will cause thinking people to reject God and their blood will be on your hands.

 

[2003cobra]

Haha... I see a trend.

*You need to reinterpret Scripture to fit your beliefs.

*You need to denigrate and re-interpret what others say to fit your beliefs.

*You refuse to discuss Scripture that provides context to the discussion.

*You rely on a liberal translators notes in the NET rather than on actual scripture. (And unwilling to consider the Hebrew since it destroys your argument)

*You quote evolutionist bloggers

*You support heretical Biologist

*And, you keep saying there is no basis for discussion, yet you keep repeating your 'arguments.


Here is what Hebrew scholar Barr said (minus your bloggers re-inventing what he said) "Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience"

Interesting mix of silliness and self-description.

I tried to discuss the scriptures with you, but you denied what they say.

You pretended Genesis 1 does not say that the earth brought forth every kind of vegetation on Day 3, before man was created.

You pretended Genesis 2 does not say that man was formed before any plants were growing.

So we have no basis for discussion, since you reject the words of the Bible.

So I have done my part in encouraging you to stop turning people away from the gospel with your wrong-headed demands of literal readings of figurative language. The rest is up to you and the Holy Spirit acting on you. Do not ignore the still, small voice in your head. It may not come today, or next week, or next year even. But I will pray that the Lord convict you of this rejection of the text and His works in creation.

Perhaps it will be your children or nieces and nephews or friends who will struggle with your insistence on obviously wrong positions. Listen to your doubts and open your minds to the truth. If you continue to cause thinking people to reject God, their blood will be on your hands.

 

[2003cobra]

I think I have contributed what I can to this thread.

It is difficult to discuss the Bible with people who deny what it actually says.

And repeating the same arguments over and over to people are more dedicated to their tradition than to the truth seems not a good use of time.

 

[CherubRam]

So you're set on the idea that day can only mean an epoch of time?

You do realize that day can mean "day," right?

Have you got compelling reason to show that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?


The Psalms version goes:

For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night.​

While the passage in 2 Peter also turns it around to say that a day is like 1,000 years.

Neither of these give compelling reason to believe that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says. In fact, from the context and explicit supporting text, we can see exactly what the phrases mean.

And it's always a chuckle when Darwinists quote II Peter:

Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
II Peter 3:1-‬9 NKJV
https://bible.com/bible/114/2pe.3.1-9.NKJV​

How does this show that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?

I can give you good reason for the use of "the third day" here.

The bible is full of parables, and they are not always mentioned as being parables. Perhaps you are being to literal. Something to think about.

 

[iouae]

God rested on the seventh day creating the Sabbath, and setting an example of 24 hour Sabbath keeping.

Thus the creation week was a week of literal 24 hour days.

What blows the Christian mind in general is that if God sets the rainbow for a sign after the flood, that does not mean there were no rainbows pre-flood for 1600 years. It just means that NOW meaning FROM THEN ON the rainbow is a sign.

And on the 4th day when God sets the sun and moon and stars for signs and seasons, it does not mean there were no sun and moon before - just that with the creation of man came creation of holy days and holy months which require sun and moon.

So when Genesis opens with the earth being without form and void, before day 1 begins, we start with an earth covered with water, and dense cloud.

Thus what is set or appointed or changed in "creation week" is really a setting or appointing or tweaking of what was already there.

For instance the Sabbath. God created this by doing nothing. And one cannot say that rest did not exist before this, that nobody had spent 24 hours resting and worshipping God before, in heaven.

Thus sun and moon and stars WERE ALREADY PRESENT and used to determine day 1, and appointed for signs and seasons or holy days and holy months on day 4.

And if "And the earth was/BECAME without form and void" is the correct interpretation of Gen 1:2 then there is no problem with the geologic column existing before earth became without form and void in ANOTHER mass extinction.

Y'all stumble over Gen 1:2
And the earth was H1961 without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

H1961
to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
(Qal)
—
to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
to come about, come to pass
to come into being, become
to arise, appear, come
to become
to become
to become like
to be instituted, be established
to be
to exist, be in existence
to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
to accompany, be with
(Niphal)
to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
to be done, be finished, be gone


The Hebrew clearly allows "was" to be translated "became" which opens the door to the possibility there was a whole history before the so called creation week.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Biologos does not claim that Adam was not an historical person.

(Cue dissembling and obfuscation.)

There you go: A BioLogos author saying Adam was not a person, but a group or archetype.

Nice try. So, then if the director of the Institute for Creation Research wrote that blacks are intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people, it's O.K. to claim that the Institute for Creation Research advocates racism?

That's really what you want to say, Stipe? Or is it completely dishonest to claim that if one official of an organization says something, then that must be the policy of the organization?

Next time, think a little more carefully, Stipe. :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Of course, evolutionary theory does not deny the fact of an historical Adam and Eve. The founder of Biologos, Francis Collins, has pointed this out.

Biologos does not claim that Adam was not an historical person.

Well, there you go.

Yep. Stipe tried to sidestep the facts by saying that someone with Biologos said otherwise. Not a very honest approach, is it?

One either believes and lives by Matthew 4:4 or is (admittedly no less ) in bed with two masters Matthew 6:19-21,24

I think Matthew 7:15-20 is a better fit for that behavior. If anyone depends on dishonesty, he's obviously not serving God, but an entirely different master.

Matthew 7:16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

I REALLY wish some of you could quote scripture or at least have it clearly enough in mind to be able to find the reference and be of service and help for wholly "Christian" thinking. Is Jesus compartmentalized or tacked on to our lives, or are we GENUINELY transformed? Romans 12:2 Where is YOUR (inclusive) pattern?

My pattern is that a Christian's life should be an imitation of Christ. That is what we are called to do. We can only be poor imitations, but He expects us try.

Honesty is part of that effort.

 

[6days]

You pretended Genesis 1 does not say that the earth brought forth every kind of vegetation on Day 3, before man was created.

I didn't pretend.... I showed that you are adding to Scripture since scripture does NOT say "every kind of vegetation" on the third day. In chapter 1 we are told God created 3 types of vegetation on day 3. Specifically we are told God creates grass (deshe’), seed-yielding herbs (‘eseb mazria zera), and fruit trees (ets pariy).
Youngs Literal Translation says "And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so."

Even in your NET Bible, that has the liberal commentary, it does not say the earth brought forth every kind of vegetation... Genesis 1 from NET 1:11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: 31 plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, 32 and 33 trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” It was so. 1:12 The land produced vegetation – plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 1:13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.

Or, in the version you say you always use, the NRSV... " 11 Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

You are fabricating, and contradicting God's Word...it does NOT say EVERY kind of vegetation existed on the third day.

You pretended Genesis 2 does not say that man was formed before any plants were growing.

Actually, I showed you that in Chapter 2 we are told that 2 DIFFERENT types of plants did not yet exist when man was created...plant of the field / wild shrub / thorns (siah hassadeh) and “herb of the field / cultivated grain (eseb hassadeh).
Youngs Literal Translation says " and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, for Jehovah God hath not rained upon the earth, and a man there is not to serve the ground"

NET Bible Gen.2:5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field (Two types of plants not yet in existence. Your claim of no plants before man is false, and contradicts God's Word)

Or your preferred version NRSV "when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up" Again... it mentions the two types of plants that didn't exist yet. Your claim of no plants before man is false, and contradicts God's Word)

Genesis one and two are consistent with each other describing THEE creation.

 

[6days]

Of course, evolutionary theory does not deny the fact of an historical Adam and Eve.

Your belief system rejects that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and that Eve was formed from Adam's rib..

Biologos does not claim that Adam was not an historical person.

Stripe shows you are wrong. They regularily publish articles casting doubt on the historical first couple. Perhaps you are trying to defend Biologos but not familiar with the many heretical authors and articles they have published. Biologos is dogmatic about evolutionism, and dogmatic about compromising on God's Word. They accept articles from non believers such as Michael Ruse, who urges Christians to compromise. EX. http://biologos.org/blog/author/ruse-michael Because Biologos rejects the six day creation account, they then reject the inerrancy of scripture...reject doctrine of impunity.... compromise on other doctrines all resulting in a ineffectual gospel.
According to BioLogos, all we have to do is reinterpret Moses, Jesus, and Paul, and everything is harmonized. A historical Adam doesn’t matter, and Jesus’ Incarnation allows him to make errors concerning what the Father commanded him to say about the age of the world (Mark 10:6; Luke 11:50–51; cf. John 8:28).

Biologos has printed the Bible is wrong
“Most Christians understand that, even though the Bible assumes a certain way of looking at the cosmos, from a scientific point of view the Bible is wrong. And that is perfectly fine "

Biologos has printed mans opinions trump God's Word
"If our steadily improving scientific understanding can fully explain events, how can we say that God was involved in those events? "

Biologos has printed Jesus made mistakes,
“If Jesus as a finite human being erred from time to time, there is no reason at all to suppose that Moses, Paul, John wrote Scripture without error. Rather, we are wise to assume that the biblical authors expressed themselves as human beings writing from the perspectives of their own finite, broken horizons.”
(Kenton Sparks / 2010 Biologos)

 

[6days]

n the 4th day when God sets the sun and moon and stars for signs and seasons, it does not mean there were no sun and moon before

What Scripture says... Gen. 1:16 " And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

 

[Lon]

My pattern is that a Christian's life should be an imitation of Christ. That is what we are called to do. We can only be poor imitations, but He expects us try.

Honesty is part of that effort.

You and I and a few others have had this discussion. In a nutshell, I hold much suspect from fallible men by the mere fact that we are fallible. Scripture? :nono: So, I BETTER get it right. God can and does provide grace. In college, I read my bible a lot. In Bible College, obviously more, but the point being that 'my' textbook was my bible and trying to understand science couched in that revelation. Paul says there are lots of 'so called' knowledge. The Greeks, full of math, science, and humanities, were well on their way to modern educational processes.

There are two ways we can gather information about the world. 1 is test and try measure, and look for consistencies BUT we have been known to get it wrong, repeatedly even. This also goes with reading and understanding our Bible, but God is sovereign and can and will mold us back to where He wants us. As such, 'subduing the earth' is the stuff of science as well, and a biblical command. Wherever two sources of information do not synch, there is a problem with one at least, of them. Logically, does it make the 'most' sense that the fallibility would be in God's conveyance, or man's? :think: While it 'seems' you were drinking science Koolaid, I was questioning what was in my drink and how it was done. More often than not, the scientific process was encouraged: If you see something else, work on it using the scientific method where you can. It was not too terribly long ago, all scientists AGREED that much of our dating is a 'best guess' because we have no empirical way to figure it out. Literally, science school literature went from hundred thousand to one million by the 80's and then billions this new century. I've seen how people drive today. Sending a satellite careening off course by a billion dollars down the drain, scientists are as fallible as any other trade or profession even when it counts. Challenger pressure ring? Forget about who is involved in cutting me off at the next red light, he may well be a NASA employee.

I have a LOT of respect for science but I don't give them the same status as Divine inspiration. Not even in the ballpark. Matthew 4:4 I HAVE to live by. Science? :nono: I can go find some aspirin bark from my local tribe if I have too. Science just isn't ever going to have the same priority on my 'must follow' list. :nono:

 

[Stripe]

Biologos does not claim that Adam was not an historical person.

Cue dissembling and obfuscation.

 

[Lon]

That attack-your-education dog wouldn’t hunt the first time.

I suppose you missed the post with the education of the five Torah translators of the NET Bible, who describe the forming of man as occurring “back before anything was growing...There was no uncultivated, general growth because there was no rain, and there were no grains because there was no man to cultivate the soil.”

:nono:
Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

² By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing;
:think:
Genesis 2:⁸ Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
:think: See that? In the Garden He had 'already' created. Kind of ruins your attempt, doesn't it? Yeah, I think it does.

And I suppose you missed my quotation of the Oxford NRSV notes.

Nope, but why should 'Oxford' mean anything to me? They aren't Evangelical like this website.

And I suppose you missed the quote of Augustine from 1600 years ago.

No, but a number of men I admire, I don't agree with on everything. I think Augustine got a lot right.

And I suppose you systematically reject the evidence that God has given us in creation.

Probably. I had much better than 20/20 when I was younger so, you know...

And worse, you deny what the Bible actually says —- leaving no basis for discussion.

See, I was going to 'assert' the same thing to you, verbatim. There you go, you've told plenty on here you have 'no basis for discussion' so why are you still here? OR could it be there is ACTUALLY a debate about 'what the Bible actually says!?' :noway:

So I have done my part in encouraging you to stop turning people away from the gospel with your wrong-headed demands of literal readings of figurative language. The rest is up to you and the Holy Spirit acting on you. Do not ignore the still, small voice in your head. It may not come today, or next week, or next year even. But I will pray that the Lord convict you of this rejection of the text and His works in creation.

Ah, ALREADY haughtily 'assuming' the high ground. Go ahead, a good most of all 'scientists' do. Theologians? :nono: Nope.
That IS the contrast for nearly every theology/science discussion on TOL. One side is ALWAYS a guy more interested in his/her science 'reality' and the other ALWAYS interested in his/her theology reality.

Perhaps it will be your children or nieces and nephews or friends who will struggle with your insistence on obviously wrong positions. Listen to your doubts and open your minds to the truth. Whatever you do, don’t try that arrogant “you’re not supposed to think about that, it is above your pay grade” nonsense. You will cause thinking people to reject God and their blood will be on your hands.

:nono: My daughter is a science major. My brother is a science major. Sorry to burst your little 'prophesying bubble.' I didn't do poorly in science myself.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian reminds Stipe:
Biologos does not claim that Adam was not an historical person.

Cue dissembling and obfuscation.

(Stipe forgets how to dissemble, and wanders off)

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian reminds Stipe:Biologos does not claim that Adam was not an historical person.(Stipe forgets how to dissemble, and wanders off)

"Six days," remember?

You're desperate that the conversation not remain sensible and on-topic.

 

[The Barbarian]

This also goes with reading and understanding our Bible, but God is sovereign and can and will mold us back to where He wants us.

Since there are numberous contradictory interpretations of scripture, that seems to be an unfounded conclusion.

Wherever two sources of information do not synch, there is a problem with one at least, of them.

Whenever science and religion seem to conflict, it's because someone has gotten one or both of them wrong.

Logically, does it make the 'most' sense that the fallibility would be in God's conveyance, or man's?

As St. Paul says, His creation is an authoritative statement to us, so much so, that we are without excuse.

On the other hand, we can be wrong about His creation just as surely as we can be wrong about his word. If we forget that in both cases we are interpreting what He's showing us, then we are very likely to be misled by ourselves.

"Be careful not to fool yourself. And you're the easiest one for you to fool."
Feynmann

Literally, science school literature went from hundred thousand to one million by the 80's and then billions this new century.

No. Not even close.

In the 1800s, Lord Kelvin's best estimate, based on the thermal transfer of heat from the Sun, was about 24 million years. Shortly after that,(1904) Rutherford discovered radioactivity and that ran it back to several hundred million years at least.

I've seen how people drive today. Sending a satellite careening off course by a billion dollars down the drain, scientists are as fallible as any other trade or profession even when it counts.

Turns out, it is rocket science, and it's very, very hard. What always surprises me is how often they get it exactly right.

Challenger pressure ring?

O-ring. And here's the real scandal:
Engineers expressed concern about it, and were overruled by some bureaucrat. Richard Feynmann, who investigated, was tipped off by one of them. It's why he got to the bottom of it so quickly.

Hundreds of NPR readers and listeners helped Ebeling overcome persistent guilt in the weeks before his death. They sent supportive emails and letters after our January story marking the 30th anniversary of the Challenger tragedy.

Ebeling was one of five booster rocket engineers at NASA contractor Morton Thiokol who tried to stop the 1986 Challenger launch. They worried that cold temperatures overnight — the forecast said 18 degrees — would stiffen the rubber O-ring seals that prevent burning rocket fuel from leaking out of booster joints.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...-engineer-who-warned-of-shuttle-disaster-dies

I have a LOT of respect for science but I don't give them the same status as Divine inspiration.

I notice scientists have less trouble agreeing than theologians. And they have real-world checks on that kind of thing. Just saying.

It's more important to get God right than to get nature right. But we shouldn't kid ourselves; we are as likely to get God wrong as to get nature wrong. More likely, given the lack of consensus by theologians.

 

[2003cobra]

:nono:
Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

² By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing;
:think:
Genesis 2:⁸ Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
:think: See that? In the Garden He had 'already' created. Kind of ruins your attempt, doesn't it? Yeah, I think it does.



Nope, but why should 'Oxford' mean anything to me? They aren't Evangelical like this website.


No, but a number of men I admire, I don't agree with on everything. I think Augustine got a lot right.


Probably. I had much better than 20/20 when I was younger so, you know...


See, I was going to 'assert' the same thing to you, verbatim. There you go, you've told plenty on here you have 'no basis for discussion' so why are you still here? OR could it be there is ACTUALLY a debate about 'what the Bible actually says!?' :noway:

Ah, ALREADY haughtily 'assuming' the high ground. Go ahead, a good most of all 'scientists' do. Theologians? :nono: Nope.
That IS the contrast for nearly every theology/science discussion on TOL. One side is ALWAYS a guy more interested in his/her science 'reality' and the other ALWAYS interested in his/her theology reality.


:nono: My daughter is a science major. My brother is a science major. Sorry to burst your little 'prophesying bubble.' I didn't do poorly in science myself.

Really, Lon, skipping from Genesis 2.2 to 2.8 to leave out the passage that says man was formed when no plants were growing?

There really is no basis for discussion or possibility of honest dialogue.

 

[Lon]

Since there are numberous contradictory interpretations of scripture, that seems to be an unfounded conclusion.

God isn't Sovereign? :noway:

Whenever science and religion seem to conflict, it's because someone has gotten one or both of them wrong.

Yep, what I said...

As St. Paul says, His creation is an authoritative statement to us, so much so, that we are without excuse.

On the other hand, we can be wrong about His creation just as surely as we can be wrong about his word. If we forget that in both cases we are interpreting what He's showing us, then we are very likely to be misled by ourselves.

Agreed. Venial in most cases? When had "we better get it right?" if such exists?

"Be careful not to fool yourself. And you're the easiest one for you to fool."
Feynmann

In this age of specialization men who thoroughly know one field are often incompetent to discuss another.
We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science. -Feynman

THEN your quote :e4e:

No. Not even close.

In the 1800s, Lord Kelvin's best estimate, based on the thermal transfer of heat from the Sun, was about 24 million years. Shortly after that,(1904) Rutherford discovered radioactivity and that ran it back to several hundred million years at least.

Doesn't matter. It is beyond close. It is exactly what my textbooks said. I remember them vividly. I was a bit shocked to see the jumps, to say the least.

Turns out, it is rocket science, and it's very, very hard. What always surprises me is how often they get it exactly right.

Contrast? I know God's word is infallible. :think:

O-ring. And here's the real scandal:
Engineers expressed concern about it, and were overruled by some bureaucrat. Richard Feynmann, who investigated, was tipped off by one of them. It's why he got to the bottom of it so quickly.

I remember it.

Hundreds of NPR readers and listeners helped Ebeling overcome persistent guilt in the weeks before his death. They sent supportive emails and letters after our January story marking the 30th anniversary of the Challenger tragedy.

Ebeling was one of five booster rocket engineers at NASA contractor Morton Thiokol who tried to stop the 1986 Challenger launch. They worried that cold temperatures overnight — the forecast said 18 degrees — would stiffen the rubber O-ring seals that prevent burning rocket fuel from leaking out of booster joints.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...-engineer-who-warned-of-shuttle-disaster-dies

A little off the point, I think. Let me try and expand a bit: Of these two ways we can seek truth, both include fallible men BUT only one claims 'source' infallibility, unless you've a line on science textbooks I haven't seen to date making that claim. It leads into your next line:

I notice scientists have less trouble agreeing than theologians. And they have real-world checks on that kind of thing. Just saying.

I don't believe this is correct. I've seen enough posturing and reaching for the Noble PP and publications behind the scenes and have seen some fairly ugly comments made between a few and not a theologian in sight. Worse? You are 'intimating' that you put more trust in men of science THAN men of God :noway:

It's more important to get God right than to get nature right. But we shouldn't kid ourselves; we are as likely to get God wrong as to get nature wrong.

I think you believe this, but it is incorrect and wrong. You've stated it the first line of this redress as well, or at least nearly the same. John 16:13; 15:5 It is, imho, imperative that the Christian expressing one side or the other of these debates, should know his bible well. Your man Feynman said: "In this age of specialization men who thoroughly know one field are often incompetent to discuss another." He has expressed several times the difficulty such presents to the science/theological discussion and meeting of ways. He too, recognizes that both are a pursuit for what is true, in their purest intents

More likely, given the lack of consensus by theologians.

I think necessarily, this goes back to John 16:13 Perhaps, even among what we think we know from science, the Christian is in need of more prayer and recognition of that guidance.

 

[Lon]

Really, Lon, skipping from Genesis 2.2 to 2.8 to leave out the passage that says man was formed when no plants were growing?

There really is no basis for discussion or possibility of honest dialogue.

:chuckle: More "My ball, my rules!" Instead of crying like a girl, present them. Instead of inanely accusing of dishonesty, address the chapter. I realize you do not see these shortcomings in yourself, but YOU are the man who doesn't dialogue 'honestly' (you don't dialogue the material at all) and you are the one who pouts more than actually discussing. Your short two sentence reply isn't a reply at all.

Let's look (only 3 verses, as I did NOT skip but these 3):

Genesis 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

Which "this?" The account just given? Genesis 1:1-2:3 Would seem likely. :think:

Genesis 2:5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground

Genesis 2:6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

So, right smack between Genesis 1:10 and Genesis 1:11, agreed?

Look at Genesis 1 then, man comes after the plants. The purpose of the second chapter, then would seem to be nothing out of order :nono: RATHER it is focusing, like when you see a well made Disney movie, it starts in the little Italian town then scrolls down and zooms in on Geppetto's workshop or the forest and then down to Bambi's hollow. Same here, Moses is focusing on man, and skipping over most of the creation account he JUST gave. There is no contradiction, thus. You simply missed the point. He already gave you the details, this is the summary then onto man's story. He is trying to teach about the condition all Hebrew children found themselves in under the curse of sin. Allegory? Not hardly. Can't be. I will certainly argue with any man that contradicts that. It undoes the Cross, as 6-days has repeatedly said and has in his sig. -Lon

 

[Zenn]

Good, thanks for trying to answer... the partial answer is good. But, are you suggesting that the cross was unnecessary for the forgiveness of sin? You seem to reject Heb. 9:22 that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." The question remains... Why did Jesus need physically die?

He didn't. Your religion is based upon offering up human blood sacrifice(s) to the god(s) as a payment.

The gospel Jesus taught was not based upon this.

There is a foundational flaw in Christianity that goes quite unrecognized by most all of its adherents.

One cannot pay a debt that has been forgiven, nor can one forgive a debt that's been paid. Forgiveness and payment as resolutions of debt are mutually exclusive.

Zenn

PS: But I doubt than any of y'all have an ear to hear, so let the weeping and gnashing of teeth begin, for the Lord will say he never knew most of you.

PPS: WRT Heb. 9:22, sure. According to the Law... So bonus question to anyone who may have the self discipline to Not worship the Google god... When did the angel of the Lord tell Abraham to sacrifice the ram instead?