Jump to content

one.opinion

Diamond Member
  • Content Count

    1,357
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

369 Excellent

4 Followers

About one.opinion

  • Rank
    Diamond Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,404 profile views
  1. This doesn’t make a bit of sense to me as a response to my question.
  2. I know the track record hasn’t been great over the last couple of years, but some of the more strident voices are no longer here.
  3. This is an excellent point, and worthy (pun intended) of consideration! Unfortunately, I am aware enough of my own shortcomings to doubt I would fare any better.
  4. Personally, although I believe that there is some significant figurative language in Genesis 1-3, I believe the genealogy of Jesus presented in the Gospel of Luke is strong evidence of a very real Adam and Eve. I also believe that the relationship with God the He granted them made them responsible for the entry of sin into the world when they sinned. However, I believe our need for a Savior is rooted more in our individual propensity for sin, and not from the sin of Adam and Eve. So although I do accept “original sin”, I do not see it as essential to the Gospel of Christ. Our need for a Savior is due to our own sin, not due to the sin of Adam and Eve.
  5. There is no reason to assume that this language could not be figurative. Additionally, even if it is precisely literal, there can clearly be additional members of humanity present on the earth at the same time. It is erroneous to assume that one's particular interpretation is the only possible interpretation, and anyone with a different reading of scripture is "scripturally ignorant". @ByFaithAlone has already pointed out a tradition of non-literal interpretation of Genesis goes all the way back to prominent figures in the early church, such as Augustine of Hippo.
  6. Ok, what scientific evidence do you have to the contrary? You seem quite confident.
  7. There is no aspect of evolutionary theory that precludes this possibility. The scientific evidence suggests that the human population was much larger than 2 at the time, but a literal Adam and Eve are certainly possible. I am one of many Christians that accept evolution as a tool of God’s creation, while still accepting a literal Adam and Eve.
  8. I've read this statement before, but have no clue how either of these claims are justified. Could you explain?
  9. Yes, we do still have only a limited understanding of what God made. However, I think it is highly unlikely that more understanding will necessitate a major overhaul of our basic understanding of fields, like biology and geology, in which the evidence supports an earth that is far older than 6,000 years. That is still figurative. God's Word is not literally "written" in our hearts.
  10. This is a complicated question. It may be easier to answer why I believe the creation account in Genesis is not literal. I believe the Bible is 100% true. Therefore, when what God has revealed of Himself through science is inconsistent with a literal interpretation of His Word, then a literal interpretation is incorrect. Clearly, there are other reasons to use a meaning of a passage as something other than literal, as is the case for poetry (which some believe Genesis 1-2 to be), or with a great deal of prophetic literature, like Ezekiel or Revelation.
  11. Exactly. Asking for proof that vastly accelerated radioisotopic decay has NOT occurred in the past is a bit like asking for proof that elephants were NOT, at some point before the advent of color photography, pink. Just because no one can prove that elephants weren’t at some point pink does not mean that assuming they were once pink is just as valid as assuming they have always been gray. Scientists work with available evidence to make assumptions and stick with those assumptions until better data proves that those assumptions were wrong.
  12. Accepting God’s Word as 100% true does not mean accepting it is 100% literal. I accept the former, not the latter.
  13. I’m not referring to the impossible task of physically watching subatomic particles break away and release from an atom, I’m talking about observing data. Websites like AiG post articles attempting to convince the reader to believe their version of scientific interpretation while requiring an effort by the reader to look at the actual data. Most of their readers already agree with their interpretation, so the chances that a reader will make an effort to look into the facts is reduced. For example, Woodmarappe did not explain to his readers that the massive acceleration in radioactive decay rate required the plasma state of matter that is only present in specialized laboratories and stars. It seems as though he is holding back pertinent information from his audience. Yes, there are assumptions made about the consistency of things like radioactive decay rates over time. But a massively accelerated radioactive decay rate would almost certainly have left evidence that could be observed today. Science works with the available evidence, and when hypotheses are generated without supporting evidence, those hypotheses are no longer scientific.
×
×
  • Create New...