jerryR34 Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I don't think the Bibleis a science book, but I also don't think that the Bible disagrees with modern science. "modern science" overwhelmingly espouses evolution, so I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 But why are you looking at the Bible's "historical accuracy" by modern, Western, Hellenistic standards? I am looking at the Bible's historical accuracy based on its own claims and based on the phenomenon of fulfilled prophecy. I am looking at the Bible's historical accuracy through the lens of historical accuracy and the Bible's proven track record as a reliable historical source of information. I think you are confusing things. The whole "Hebraic vs. Hellenistic" issue deals with basic paradigms and theological worldviews. You can't run to that kind of argument to claim that the biblical writers didn't view history in terms of an accurate and truthful record of events. It is not meant to be an assault on the Bible's authority, only applying our modern usage of "historical record" on ancient texts. I'm sorry, from where do you derive this notion that historical records are viewed differently today than they were during the biblical period? Explaining the Creation is nothing like describing a battle or recording conversations. Evidently the biblical writers thought it was, because the same narrative patterns in Genesis 1 is used in other historical narratives in the Bible. Why do you believe God was concerned with teaching man a history lesson with Genesis 1? So that man would know where he came from, and that God made him in His image and that God exists. YEC keeps trying to make a science account of a theological text. Why? Then why is YEC always at odds with scientific claims? It is OEC that is attempting to look at the creation story through the lens of scientific claims of an old earth, Big Bang, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I don't think the Bibleis a science book, but I also don't think that the Bible disagrees with modern science. "modern science" overwhelmingly espouses evolution, so I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Evolution isn't science. It is an untested hypothesis. Modern science and evolution aren't the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted January 27, 2014 So, you agree, creation should not be taught in school science classes? No, I don't Agree. I do think Evolution and Billions of Years should not be taught in school "science" classes because there is ZERO Scientific Evidence to support it... That is a very intellectually dishonest statement. There are mountains of evidence that support evolution and old earth. You should just say that you disagree with the evidence rather than say it does not exist. Also, you asked some questions of me on the One Book Thread....to which I replied too, but you have not??? Sorry, I'm not on here as often as I would like - I'll circle back and look at that thread. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) deleted Edited January 27, 2014 by jerryR34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I don't think the Bibleis a science book, but I also don't think that the Bible disagrees with modern science. "modern science" overwhelmingly espouses evolution, so I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Evolution isn't science. It is an untested hypothesis. Modern science and evolution aren't the same thing. Creation is not science either given its super-natural aspect. Should we leave both out? Could you read a Biology text and redact any of it that relies on evolution without having the text be meaningless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 27, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 27, 2014 No, I don't Agree. I do think Evolution and Billions of Years should not be taught in school "science" classes because there is ZERO Scientific Evidence to support it... That is a very intellectually dishonest statement. There are mountains of evidence that support evolution and old earth. You should just say that you disagree with the evidence rather than say it does not exist. "That is a very intellectually dishonest statement. There are mountains of evidence that support evolution and old earth. You should just say that you disagree with the evidence rather than say it does not exist." Well we're gonna see how Intellectually dishonest I am when you post this "Mountain" of evidence. State ONE @ a Time so we can fully evaluate and scrutinize each for veracity and validity. Do me a Favor, Please state whether this is Scientific Evidence or just Evidence with each one. Also Define Evolution. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Creation is not science either given its super-natural aspect. Should we leave both out? Could you read a Biology text and redact any of it that relies on evolution without having the text be meaningless? ~ Yes Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1 Scientifically, Kind Does Comes From Kind And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24-25 And Inserting Common Decent Into The Place Of Common Creator And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9 Makes Super-Natural Evolution Neither A Science Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16 Nor The Truth Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. Jeremiah 31:35-27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Explaining the Creation is nothing like describing a battle or recording conversations. Evidently the biblical writers thought it was, because the same narrative patterns in Genesis 1 is used in other historical narratives in the Bible. If you want to read Genesis 1 like a newspaper report rather than an beautiful artistic expression, fine. Be that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Explaining the Creation is nothing like describing a battle or recording conversations. Evidently the biblical writers thought it was, because the same narrative patterns in Genesis 1 is used in other historical narratives in the Bible. If you want to read Genesis 1 like a newspaper report rather than an beautiful artistic expression, fine. Be that way. Who said that a historical narrative is like a newspaper report. You are mixing genres. Historical narratives are not lacking in artistic expression. You can read historical biographies written by people who have made written expression into an art form. Again, you have things rather confused in your mind. You need to stop reacting emotionally, and respond with the kind of intellectual analytical qualities I grew so accustomed to in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts