Science and the Bible...

[*Zion*]

2 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

How can I answer a question that doesn' t make sense in the context of my posts?

And yes, I try to take everything into consideration, and not just read the bible in a language it was never written in, and in a time it was never written in, and in a culture and mindset it was never written to.

 

 

You pick the context and decide what makes sense.  Ok.  It's becoming all the more clear to me now.  Thanks.  Anything else you would like to add?

[thereselittleflower]

Just now, *Zion* said:

You pick the context and decide what makes sense.  Ok.  It's becoming all the more clear to me now.  Thanks.  Anything else you would like to add?

No Zion.

I look at the context, and don't simply decide what it must mean based on a translation only, without looking at the original language the scriptures were written in.

I have shown you from the original language there is nothing requiring an understanding these verses refer to the physical.

This is not merely my opinion, but the opinion of scholars:

Looking at the passage "we beheld his glory" again:

• Pulpit Commentary
  
  Verse 14

  And we contemplated his glory. The δόξα corresponds with the visible manifestations of the presence of Jehovah under the Old Testament (Exodus 24:17; Exodus 40:34; Acts 7:2; Isaiah 6:3; Ezekiel 1:28). Dazzling light at the burning bush, in the pillar of fire, on Mount Sinai, at the dedication of tabernacle and temple, etc., revealed the awful fact of the Divine nearness. The eye of believing men saw the real glory of the Logos made flesh when he set up the tabernacle of his humanity among us. It does not follow that all eyes must have seen what the eye of faith could see. The darkness has resisted all the light, the world has not known the Logos; the susceptibilities of believing men enabled them to perceive the glory of the Lord in regions and by a mode of presentation to which unregenerate men have not attained. The apostles saw it in the absolute moral perfection of his holiness and of his charity; of his grace and truth. We can scarcely exclude here a reference to the wondrous vision upon which (as we learn from Matthew, Mark, Luke) John himself gazed on the Mountain of Transfiguration, when the venerable symbol of Light reappeared from within the person of the Lord, so linking his personal manifestation of "the Word" with the theophanies of the Old Testament; nor can we forget the sublime vision which John undoubtedly records in the beginning of his Apocalypse. Nevertheless, the glory which the apostles beheld must be distinct from the "glory" 

  Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

  and we beheld his glory; the glory of his divine nature, which is essential to him, and underived, is equal to the Father's glory, is transcendent to all creatures, and is ineffable, and incomprehensible; some breakings forth of which there were in his incarnate state, and which were observed by the evangelist, and his companions; who, in various instances, saw plainly, that Christ was possessed of divine perfections, such as omniscience, and omnipotence; since he knew the thoughts of the heart, and could do the things he did: his Father declared him to be his beloved Son; and the miracles he wrought, and the doctrines he taught, manifested forth his glory; and not only there were some beams of his glory at his transfiguration, which were seen by the apostles, among which the Evangelist John was one, and to which he may have here a particular reference; but even at his apprehension, and death, and especially at his resurrection from the dead. 

  Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

  and we beheld his glory—not by the eye of sense, which saw in Him only "the carpenter." His glory was "spiritually discerned" (1Co 2:7-15; 2Co 3:18; 4:4, 6; 5:16)—the glory of surpassing grace, love, tenderness, wisdom, purity, spirituality; majesty and meekness, richness and poverty, power and weakness, meeting together in unique contrast; ever attracting and at times ravishing the "babes" that followed and forsook all for Him.

  Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

  The glory.—Comp. John 2:11; John 11:4. There is probably a special reference here to the Transfiguration. (See Note on Matthew 17:2, and comp. the testimony of another eye-witness in2Peter 1:17.)

  Benson Commentary

  we his disciples, beheld — Greek, εθεασαμεθα, (the word used 1 John 1:1,) contemplated his glory; and that with so strict an attention, that, from our own personal knowledge, we can testify it was, in every respect, such a glory as became the only begotten of the Father — For it shone forth, not only in his transfiguration, and in his continual miracles, but in all his tempers, ministrations, and conduct, through the whole course of his life. 

   

  Matthew Poole's Commentary
  And we beheld his glory; and we beheld the signs and effects of his glory; many of which were seen, both at the time of his transfiguration, and at his passion, resurrection, and ascension; the glory of his grace, holiness, truth, miraculous operations, &c. 

 

Shall I go on?

 

 

[*Zion*]

Good for you.  I'll take God's Word over scholars' words.  That is if I have your permission of course.

[Reinitin]

6 hours ago, Goldenshark123 said:

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but there isn't really a debate any more. Evolution has been proven 100% true by many pieces of evidence such as the fossil record, DNA ect. A more interesting question would be if it's possible that a supernatural creator oversaw evolution, perhaps helping it along a bit. I myself do not belive in god, as there is no evidence to prove he is, but I am always open to new ideas and evidence. This is what I find a little annoying in some (by no means all) religious people. They will not change their minds even if all evidence points the other way. That is the beauty of science that we base our conclusions on actual evidence.

wasn't dating layers of the earth 100% accurate until science disproved it's theory?

[thereselittleflower]

4 hours ago, *Zion* said:

Good for you.  I'll take God's Word over scholars' words.  That is if I have your permission of course.

So I, and all those scholars and everyone else who disagrees with you about what the word of God says here are wrong  . . .simply because you say so?

 

And the fact that mice and men share 99% genetic similarity means we aren't part of the animal kingdom?

 

 

[*Zion*]

Nice try.  You're the one who shows any disagreement with scripture here, not me  I don't claim to know anything, I go by God's Word.  If you want me to be wrong, sorry that is not an issue for me.  But I am determined to follow what God's Word says.  

[Goldenshark123]

There is so much evidence for evolution, I cannot explain all of it to you without taking days, but I will explain a few things.

The fossil record shows that organisms change over time. We can use carbon dating to check how old a certain fossil is, and we can use DNA and recognition testing to see what the creature is. When we look at lots of different fossils of the same creature from different times, we see that it has changed. For example; horses. Horses are one of the animals we have a complete record for by looking at fossils. 60 million years ago, the horse was a dog sized creature that lived in the rainforest. Slowly they evolved until they are the plain dwelling, 2 metre high animal we know and love today. For ease of reading I will put a diagram of this below. 

Peppered moths

 Before the industrial revolution in Britain, most peppered moths were of the pale variety. This meant that they were camouflaged against the pale birch trees that they rest on. Moths with a mutant black colouring were easily spotted and eaten by birds. This gave the white variety an advantage, and they were more likely to survive to reproduce. Pollution in industrial areas blackened the birch tree bark with soot. This meant that the mutant blackmoths were now camouflaged, while the white variety became more vulnerable to predators. This gave the black variety an advantage, and they were more likely to survive and reproduce. Over time, the black peppered moths became far more numerous in urban areas than the pale variety.

Darwin's birds

Darwin studied the wildlife on the Galápagos Islands. He noticed that the finches on the different islands there were fundamentally similar to each other, but showed wide variations in their size, beaks and claws from island to island. For example, their beaks were different depending on the local food source. Darwin concluded that, because the islands are so distant from the mainland, the finches that had arrived there in the past had changed over time.

Sedimentary rock is created when layers of sand, rock, fossils ect are compressed and turn to rock. This however takes millions of years to form. If you have a large surface area of sedimentary rock (going upwards), then you shall find that the fossils of particular animals change, and get more like the animal we know today when you get nearer the surface.

That is just a bit of the evidence for evolution, there is soooooooo much more. I challenge you to find anything that supports creation as the origin of life and species.

Again, I do not mean to offend anyone, and we are all entitled to our own opinion. Have a nice day

?

 

 

 

 

 

[Sister]

Can I give my two cents worth?

We are all created beings (creatures) even the angels are creatures.

But the animals were created on day 5 and man on day 6.  There is a separation here.

 Genesis 1:26   And God said, Let us make man in our image, AFTER OUR LIKENESS: and let them have DOMINION over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Man is way above the animal kingdom, because we are created in God's image meaning we can .... speak, read, reason, plan, design, love, discuss, build, destroy and know the difference between good and bad.  There are intelligent animals yes, but they are programmed to receive.  We learn by experience, and the animals are not given the same abilities man is given to think and act in the likeness of God, so the two can never compare.  We have been given all of God's qualities because he is raising children not pets.

Also besides man's superior intellect, I believe we do resemble God in body shape, even though he is spirit, he has a form.  He has hands, not claws, feet not flippers, hair not furr, he even wears clothes!

You only have to read revelations to see what Jesus looks like in his true form, and if he is the express image of his Father, then I guess that's what God looks like too. (Rev 1:14)

 

[Guest Thallasa]

On ‎08‎/‎02‎/‎2016 at 5:57 PM, Bonky said:

ientific inquiry runs on suspicion, doubt and criticism.  The one major appeal that scientific inquiry has over religion [my opinion] is that in science the goal is to discredit or falsify that which you believe to be true.  In religion, the goal is keep affirming.  So your definition of science makes complete sense considering that you are a theist.  I just don't want to confuse your use of that word with how we use it elsewhere in secular society.

So you think that all humanity who survived all the trials ,persécutions ,learning processes involved in family life, and survival through thousands of years were not 'scientifically ' noting and endorsing the evidence before ,them of a power and intelligence, before which they were obliged to bow down  . When they obeyed the 'voice' of this 'intelligence ' , they progessed , when they ignored it ,or rebelled directly , they fell apart , were destroyed . And they passed this observation ,this Evidence,  from one generation to another ,until they had a Body of Evidence which proved that  over time obeying this VOICE brought advancement and wholesomeness, while disobeying brought deterioration , sickness ,  corruption  and ,evil ,into their lives .  You think that believe in and Knowledge of God is not  Scientific in that it also dépends on observation and  outcomes , but you are wrong .

Until the late 18th century ,religion and scientific observation were  not seperate  issues ,and  the greatest scientists were overwhelmingly Deists at least, and most often Christians, or Jews . (not hindus ,buddhists etc  Since then we have had many experiments in living without God , in Russia , in China ,  in Germany ,in Korea and Japan and the scientific evidence is what ? Is it catalogued in Social Science studies ,no , because they are liars in the marxist  unis .

 

This is evidence, that what is considered 'science' is simply a temporary TEST by the Voice, as we come to the completion of a cycle in which God 'evolves humanity ' . The problem for me, is to be caught between creationists who say humanity is only 6000 years , and Darwinism , which says there is no Creator , and we came into being by random means ...;;At least there is hope for the former as they are connected  to Life (God ) even if they have yet to have all the Facts ,but Atheists are cut off from that (Life)  , and knowing some FACTS does not help them finally .

Atheistic science will not give up without a fight , but the period is nearly over ,and will go into the 'dustbin of history',   where  all the attampts to deny God  have gone  in the past ?

 

[ARGOSY]

24 minutes ago, Goldenshark123 said:

There is so much evidence for evolution, I cannot explain all of it to you without taking days, but I will explain a few things.

The fossil record shows that organisms change over time. We can use carbon dating to check how old a certain fossil is, and we can use DNA and recognition testing to see what the creature is. When we look at lots of different fossils of the same creature from different times, we see that it has changed. For example; horses. Horses are one of the animals we have a complete record for by looking at fossils. 60 million years ago, the horse was a dog sized creature that lived in the rainforest. Slowly they evolved until they are the plain dwelling, 2 metre high animal we know and love today. For ease of reading I will put a diagram of this below. 

Peppered moths

 Before the industrial revolution in Britain, most peppered moths were of the pale variety. This meant that they were camouflaged against the pale birch trees that they rest on. Moths with a mutant black colouring were easily spotted and eaten by birds. This gave the white variety an advantage, and they were more likely to survive to reproduce. Pollution in industrial areas blackened the birch tree bark with soot. This meant that the mutant blackmoths were now camouflaged, while the white variety became more vulnerable to predators. This gave the black variety an advantage, and they were more likely to survive and reproduce. Over time, the black peppered moths became far more numerous in urban areas than the pale variety.

Darwin's birds

Darwin studied the wildlife on the Galápagos Islands. He noticed that the finches on the different islands there were fundamentally similar to each other, but showed wide variations in their size, beaks and claws from island to island. For example, their beaks were different depending on the local food source. Darwin concluded that, because the islands are so distant from the mainland, the finches that had arrived there in the past had changed over time.

Sedimentary rock is created when layers of sand, rock, fossils ect are compressed and turn to rock. This however takes millions of years to form. If you have a large surface area of sedimentary rock (going upwards), then you shall find that the fossils of particular animals change, and get more like the animal we know today when you get nearer the surface.

That is just a bit of the evidence for evolution, there is soooooooo much more. I challenge you to find anything that supports creation as the origin of life and species.

Again, I do not mean to offend anyone, and we are all entitled to our own opinion. Have a nice day

?

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for taking up the challenge. Regarding your horse sequence:

Yes some fossils do show changes over time. I am one of those unique  creationists that believe species can adapt rapidly and so deeper layers would show differences to shallower layers.  But obviously I believe in shorter timeframes.  The horse could very well be one of those situations, but the evidence you have provided unfortunately falls short.  These fossils only show progression regarding toes/hoofs. But show no progression regarding number of ribs and vertebrae which vary considerably and in no given order. Also some fossils depicted here are from an identical time period, both the 3 toed and one toed species found in the SAME rock formation in Nebraska.  This logic merely point to the fact that there were more MORE species historically than today. Because of the high variety of species its easy to cherry pick a sequence based on one trait  (hoof/toe/foot), ignoring the other traits that would indcate that its not even the same species in mind across the sequence. 

Incidentally this logic can be applied to many so-called sequences where the huge variety of species during each age allows evolutionists to cherry pick a sequence of extinct animals that will look convincing until further analysis.