Knowledge or Science, falsely so called.

[Mr. M]

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

The OP use of "science" (gnosis) in the quoted translation is equivocating on the modern use of the word. Based on the time and context of "gnosis", it is most likely related to the growing issue of Gnosticism, rather than a warning against modern scientific theories arising in the last 200 years.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, LiveWire said:

There could several connections here to many sorts of things, but, the original Greek, does not use the word, Science, in this Verse.

That is planted by the OP.

That is deception.

The citation used in the OP is from the King James translation.

It was not planted as a means of deception, and is unaffected by

ideas about gnosis that have arisen in the last 200 years.

Nor is the issue translating science vs knowledge, because the 

issue as stated by Paul is "gnosis FALSELY SO CALLED", and by 

context, this false knowledge, or the misinterpretation of facts,

causes some to stray from the faith. Attempts to define his concerns

narrowly or specifically contradicts his concerns for purity

of the knowledge of God.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing

that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into

captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

The only postulation made by the OP that could be construed as doctrine,

false or otherwise, is the need for greater prayer support for ministry, as

demonstrated by the scriptures quoted in the OP. And yet, no one wanted to

talk about prayer. Evolution and bio-science got good coverage, but that was

not the topic of the thread, or a reflection of what was presented in post #1,

or a follow-up to re-iterate the actual intent of the thread. Apparently, and I 

know this from experience, is that many people think they know the topic

from the title.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Mr. M
amend title

[Mr. M]

On 6/2/2023 at 6:07 PM, Mr. M said:

Paul taught by the Holy Spirit. The Word of God by definition should prevail over the opposition from the ideas of man, and sciences, so called. Therefore, the prayers made on behalf of ministry outreach has to be directed towards the hearts of those who will hear the message. Prayer is an essential element of kingdom building. Assuming we can agree that prayer is submission first and foremost.

Colossians 4:2-6 Continue earnestly in prayer, being vigilant in it with thanksgiving; meanwhile praying also for us, that God would open to us a door for the word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in chains, that I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak. Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time. Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.

 

On 6/3/2023 at 8:00 AM, Mr. M said:

The thread is not about the efficacy of science.

Yes true science by its very nature is observation of God in action.

Romans 1:20-22 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.

The issue is the means of defeating the deceptions spun by unreasonable people, trying to use science to oppose the Creator of science, hence Paul's formulation 

@LiveWire

[BeyondET]

8 hours ago, Mr. M said:

 

The citation used in the OP is from the King James translation.

It was not planted as a means of deception, and is unaffected by

ideas about gnosis that have arisen in the last 200 years.

Nor is the issue translating science vs knowledge, because the 

issue as stated by Paul is "gnosis FALSELY SO CALLED", and by 

context, this false knowledge, or the misinterpretation of facts,

causes some to stray from the faith. Attempts to define his concerns

narrowly or specifically contradicts his concerns for purity

of the knowledge of God.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing

that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into

captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

The only postulation made by the OP that could be construed as doctrine,

false or otherwise, is the need for greater prayer support for ministry, as

demonstrated by the scriptures quoted in the OP. And yet, no one wanted to

talk about prayer. Evolution and bio-science got good coverage, but that was

not the topic of the thread, or a reflection of what was presented in post #1,

or a follow-up to re-iterate the actual intent of the thread. Apparently, and I 

know this from experience, is that many people think they know the topic

from the title.

So what is the difference between man's ideas and sciences. In your OP you stated both. Knowledge is man's ideas and what is the sciences you mentioned?

Edited June 5, 2023 by BeyondET

[Who me]

On 6/3/2023 at 7:18 PM, JohnR7 said:

Actually just the opposite. At the core of evolutionary theory is the concept of natural selection, which was proposed by Charles Darwin. Natural selection is a process by which organisms with certain advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing those traits on to subsequent generations. This mechanism, along with other evolutionary processes such as genetic mutation and genetic drift, contributes to the gradual change and adaptation of species over time.

Natural selection is a demonstrable process, while the benefits of mutation and genetic drift are not so easily proved.

[Ray12614]

15 hours ago, teddyv said:

The OP use of "science" (gnosis) in the quoted translation is equivocating on the modern use of the word. Based on the time and context of "gnosis", it is most likely related to the growing issue of Gnosticism, rather than a warning against modern scientific theories arising in the last 200 years.

 

 

 

Interesting . . . I had never considered that point . . .  I will definitely check it out.

Thanks . . . Ray . . . 

[FJK]

On 6/3/2023 at 12:18 PM, JohnR7 said:

This mechanism, along with other evolutionary processes such as genetic mutation and genetic drift, contributes to the gradual change and adaptation of species over time.

I'm a little out of the loop nowadays, so I have to ask:

Genetic mutations obviously happen, but how often have we observed genetic mutations that contribute to the survivability of the offspring and are passed on to descending generations with positive results for the species as a whole and of those descendants how often is the mutation of a significant enough 9f a nature that it results in being unable to breed with the original species?

[Mr. M]

6 hours ago, BeyondET said:

So what is the difference between man's ideas and sciences. In your OP you stated both. Knowledge is man's ideas and what is the sciences you mentioned?

I did not mention any science because the issue is any knowledge used by "unreasonable men" to undermine faith, applied in opposition to the knowledge of God. Paul labels this knowledge (science) "falsely so called". I have studied and applied science and engineering my whole life and have never questioned my faith in God as a result. Paul prays that this does not hinder the Gospel going forward.

2 Thessalonians 3:1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run swiftly and be glorified, just as it is with you, 2 and that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men; for not all have faith.

The thread was never about science, but about prayer for those who hear the word of faith to receive truth unhindered by knowledge "falsely so called", used by "unreasonable and wicked men" to oppose faith in God.

15 hours ago, Mr. M said:

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing

that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into

captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

 

[JohnR7]

7 hours ago, Who me said:

Natural selection is a demonstrable process, while the benefits of mutation and genetic drift are not so easily proved.

Science has a half life of about 50 years and then something new comes along to replace existing information. scientific ideas and models may become outdated or superseded over time as new evidence emerges or new theories are developed.

[JohnR7]

5 hours ago, FJK said:

Genetic mutations obviously happen, but how often have we observed genetic mutations that contribute to the survivability of the offspring and are passed on to descending generations with positive results for the species as a whole and of those descendants how often is the mutation of a significant enough 9f a nature that it results in being unable to breed with the original species?

The occurrence of mutations that prevent individuals from breeding with the original species, known as reproductive isolation, is a critical step in the formation of new species. This process, called speciation, typically occurs gradually over long periods of time. Speciation can be driven by various factors, including geographic isolation, changes in mating preferences, or genetic incompatibilities that prevent successful reproduction between populations.

One of the primary reasons for the existence of male and female individuals in many sexually reproducing species is to facilitate genetic recombination. 

Genetic recombination through sexual reproduction provides several advantages for a species. It enhances genetic variation within a population, which can increase the adaptability and survival of the species in changing environments. It also helps in the elimination of harmful mutations by allowing the masking of deleterious genetic variations through the combination of different alleles from the two parents.

Reproduction enables the potential for natural selection to act more efficiently. It allows for the shuffling and mixing of advantageous genetic traits, which can lead to the emergence of offspring with improved fitness and survival capabilities. The ability to adapt to changing conditions and the generation of diverse offspring are crucial factors in the long-term evolutionary success of a species.

[JohnR7]

7 hours ago, Who me said:

Natural selection is a demonstrable process, while the benefits of mutation and genetic drift are not so easily proved.

The reason for male & female is the recombination of the genes which gives a species the ability to adapt to changes in the environment.  If individuals do not reproduce their genes become eliminated from the species. Although aunts and uncles can preserve their genes, though nieces and nephews.