Pope: Creationism, Evolution Not at Odds

[Massorite]

What a joke! It only took who ever long it took to arrest, convict and crucify Christ on the cross. But it took 4000 years of Gods processes to get man to the place of excepting Christ.

really?

God's work of salvation is immediate, the generations of men and the time period associated with that are so that the full number God has allotted might be saved

You are in a state of self blindedness. If God wanted to He could have raised Christ, convicted Him and killed Him for an atonement all on the very next day after the fall of Adam. But instead He shed the blood of animals to give Adam and Eve cloths to wear. So open your mind and tell me why He didn't do that the very next day after the fall of Adam?

open my mind to what? your erroneous understanding? the animal sacrifices were simply a picture of Christ's sacrifice...why was that period necessary? in my opinion (based on scripture), to demonstrate the futility of man attempting to keep the Law; but, anyway, all I know is Christ died for sin at the time God the Father wanted it to occur

Romans 5

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Christ's sacrifice, although yet future at the time of Moses, covered all who would be saved both before the cross and after it "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13)...Moses lifted up the serpent as yet another picture of the humiliating sacrifice the Son of God would endure for men loved by the Father

Wake Up Man. What you speak of is biblically unsound.

interesting...amidst your many accusations, not one scripture

Oh well. No more pearls for you.

[RedNick261]

??

Still nothing?

[ted]

??

Still nothing?

Sometimes it's better that way.

t.

[RedNick261]

It wasn't an answer, it was a personal attack, therefore it did not justify a rebuttal. If you had presented a single fact or idea other than that I am an idiot who lacks discernment, I would have had something rebut. My questions and statements still stand. If you would care to prove yourself worthy of this discussion, please respond to them.

[Guest]

WHO ME! HIS PEOPLE?

It Has Pleased The LORD

For the LORD will not forsake his people for his great name's sake: because it hath pleased the LORD to make you his people.

Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way:

Only fear the LORD, and serve him in truth with all your heart: for consider how great things he hath done for you.

1 Samuel 12:22-24

Glory

But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

Galatians 6:14

Be Blessed Beloved Brothers

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Your Brother Joe

[arvy]

Wouldn't Jesus have to use teminolgy that the people of the day would understand? I mean what was a fossil to them?

Very good point.

And what would 14 billion years (the scientific age of the universe) mean to them? They didn't even have numbers that big!

The Bible's first readers simply couldn't accept a plainly written Genesis. It wouldn't make sense to them. Luckily the exact age of the universe is not terribly important to our spiritual salvation. Jesus is. That's what matters, and that's why figurative language sufficed in Genesis.

arvy 'ere, mates,

on Popes, Protestants, Bible, language, Science, and heresy.

I am familiar with a number of varied views about the origin of the universe, the earth, and the life forms upon thte earth. I am also familiar with the Bible use of the word "science" (Dan. 1:4, 1 Tim.1:20)as per context. And of the word heresy, as relative to "heretics," in context. I have no difficulty perceiving the knowable facts presented from Genesis will firmly agree.

I believe most people have intelligence for firm logical reasoning to percieve by hearing and sight what they may not be able to explain by verbal expression.

In almost every language, inclusive of Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English, our expressions, no matter what the label of the literary form may be, is more of a descriptve nature than of the definitive (i.e. connotation, denotation)of the words themselve. The definitve is too often dwelt upon by theologian's attempts to lock the minds of hearers into his or her mode of assumed, or presumptuous doctrinal logic. As per description from context, Daniel's referencial useage of the word "science" is limited to specific persons who lay claim to known facts concerning the earth and the universe: facts known to them in the era of Babylon.

So we may be sure that Daniel was cultured among persons of "scientific" of that time in history. But was their culturing without the imagination that tended toward "science falsley so called?" Absolutely not, They of then were often guide in their thought processes by either their own power for imagining, and/or thier "religious orientations," Pagan or Hebraic.

Now as per the "Hebraic" description, now translated to our English Language. Should we be so technical of the Hebrew language itself as to disrupt the flow of the "scientific" descriptive order with regard to its reflections toward true science relative to the natural sequence from energy (as per "evenings and mornings") to natural states of the known elements from: gas > liquid > solid. Or of the natural "scientific" sequencial order of vegetation, in full maturity for reproduction. Or of the life in the waters of the streams, rivers, lakes and seas, in their maturity. Followed by the land creatures in their maturity. Followed by God's own personal touch of the hand, forming of the elements of the earth, the first two humans, male and the Female, within the same period stated to be the sixth "even and morning," to populate his work work of Creating. Both receiving the breath of life into their "nostrils" that same "day." And Both beginning life in the MATURE form.

Now if we can follow the logic sequence presented from Gen. chapters 1-2 presented to us through Moses who was God's penman for Origins ("Genesis") we will find this manner of Creation by design and expression by statment and order is affirmed by the prophet David in Psalms 33:1-11, 'God spoke and the objects of His intents became physical reality.'

If we, who name the name of God in Christ, and proclaim His prophetic "Virgin Birth" into this world; __ Yet deny the expressive power of God to Create "In a moment, in the twinkling of the eye."

How shall we escape the mind of our own Hypocrical testimonial for Him whom we say we TRUST for our hope of Resurrection (RECREATION)unto everlasting life "at the last day?"

"Remember the Seventh Day, The Sabbath of the Lord your God, to keep it holy ... For in six days, the lord made the heaven and the earth, and rested the seventh day: Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy."

As per "heretic, or heresy." That is simply a word whether of the Bible of of the dictionary synonymous of the word "opinion." Now we know that the Bible as a whole, nor the context of Titus 3:10 (Acts 24:14; 1 Cor.11:19; Gal. 5:20; 2 Pet. 2:1) is not opposed to any person simply having an opinion. That is until that "opinion" is propagated against the intent of God's own words of instruction for sound belief as per the MIND of Christ, who himself is stated by the very scripture to be the AUTHOR of BOTH Creation and Salvation.

Never the less we are free to continue to hold even to our heretical, or to reject such views for God's eveer present operations which are "more certain for hope beyond the perceptions of the evolutionary mind: But one then must move his or her mind to conformity with "the Mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:1-16*) for His second coming and "the first resurrection" "at the last day."

[Jorge S]

arvy 'ere, mates, ...

Very articulate post, Arvy. I agree with you 100%. Thanks and Welcome.

[Jorge S]

now, if you're a darwinist, you have to arbitrarily force fit vast imaginary epochs into that account,

And if you are a YEC you have to believe that every single measurement and tool that we have used and continue to use on a dialy basis to know our surroundings is wrong. Not a little bit wrong, but so wrong that the only explanation is that God has deceived us. Which is more likely to be incorrect, the way we interpret the bible, or the way we see the world around us, with regard to how old it is?

Take it where it leads you, brother. Don't back off!

Problem: Radiometry asigns grossly disproportionate ages to a young universe.

Fact: God cannot deceive us.

Fact: The Bible consistently speaks of a young world.

Question: What can be wrong?

Disclaimer: It's hard to shift well-established paradigms.

Inspirational Quotes:

Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

1Pe 2:1-3 Therefore laying aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and envyings, and all evil speakings, desire the sincere milk of the Word, as newborn babes, so that you may grow by it; if truly you have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

[MorningGlory]

hopefully you'll never be asked to make the choice between your faith in the human practice of science and your faith in God and the scriptures, but I believe the Lord would be diappointed with your current position

What, declining to use my life in a wager? I don't hink so.

Is everyone speaking in riddles today? "I don't hink so"????

[Guest Chris777]

Actually there isnt any evidence supporting evolution, only evidence of adaption which has never ever passed species lines. There is no living transitional form and it should exist everywhere if darwins theory was true and darwin even admitted this! neither is there evidence that a genetic mutation can add information in the genome. The pope is deceived. And it doesnt surprise me tbh when the catholic church already supports non biblical ideas like praying to saints/mary, and catholics rarely read the Bible instead they read catholic literature ( at least my grandma does.) Why is this forum called science vs faith? science is evidence for faith the law of probability and 2nd law of thermodynamics support creationism and also you cannot go from one distinct form to another without evidence of transitional form (ie.. half monkey half men etc) everywhere there isnt any period end of story.

Edited September 15, 2007 by Chris777