Just to be sure, is it your contention that Hagar and Sarah were not real individuals? That the events were not historical?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
An attempt to let Science interpret Scripture
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
Such as ....?Today’s students of biology cannot study genetics without bumping into perplexing questions that challenge simple theories of our origins.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Then why do you believe He let millions of years pass, when He is able to simply speak what He wants into creation? That is absurd, in many opinions expressed here.
Your post basically expresses my thought and why I used the expression:
But many attempts that try to explain the creative activity of God picture Him as One who has to try, try, and try again.
Theistic evolution has all the facets of evolution except time and chance are replaced by deity.
Your post basically expresses my thought and why I used the expression:
Theistic evolution has all the facets of evolution except time and chance are replaced by deity.
And no theistic evolutionists say the two cannot be reconciled and think theistic evolutionists are foolish and have no credibility.
One of the things that is funny about this thread is the title.
Science interpret Scripture??
NO!!!
NEVER!!!
God FORBID!!!
Science just means knowledge. And I really do think that the poster exposed and inadvertently admitted his fatal flaw in this Freudian slip.
He does not use knowledge when he interprets Scripture.
A further point would be that we use hermeneutics to properly interpret the Scripture. We don't just interpret it willy-nilly any way we feel.
There is a proper WAY to interpret Scripture. We have to get our hermeneutics right.
Do you remember what hermeneutics is?
It is the SCIENCE of interpreting Scripture.
Science.
SCIENCE.
The SCIENCE of interpreting scripture.
Oh, how I wish more people would use science to interpret Scripture!
This debate probably would not exist.
Science interpret Scripture??
NO!!!
NEVER!!!
God FORBID!!!
Science just means knowledge. And I really do think that the poster exposed and inadvertently admitted his fatal flaw in this Freudian slip.
He does not use knowledge when he interprets Scripture.
A further point would be that we use hermeneutics to properly interpret the Scripture. We don't just interpret it willy-nilly any way we feel.
There is a proper WAY to interpret Scripture. We have to get our hermeneutics right.
Do you remember what hermeneutics is?
It is the SCIENCE of interpreting Scripture.
Science.
SCIENCE.
The SCIENCE of interpreting scripture.
Oh, how I wish more people would use science to interpret Scripture!
This debate probably would not exist.
Some people really need to think before they post. Good grief:BangHead:
quantumfaith
Active Member
Some people really need to think before they post. Good grief:BangHead:
Now those are some wise words. Perhaps everyone should consider this.
Then you believe God contradicts Himself, because He clearly, CLEARLY states in Genesis 1 and 2 that He did exactly as I said, speaking creation into existence. There is no basis whatsoever to believe He used evolution. None.
And I in no post I have posted anywhere have ever said anything evolved.
I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I believe in six periods of twenty four hours each God renewed the heavens and the earth and on the sixth period of twenty four hours he created Adam in his own image for the purpose of, in the fullness of time to send his Son into this renewed system of order, born of woman taken from the man created in his image, for the purpose of death in order to destroy him who has the power of death that is the devil, thus redeeming that which had succumbed to that power unto himself. Reconciled.
BTW REV I though about it before posting.
Last edited by a moderator:
You know what he meant. He meant what the institutions of science mean when they say "science." They mean Naturalism.One of the things that is funny about this thread is the title.
Science interpret Scripture??
NO!!!
NEVER!!!
God FORBID!!!
Science just means knowledge. And I really do think that the poster exposed and inadvertently admitted his fatal flaw in this Freudian slip.
He does not use knowledge when he interprets Scripture.
A further point would be that we use hermeneutics to properly interpret the Scripture. We don't just interpret it willy-nilly any way we feel.
There is a proper WAY to interpret Scripture. We have to get our hermeneutics right.
Do you remember what hermeneutics is?
It is the SCIENCE of interpreting Scripture.
Science.
SCIENCE.
The SCIENCE of interpreting scripture.
Oh, how I wish more people would use science to interpret Scripture!
This debate probably would not exist.
You know what he meant. He meant what the institutions of science mean when they say "science." They mean Naturalism.
Seriously anyone who has to have the explained to them is either thoughtless or just could not reasonably contribute to a thread Forest Gump created
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
And I in no post I have posted anywhere have ever said anything evolved.
I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I believe in six periods of twenty four hours each God renewed the heavens and the earth and on the sixth period of twenty four hours he created Adam in his own image for the purpose of, in the fullness of time to send his Son into this renewed system of order, born of woman taken from the man created in his image, for the purpose of death in order to destroy him who has the power of death that is the devil, thus redeeming that which had succumbed to that power unto himself. Reconciled.
BTW REV I though about it before posting.
I assume you believe in the "Gap Theory".
I assume you believe in the "Gap Theory".
Yes sir, I have so stated. I also believe in the literal seven, twenty four hour days, of which the darkness of Satan or the light of God may be walked in.
I also believe that God must turn us from the darkness unto the light.
I would like your thoughts on my post to you in post 32 I think it was concerning those scriptures. And BTW the way in my opinion all this is for discussion. I will judge no man for his thoughts concerning our thoughts concerning the scriptures. I want God judging myself and all others because I understand I may not be right.
Last edited by a moderator:
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
How does this indicate an indeterminate separation of time between v. and v. 2? That escapes me.However the very fact that the Holy Spirit inspired Moses to use the word עָשָׂה
'asah does not appear in Exodus 20:8, which is the commandment of the Sabbath. The word does appear in Exodus 34:10 -- as well as 268 other times in the book. In Exodus 34:10, the NASB translates it "perform," for example. In Psalm 34:16, it is translated "evildoers." How could this multifaceted word convince you of anything regarding the false "gap theory"?`asah in Ex. 20:8 causes me to believe Genesis 1 is a separate accounting ...
Last edited by a moderator:
How does this indicate an indeterminate separation of time between v. and v. 2? That escapes me.
'asah does not appear in Exodus 20:8, which is the commandment of the Sabbath. The word does appear in Exodus 34:10 -- as well as 268 other times in the book. In Exodus 34:10, the NASB translates it "perform," for example. In Psalm 34:16, it is translated "evildoers." How could this multifaceted word convince you of anything regarding the false "gap theory"?
Glad you caught that. Sorry I meant Ex 20:11 where, "`asah," is used relative to the heavens and the earth.
The asah there in Ex. 20:11 referring to the renewing of the heavens and earth from 2 thru 31 of Gen 1, contrasted to bara' being used in verse 1 of Gen 1 of the creation of the heavens and the earth.
OR in post 23 used Ex 20:11 to show the six days of Gen 1 to cover 1-31 whereas I believe other than those things shown in those verses as saying they were specifically created as man the rest was a making, or renewing of something previously created.
Last edited by a moderator:
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Sorry, Percho, but that proves nothing. Both words have been translated "perform," "accomplish," "make," "made," etc. The fact that Moses chose a different word in Exodus 20:11 than he did in Genesis 1:1 is not significant.The asah there in Ex. 20:11 referring to the renewing of the heavens and earth from 2 thru 31 of Gen 1, contrasted to bara' being used in verse 1 of Gen 1 of the creation of the heavens and the earth.
Perhaps you would be interested in the post Aaron put up on News/Current Events.
Nuclear Physicist Embraces Biblical Creation
Sorry, Percho, but that proves nothing. Both words have been translated "perform," "accomplish," "make," "made," etc. The fact that Moses chose a different word in Exodus 20:11 than he did in Genesis 1:1 is not significant.
Perhaps you would be interested in the post Aaron put up on News/Current Events.
Nuclear Physicist Embraces Biblical Creation
I did not say it proved anything. One word is found 54 times in the word and is translated 43 times create the other is found over 2600 times in the word and is never translated as create.
I believe there is a profound difference in the two words especially relative to the heavens and the earth and also Adam and any thing else relative to bara.