Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not really. I believe the Bible to be literally true where it is supposed to be taken literally.
Like I said before, It take it literally so that between Genesis 1:1 to 1:2 that the earth BECAME chaos and vacant and verse 2 onward is God making the earth habitable again thus allowing for millions of years.
The genealogy of the bible does not prove the earth was created 6,000 years ago. It just proves mankind began 6,000 years ago.
Well that's just as bad as believing that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Why? Because to believe that a Biblical genealogy is the last word on human origins given all that we know today is just silly.
Well that's just as bad as believing that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Why? Because to believe that a Biblical genealogy is the last word on human origins given all that we know today is just silly.
What's interesting to note is why the Gap theory was even originally proposed and popularized. It's timing was very telling.
Originally Posted by Eusebius Not really. I believe the Bible to be literally true where it is supposed to be taken literally.
Like I said before, It take it literally so that between Genesis 1:1 to 1:2 that the earth BECAME chaos and vacant and verse 2 onward is God making the earth habitable again thus allowing for millions of years.
The genealogy of the bible does not prove the earth was created 6,000 years ago. It just proves mankind began 6,000 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Well that's just as bad as believing that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Why? Because to believe that a Biblical genealogy is the last word on human origins given all that we know today is just silly.
No, it is just that science has not matured yet to see that the Biblical genealogy is historically correct and disproves human evolution. Some scientists have matured enough in their science to see it.
No, it is just that science has not matured yet to see that the Biblical genealogy is historically correct and disproves human evolution. Some scientists have matured enough in their science to see it.
Not really. It is not self defeating. God did not originally create the earth a chaos:
Isa_45:18 For thus says Yahweh, Creator of the heavens; He is the Elohim, and Former of the earth, and its Maker, and He, He established it. He did not create it a chaos. He formed it to be indwelt. "I am Yahweh, and there is none else."
Therefore, if He did not create it a chaos in Genesis 1:1 but to be indwelt, it therefore BECAME a chaos and vacant in 1:2.
I was going to reply, but you did the same already, and probably shorter than I would.
Its also evident in Genesis 1 that God created some things and did not create others. If something is first-time-ever new, it was "created".
If it existed already, it can't be created.
In Genesis 1, after the Earth was (literally "became") without form and void, God spoke plant into being. But did not say he "created" them. It implies or denotes they already existed sometime in past history.
No, it is just that science has not matured yet to see that the Biblical genealogy is historically correct and disproves human evolution. Some scientists have matured enough in their science to see it.
No, I'd say that science has matured plenty in the last 400 years, certainly enough to dispel any notion that Bishop Ussher's ridiculous genealogy is of any significant scientific merit.
After all, it was a devout Catholic who made the observation:
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Isn't it wonderful that we can today make such observations without the risk of home incarceration?
I just had a quick Google to see the general view of the Nye-Ham debate. It seems pretty clear that the overwhelming view is that Nye won by a long way and the only demurral is about whether the Science Guy should have engaged in debate at all. There is no doubt in my mind. It was necessary that he should and the results have completely vindicated his choice to have the debate.
No, it is just that science has not matured yet to see that the Biblical genealogy is historically correct and disproves human evolution. Some scientists have matured enough in their science to see it.
No, it is just that science has not matured yet to see that the Biblical genealogy is historically correct and disproves human evolution. Some scientists have matured enough in their science to see it.
Well that's odd ... because it would seem to me that maturity goes in the opposite direction, from religion to science and not the other way around.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
