CofA: "I would suggest you look up the word "beginning" to get its definition."
So the word "beginning" refers to a time period during which something is brought into being.
CofA: "Scripture has quite a few examples of His love and caring for the animals He created, and admonitions on treating them well."
Sure, but that doesn't suggest God did not intend for humans to eat them, or that plants and animals didn't normally eat or get eaten before Adam's sin.
Nowhere does the Bible suggests such extraordinary things.
CofA: "Of course it does.
The two are completely contradictory, as has been illustrated repeatedly."
Sorry, but there comes a time in some of these exchanges where posters simply disagree for sake of disagreement, and this appears to be your time.
Even though you quoted my words verbatim, you obviously still did not understand them.
So here they are again:
BJK: "Nor does the Bible contradict the findings of science that mankind, in our present form, is the most recent of God's creations."
Think about it a moment and you'll realize that my words are exactly right, and yours are, well, a bit confused.
CofA: "It's like this: science IS a religion to some of the atheistic scientists who believe in nothing else, and who have to make evolution "fit" somehow."
While I agree that atheism is, in some sense, "a religion", I don't agree that science necessarily is.
In technical terms, the distinction is between methodological naturalism -- which all scientists, in order to be scientists, must practice in their work -- versus atheistic philosophical naturalism, which claims, yes, "religiously" you might say, that nothing else exists outside or beyond the natural realm.
Philosophical naturalism denies the existence of God or "higher truths" or virtually anything else that a scientist can not see, touch and measure.
But philosophical naturalism is absolutely not necessary to be a working scientist, and indeed, as we discussed in previous posts (i.e., #74 above), depending on how you ask the questions, from one third to two thirds of scientists claim to believe in God.
Their belief in God rules out possible acceptance of atheistic philosophical naturalism.
CofA referring to Christ Jesus: "He is God in flesh, and His Scriptures, which are God-breathed, are infallible and inerrant.
He has given us freedom to believe or not believe..."
More important, the Bible simply cannot be understood without first translation, and second interpretation.
Both processes provide lots of room for human error, opinions and disputes.
Just one small example of this we've already seen in your post #79 and my response #81 regarding declarations from the Council of Nicea in 325 AD -- confirmed and expanded in later councils, none of which can be found in precise language in the Bible itself.
To arrive at those creeds, you have to interpret the Bible, and where there is interpretation, there also are opinions, errors and disputes.
And, for whatever my opinion might be worth on this, I think that's God's intent.
These matters act like the proverbial piece of sand in an oyster, irritating and driving the poor creature to produce some of nature's small miracles -- pearls.
By analogy, possibly, pearls of wisdom?
"Has no one ever explained to you that science does not deal in "truth"?"
"Please. Don't make yourself angry"
"As for your obvious alarm over some alleged "subjectivist" notion"
"You obviously don't understand what the term "organic chemical" means"
"First, only in your own little parallel universe has evolution been "progressively disproven."
"I suspect your problem is that, having never actually studied the science of evolution, your mind is chock full of misinformation about it.
"First, a very simple question: Do you know anything whatever about woodpeckers -- have you ever actually studied them scientifically?
I thought not. So here are some basics:"
"Yes, I am familiar with the issues involved in your little "test".
"Questions like this display your collosal ignorance"
"Even though you quoted my words verbatim, you obviously still did not understand them."
"Think about it a moment and you'll realize that my words are exactly right, and yours are, well, a bit confused."
These are some examples of your posts to people on this thread. The tone of your remarks is consistently patronizing and condescending. You are hardly in a position to play the scold.
"Sure, but that doesn't suggest God did not intend for humans to eat them, or that plants and animals didn't normally eat or get eaten before Adam's sin. Nowhere does the Bible suggests such extraordinary things.
The Bible suggests all sorts of extraordinary things--by our standards, that is. Not God's. Regardless of that, this is more Alice in Wonderland down-the-rabbit-hole thinking. Do you know of a way that humans can eat animals without shedding their blood and killing them?
You DID have to look up "beginning?" Really?
"More important, the Bible simply cannot be understood without first translation, and second interpretation.
Both processes provide lots of room for human error, opinions and disputes.
Just one small example of this we've already seen in your post #79 and my response #81 regarding declarations from the Council of Nicea in 325 AD -- confirmed and expanded in later councils, none of which can be found in precise language in the Bible itself.
To arrive at those creeds, you have to interpret the Bible, and where there is interpretation, there also are opinions, errors and disputes."
When interpreting what a text says, one should logically interpret it the way someone would interpret what you or I would write. We wouldn't want others trying to read all sorts of things into our writings; neither should we do that with Scripture.
BJK, the Bible is God's love letter to us---His invaluable message of salvation, and His manual for the way we should conduct our lives. We need to approach the text with humility, with His intended meaning in mind----not with intellectual pride, believing that we're so enlightened we must know what He "really" means. As Jesus said, "I have spoken openly to the world … I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret" (John 18:20).
If your friend sends you an email which says, "Can you drive me to work tomorrow?", what do you assume it means? Well, just what it says. You don't sit and think about it, and twist it around in your mind until you decide, "Maybe he's saying he's going to get a divorce."
Well....maybe you do, BJK. You've already debated whether we're really washing machines, and whether another Freeper is a banana. Do you see what you get out of that kind of thinking? Nothing concrete, nothing logical, nothing even remotely sensible. Approaching Scripture in such a manner is very unwise.
“The entrance of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple” (Psalm 119:130)" See? Nothing esoteric or complicated there. Jesus was always saying, "Have you not read?" Why would He say that if the meaning of Scripture wasn't plain?
As for the evolution mess, I believe there are many folks---not necessarily you, but I don't know you----who think they MUST tout evolution or be counted among the toothless, snake-charming hillbillies who believe in a literal creation. The only thing that matters to me is what Scripture says. Anything which can be shown to contradict it, such as evolution, is by definition false.
I'm going to have to leave it here...you're right in that we're never going to agree, so we're using up bandwidth for nothing. Also, I don't have the time for these long posts!
If you're not done, I give you the last word. :) Peace, friend.