Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Could you point out where MrB states that the Bible has to be taken literally? I scanned his posting history and found no comment to that effect.
Interesting. Item6 under general:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. "
Of course, they (and you?) neglect the fact that if people are fallible, then the people interpreting the bible are subject to making wrong interpretations of the Bible. hmmmmm.......
as described in Genesis
As described in Genesis .... Man was alone and God found that that was not good so he set out to create for Adam a help-mate and so he created all the animals from the earth and brought them to Adam but Adam found them wanting so he created Woman from Adam.
Translation: God created Adam, then the animals THEN Eve.
I’ve got the Good News, Student Bible (my favorite because it explains alot), King James and NLT and I’d invite you look at Genesis 1: 24-28.
Here it’s crystal clear that the order is animals (from the earth by the way)...man (also from earth) and then woman (from Adam).
I’m not so sure what your point in all this is...the sequence of creation.
Two things:
1. It helps to read scripture in context with ALL scripture to get a better overall understanding.
2. To fully understand the word of God it helps to be in the Lord’s will.
Actually it’s essential.
If you’re motive is a gotcha in the first place...the likelihood that it’ll be YOU that gets GOT are very high!
Actually, he said that Jesus said ...
Jesus referred often to Genesis and Moses’ writings as literal and historical.
If science isn't about truth or proof, then what's the problem?
Science is altered all the time. What's *true* today is not likely to be *true* next week or next year.
Why should we alter the Bible to fit something that is constantly changing?
I just love how evos and scientists have fits about someone not accepting their latest pronouncements about "scientific" advances and then later go on to change that very thing themselves when it suits their needs (the one where there's so much evidence that they can't NOT change it without looking like fools).
Like with the steady state theory that held such sway at the beginning of the century. The scientific community held to the steady state theory of the universe, to the point where Einstein engaged in fraud by adding the cosmologic constant to his formulas for make them fit the theory instead of adjusting the theory to fit the data. The only ones who had reason to believe that the universe had a beginning were the Bible believing Christians.
That is, until Hubble's observations confirmed that Einsteins original equations were correct and he had no choice but to admit that he was wrong and remove the constant.
In that case, there was a conflict between Scripture and science and look at who was right.
So what's the problem with adjusting science to fit the Bible again?
So much for scientific integrity.
How do you take into context that God said it was not good that man was alone so THEN he created the animals and presented them to Adam and THEN when Adam rejected the animals, God created woman for Adam?
Of course, evos neglect the fact that if people are fallible, then the people interpreting the fossil record are subject to making wrong interpretations of the fossil record. hmmmmm....... indeed....
Uh, you have been reading too much from creationwiki.com. They did NOT adjust science to fit the Bible but to fit the evidence presented. Much like the scientists adjusted from the sun revolving around the earth to the earth revolving around the sun to fit the new evidence.
creationwike.com????
you mean ‘wire’ or something?
You’re misunderstanding so much I don’t know where to begin.
Ummmm how did you get Adam “rejected” animals for instance? Did he reject them in one way but perhaps accepted them in another?
Where?
You are ignoring Genesis 2:18 .... where it specifically states that God made the animials AFTER finding that it was not good for man to be alone.
A few posts back from here on this thread where all this started.
Where does it say that Adam rejected the animals? Sources? Chapter and verse?
"but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."
And that was their problem because the Bible was right. But in their arrogance they thought they knew better than God. No wonder they keep trying to get rid of Him. Their ego can't stand the competition.
No. Scientists accept that people are fallible. Why do you try to misrepresent the facts.
Chapter and verse where Jesus said you have to take Scripture literally?
Of course, they (and you?) neglect the fact that if people are fallible, then the people interpreting the bible are subject to making wrong interpretations of the Bible. hmmmmm.......
Of course, evos neglect the fact that if people are fallible, then the people interpreting the fossil record are subject to making wrong interpretations of the fossil record. hmmmmm....... indeed....
that’s gonna leave a mark!
HERE’S HOW IT WORKS...godless liberals are objective and don’t make any mistakes...
just like their worldview can’t be taken literally or “isn’t the same thing” when they demand the Bible be held up to such scrutiny.
It’s easy if you work backwards, inside out and into contortions of all kinds, as long as you demand to be angry at God!
Seriously, I suppose it’s sensical if you’re as deluded as the next guy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.