-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
There is no such thing as being able to look at the evidence without bias, it's just not possible. While I'm very glad that your faith hasn't been weakened by theistic evolutionary beliefs, there are plenty of Christians who have, to the point where they no longer believe and are some of the most rabid and hateful atheists out there. Evolution/old-age creation beliefs etc. have proven to be major stumbling blocks. If we can't believe what God says at the beginning of His Word, why should we believe any of it?
Also, why separate faith and real world issues? That's the problem, yes? But God is Lord of all, yes? Lord of every part of your life? Faith is a real world issue, especially for that of a Christian. Millions of Christians believe it, so it must be true? You seriously can't tell me you take that stance.
Of course to a certain extent, we all pick and choose but we should choose to believe in light of the context of the books of the Bible, not to make God in our own image.
For example: poetic language in Psalms shouldn't be used to support an old-age creation etc.
The Gospel of Judas? Come on, get real! That's Gnostic rubbish. The Bible canon was brought together by godly men inspired by the Holy Spirit. To suggest man decided in the long-term, is wrong. Finally, as a Christian I believe you should look at your faith from all facets, not just a historical perspective. If you really do take the historical perspective, and believe evolution is a viable understanding of the world in which we live, why don't you read the Book of Genesis as plain history? That's the context in which it was written!
Also, why separate faith and real world issues? That's the problem, yes? But God is Lord of all, yes? Lord of every part of your life? Faith is a real world issue, especially for that of a Christian. Millions of Christians believe it, so it must be true? You seriously can't tell me you take that stance.
Of course to a certain extent, we all pick and choose but we should choose to believe in light of the context of the books of the Bible, not to make God in our own image.
For example: poetic language in Psalms shouldn't be used to support an old-age creation etc.
The Gospel of Judas? Come on, get real! That's Gnostic rubbish. The Bible canon was brought together by godly men inspired by the Holy Spirit. To suggest man decided in the long-term, is wrong. Finally, as a Christian I believe you should look at your faith from all facets, not just a historical perspective. If you really do take the historical perspective, and believe evolution is a viable understanding of the world in which we live, why don't you read the Book of Genesis as plain history? That's the context in which it was written!
Last edited by a moderator:
Aye fair enough, we know God stopped the Sun, but like you say, if the Spherical Earth is spinning at 1000 mph around the Sun; why not everything fly off its face?
Seems to me if we pre-suppose Earth is a Sphere either it stopped spinning or the Sun revolves around the Earth and halted in its orbit.
If we pre-suppose Earth is a Disc either the Sun circuits around the Earth and paused in its circuit or the Disc stopped spinning.
So I guess we are back to good old Geocentrcism vs Heliocentricism, lol the Debate of all atheist and religious scholars for millenia lol.
Seems to me if we pre-suppose Earth is a Sphere either it stopped spinning or the Sun revolves around the Earth and halted in its orbit.
If we pre-suppose Earth is a Disc either the Sun circuits around the Earth and paused in its circuit or the Disc stopped spinning.
So I guess we are back to good old Geocentrcism vs Heliocentricism, lol the Debate of all atheist and religious scholars for millenia lol.
Last edited:
T
Gah. It should read:
Jamie: If you really do take the historical perspective as you say you do, how is it that you believe evolution is a viable understanding of the world in which we live? Why don't you choose to read the Book of Genesis as plain history? That's the context in which it was written!
Jamie: If you really do take the historical perspective as you say you do, how is it that you believe evolution is a viable understanding of the world in which we live? Why don't you choose to read the Book of Genesis as plain history? That's the context in which it was written!
R
The word "for" is kiy which IS in the original..... in this verse the word create (bara) is NOT used, the word used is asah translated as made... which means: A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application: - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fight-] ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.
In Genesis 1:1 the word bara (A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).
is used, thereafter the word asah is used....... I AM reading the original text, not a translation of it
In Genesis 1:1 the word bara (A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).
is used, thereafter the word asah is used....... I AM reading the original text, not a translation of it
T
Reee,
1:2 Now[SUP] 5 [/SUP] the earth[SUP] 6 [/SUP] was without shape and empty,[SUP] 7 [/SUP] and darkness[SUP] 8 [/SUP] was over the surface of the watery deep,[SUP] 9 [/SUP] but the Spirit of God[SUP] 10 [/SUP] was moving[SUP] 11 [/SUP] over the surface[SUP] 12 [/SUP] of the water.
The NET Bible commentary:
Some translate 1:2a “and the earth became,” arguing that v. 1 describes the original creation of the earth, while v. 2 refers to a judgment that reduced it to a chaotic condition. Verses 3ff. then describe the re-creation of the earth. However, the disjunctive clause at the beginning of v. 2 cannot be translated as if it were relating the next event in a sequence. If v. 2 were sequential to v. 1, the author would have used the vav consecutive followed by a prefixed verbal form and the subject.
1:2 Now[SUP] 5 [/SUP] the earth[SUP] 6 [/SUP] was without shape and empty,[SUP] 7 [/SUP] and darkness[SUP] 8 [/SUP] was over the surface of the watery deep,[SUP] 9 [/SUP] but the Spirit of God[SUP] 10 [/SUP] was moving[SUP] 11 [/SUP] over the surface[SUP] 12 [/SUP] of the water.
The NET Bible commentary:
Some translate 1:2a “and the earth became,” arguing that v. 1 describes the original creation of the earth, while v. 2 refers to a judgment that reduced it to a chaotic condition. Verses 3ff. then describe the re-creation of the earth. However, the disjunctive clause at the beginning of v. 2 cannot be translated as if it were relating the next event in a sequence. If v. 2 were sequential to v. 1, the author would have used the vav consecutive followed by a prefixed verbal form and the subject.
Sigh, howbeit the 7 Day Creation gets questioned so much?
Whether you're an Old Earther or a Young Earther the 7 Day Creation is literal. Gotta start somewhere after all in either model.
Lol arguing over "Was", "for", and "is" is just semantics saying the same thing.
Maybe ya'll should question what Without Form and Void means.
Simple answer: Earth was without Form and was Void.
Whether you're an Old Earther or a Young Earther the 7 Day Creation is literal. Gotta start somewhere after all in either model.
Lol arguing over "Was", "for", and "is" is just semantics saying the same thing.
Maybe ya'll should question what Without Form and Void means.
Simple answer: Earth was without Form and was Void.
R
Hydroplate tectonics presumes that God created a ticking time bomb (of water which would eventually erupt from under the earth) when He created the earth..... :Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. When God said: "It was good" did He mean this time bomb was good too? What about the seas? He separated land from sea.... hydroplate theory relies on the ocean floors being sunken land masses.... so what was under the seas in Gen 1:10........ I could go on forever, but hydroplate tectonics is a load of bunk
J
Perhaps there are not scientists out there trying to specifically prove that God doesn't exist (except perhaps athiest's champion Richard Dawkins), but they certainly don't seem too keen on the idea of intelligent design. "Expelled:No Intelligiance Allowed" narrated by Ben Stein is a documentary about just that, with cases of scientists being fired or stonewalled simply for allowing the possibility of intelligent design.
I can't tell you how much trouble I would get in if I told students that it is possible there is a God who created all things. But I can certainly tell them we grew into single celled organisms from non living elements on the backs of crystals and I would get no flak for that.
I can't tell you how much trouble I would get in if I told students that it is possible there is a God who created all things. But I can certainly tell them we grew into single celled organisms from non living elements on the backs of crystals and I would get no flak for that.
R
To qualify my previous answer: If we are using the classical view and translating hayah as was, then the exact sentence structure translated leaves us with the following: "deep upon the face darkness and empty desolate was now the earth " .... Do you see? Instead of "became" we have "was now" which is essentially the same as became.... "was now" indicates a state different from the initial state
R
I would also like to say the following:
1) I do not believe in the nonsense called evolution.... as we all know we are losing genetic material not gaining it.... Adam and Eve contained all of the genetic material that almost 7 billion humans now share in bits and pieces and most likely much genetic material has been lost or mutated... whatever the case, no new original genes are being made.
2)I believe that ALL of scripture in its original form is divinely inspired and should be read literally except where it is clearly not meant to be eg: parables
3) That said, I have huge issue with the english bible we have today.... scholars are still studying the original texts for example Gen1:1 ..... All scholars agree it is a single clause, BUT there is a lot of disagreement over what type of clause it is - is it dependant or is it independant? The answer to that question changes the meaning of the verse following, which changes the entire creation account from "The earth was without form and void" to "the earth became without form and void" ....... this leaves me with many questions. I would like to know what the original writer of the verse intended us to read, NOT what tradition would like us to believe. I would like to know what God "inspired" the writer to say.... hence my problem. I do not believe that all bible translations are inspired.
4) Why is it important? Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
1) I do not believe in the nonsense called evolution.... as we all know we are losing genetic material not gaining it.... Adam and Eve contained all of the genetic material that almost 7 billion humans now share in bits and pieces and most likely much genetic material has been lost or mutated... whatever the case, no new original genes are being made.
2)I believe that ALL of scripture in its original form is divinely inspired and should be read literally except where it is clearly not meant to be eg: parables
3) That said, I have huge issue with the english bible we have today.... scholars are still studying the original texts for example Gen1:1 ..... All scholars agree it is a single clause, BUT there is a lot of disagreement over what type of clause it is - is it dependant or is it independant? The answer to that question changes the meaning of the verse following, which changes the entire creation account from "The earth was without form and void" to "the earth became without form and void" ....... this leaves me with many questions. I would like to know what the original writer of the verse intended us to read, NOT what tradition would like us to believe. I would like to know what God "inspired" the writer to say.... hence my problem. I do not believe that all bible translations are inspired.
4) Why is it important? Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
R
I am wondering now what happened to the dinosaurs.... If they were part of the 6 days of creation that "God saw was good" why did every single one of them disappear? When did they disappear? It's not like there were millions of humans on earth with RPG's shooting them and causing their extinction - or were there? If they were part of a "good" creation then if any were alive in Noah's day, they would have been taken on-board the ark - or not? Yes, we have had mass extinctions since then... but never of an entire class of animal...eg dodo extinct but plenty of other birds about........ with the dinosaurs it is a total wipeout of every single last one big and small, flying, crawling, walking, swimming.... all gone. What happened to them?
And we're back to Dinosaurs lol. It's like we've gone through all the topics we've covered earlier in just 1 day lol.
What does Dinosaur mean? Terrible Lizard
The term arise in the 1800s. What term was used for the Terrible Lizards before the word Dinosaurs? Term was dragons.
Why do the ancients well after the Flood and well into the mid-AD talk about dragons in just about every single culture worldwide?
What does Dinosaur mean? Terrible Lizard
The term arise in the 1800s. What term was used for the Terrible Lizards before the word Dinosaurs? Term was dragons.
Why do the ancients well after the Flood and well into the mid-AD talk about dragons in just about every single culture worldwide?
T
Dragons (dinosaurs) are mentioned in the Bible though. The modern translations just 'translate' the word for dragon as "jackal". The context most often shows that this practice is ludicrous. I love modern translations, as opposed to the KJV (which translates the word correctly) but this is one instance were theistic evolution beliefs about dinosaurs have influenced translators to interpret the word incorrectly. Of course Behemoth and Leviathan are retained, but they're seen as mythological (they weren't) and the dragon in Revelation remains, purely because it's Satan.