mia1994, Gen 1 and 2 are contradictory in creation order. There is only an apparent issue if you look only on the surface of the words. Genesis 1 provides the overview of creation from light to earth to man. That is the order. Genesis 2 focuses in on the creation of man after the more panoramic account in chapter 1. The apparent contradiction lies in the mention of before the shrub of the field and the plant of the field. It then gives two reasons because there was no rain and there was no man to cultivate. "Shrub of the field" is Siach in Hebrew. "Plant of the field is Eseb in Hebrew. Eseb is used in Gen 3:18 where God is describing the curse to Adam. God said that the ground will produce thorns and thistles but he will have to eat of the plants of the field. Eseb is used here as well. Then the next verse says that by the sweat of his brow Adam will eat bread. So eseb will be used to make bread. So eseb is grains like wheat, barley, rye, etc. which are cultivated by man and evidently were not created on the 3rd day with the rest of the plants. They somehow came into existence after the fall of man. Though siach is not used in Genesis 3 it interesting to see that something is to accompany the eseb which Adam will have to cultivate after the fall, which is thorns and thistles. Siach is paired with eseb in Genesis, so it is not unreasonable to conclude siach is being referred to as thorns and thistles in chapter 3. So you have both items in chapter 2 that are not present on day 6 which are presented as not coming into existence until after the fall and in some way related to God's curse. The meaning being that Adam was clearly made before sin existed. Then in Genesis 2:18, the statement of the animals being created is not necessarily describing sequence of creation. It can simply be a statement of the fact that God created the animals, not specifying sequence, in order to introduce animals into the narrative. This is reasonable because the passage deals primarily with the origin of man not animals. The sequence of mentioning in the passage can be an indication of theme. Plus the verb for formed is an uncommon construction I think. Some scholars translate it as past perfect indicating that the animals had already been formed prior to man. Either way you want to translate that verb I think the idea that sequence is not in tended is reasonable, because you have the complementary account in Genesis 1.
Netslave, A day is a revolution around an axis. 24 hours is the time the earth currently takes to complete one revolution. What I can draw from this is : 1) God spins on an axis 2) God spun on an axis while construction the entire universe and took 6 revolutions to create the universe.
GT WT, The world is God-filled and demon-filled. I wouldn't go so far as to say magic-filled though. That doesn't mean I don't think that the world runs by a set of natural laws that are rationally understood because I do think that. When modern science started in the 17th century (I think that was it) many of the men were motivated to study nature scientifically because they believed the God of the Bible was rational and therefore his Creation must be as well. Of course God is outside of and above nature and can do things outside of its guidelines.
Stabone, in what manner is the statement "BS". Science can not speak to things which are not in evidence. That means science can not prove nor disprove religion, but only dogma. My statement was exactly accurate, and I'm sorry if the answer is unsatisfying.
So I guess if there are disagreements over the Bible that means it can't be used as source material because people can't agree over word usage. But I can't apply that to science because someday, maybe, the issue will become agreed upon by people. Nice double standard. You must have real faith in science.
Monahorns, I'm not saying that science is entirely internally consistant, I'm saying that science is an organic field which can accomodate and resolve internal inconsistancy through empirical evidence and experimentation. There is simply no religious analog to this other than divine intervention. In any event, faith can not be proven... otherwise it would not be faith. ------------------- Stabone, I believe that Monahorn's response was directed at me, not you.
GT WT, magic is conceived of as a type of mysticism which can be invoked by a practitioner. Christian transmutation as with all miracles are considered an act of God directly and not mysticism. I admit, I myself am a little murky on the subject of christian "saints" and their miracles, but I believe that is a consistant theme through out. The saints did not perform the miracles, as such, so much as God acted through them to accomplish a goal. Personally, the concept of "saints" makes me uncomfortable spiritually, and seem a little unchristian to me on their face.
Mia, so when Oral Roberts laid on hands and 'healed' the infirm that wasn't magic because Oral was channeling God? Is this different from Merlin using an incantation to cause the Lady of the Lake (an old Celtic deity?) to intervene in human events? I understand what you're saying about acting as an instrument of God. However, at least for me, Jesus walking on water has much in common with a flying carpet or the witches in Macbeth. The common thread is the supernatural.
GT WT, I won't advocate for Oral, but if you are asking how he would describe a "healing" then yes he would saying that God is acting through him. That siad, did Oral really do healings? I can't remember. All I know is the most I've ever been creeped out was when I visited the ORU in Tulsa. That place is messed up. My clarification was just to illustrate the difference between how the church views "magic" and "miracles". What you draw from that is your own problem.
I don't Oral Roberts has ever really healed anybody. I don't think much of the miracles of the saints either. Not that they couldn't happen. The only miracles I will defend as occuring are the ones found in the Bible. That doesn't mean that some haven't occurred. I don't rule that possibility out. There are some I have heard of from credible witnesses, but that is it.
