Mona, I still want to understand you're earlier post a little better. Are you explaining the contradiction in ch 1 and ch2 of Genesis by suggesting that there were two separate instances where God created plants, one before man and one after the fall?
Even in the Catholic view, a "saint" is simply a person who is in Heaven with God. I don't know what would make you uncomfortable about that, since presumably you aspire to be such.
LL, either you or I have mistunderstood what is required to be canonized as a saint in the catholic church. It is a lengthy process which requires proof of multiple 'intercessions' (ie, miracles) before they are eventually canonized directly by the Pope himself.
This is an easy one. My problem with creation is not that creation is in conflict with science generally. It is that creation (and some other old testament stories like Noah's Ark) are in direct conflict with countless specific facts uncovered by science. They simply cannot be factually accurate based on what we know). On the other hand, there are no specific facts that disprove the virgin birth or any of the miracles Jesus performed. Science may suggest they are not possible, but then they wouldn't be miracles, now would they? So I have no problem believing in spiritual things AND believing creation is false (at least the version in the old testament). One has been affirmatively disproved. The other (the existence of God and everything that flows from that)has not.
Anastasis, I don't know if I would say that there were 2 distinct creations of plants because it doesn't say that. I guess I am saying that the creation was very much affected when Adam and Eve fell. Not only was sin introduced into the human race but the rest of creation also. There is a verse in Romans 8 that hints at this. So in some way the creation changed. In some way thorns and thistles developed from the fall, maybe from a preexisting species of plant. I don't know. The comment in Gen 2:4 about the reasons the siach and eseb didn't exist yet wasn't that God hadn't created it. It was because there was no rain (plants were watered differently at that point) and there was no man to cultivate. Both of these things point to the fact that the siach and eseb referred to in verse 4 would only exist after the change ocurred. Adam didn't have to culitvate anything until after the fall. His curse was that he had to eat bread made from the eseb which he grew from the sweat of his brow. I did go back and look at the use of eseb in the OT, and I understand your point as well. As with most words there can be a wide semantic range. I think the descriptions of eseb in chapter 2 do lead one to think of the use more specifically though. I understand why there is disagreement though.
Stabone, I'm not sure there is a bigger proponent of the sciences on this board (other than obviously the actual scientists) than me, but I'm not sure what you expect of the method. You can not use reason to disprove something which isn't reasonable. You can choose to disregard the concepts, but you can logic them away because they aren't logical.
To Christians: YES, YOU ARE HYPOCRITES. You cannot spit at the face of God, of whom you supposedly believe in, and say I don't believe your word. Jesus believed the earth was created in 6 days. There was no debate. To deny this is to deny what facts the bible professes. You can't pick things out of the bible and choose to say "Heck golly, that's just an analogy, but this other stuff is literal truth." Christian foundation can crumble. I could just as easily say the resurrection of Christ is an allegory meant to represent a spiritual resurrection. "The bible 'says' they saw him, but really they just felt him." Imagine yourself sitting at the throne when God asks you "Why can't I make the universe in 6 days?" How dare you question His power. How dare you question His Word. How dare you accept the science of man over Him. Who are you? Believing in God is to humble yourself even when so called "smart" people ridicule your beliefs. You crave the respect of man more than God’s? Love, Gadfly Internet Missionary
It isn't the Book of Genesis according to Jehovah... it is the Book of Genesis according to Moses... and it is widely considered that for many books of the old testament "according to xxxx" does not necessarily mean that xxxx in fact wrote the section... or even that the book was written in their lifetime. So we are left with is the Book of Genesis according to some guy (or guys) claiming to be Moses. Did Jesus believe the world was created in 6 revolutions of the earth on its axis relative to the sun... or did he just think it was more expediant than explaining that the universe was 13 billion years old? If you only have 30 some odd years to save the world of men... don't you think you have to cut some corners for the sake of staying on point?
I will not deny the works which could originate from none but God himself. I believe that God does not obfuscate his creation. I believe that the human form is the work of God and no other. I believe that Earth is the work of God and no other. I believe that the cosmos is the work of God and no other. If the words of man, in whatever form, disagree with the works of God, then the fault lays in the words of man... and no other.
Is that a quote? If not, you’ve written some powerful stuff there. You deny the bible is the unaltered word of God? I agree.
It's just how I see it. I believe the Bible is divinely inspired, but it is still written and compiled by men in the language of men... and as such it is fallible. The universe could only be created by God, and therefore it must be trusted over the works of man.
The New Testament is the Word of God. As such, it supercedes the Old Testament, which was merely inspired by God. But by all means, Gadfly, if you believe the entire thing is the Word of God, then I commend you for your decision not to eat pork or shellfish, your refusal to nail your wife when she's on the rag, and your good efforts to ensure that prostitutes and gays are taken out to the city gates and stoned to death.
"The New Testament is the Word of God." No, it isn't. Not a single book of the New Testament is credited to a divine entity, much less Jesus himself. Only two of the four Gospels are offered as even being written by Apostles. The New Testament is the revelation of the new covenant with God. It is no more "the word of God" than was the Old Testament... its just the second go round. The Koran claims to be the Word of God delivered by the Angel Gabriel. The Koran claims divine authorship, the Christian Bible claims divine inspiration. Two very different things.
Netslave has chosen to study and build faith through God’s divinely inspired literary and philosophical work. I have chosen to study and build faith through God’s divinely inspired natural work (physics major). We both study and learn of the same God in different ways. Mia1994 states these two views can’t contradict. When they do, it’s the fault of man, not God.
The words of the Bible are no more than man's interpretation of the revelation of God, and they say so explicitly. It is not The Book Of Genesis According to Jehovah, nor is it The Book of Luke According to Jesus. My Bible and my physics journal are observations and descriptions by men of things which are divine in origin. As works of men both are subject to errors, and both have distinct areas of usefullness. I don't look to the journals for meaning, but I don't look to the Bible for what I can plainly see on my own.
