Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

Is there such a thing as a fact of nature for which reading the Bible or not it would still be true? I believe so. I believe there is. I believe that to be the case.

:think:

What?



You really should work on making your statements and queries more clear.

 

[Jacob]

:think:

What?



You really should work on making your statements and queries more clear.

It's the irrelevant part you dismissed or ignored.

 

[noguru]

You clarified that you meant any interpretation rather than the interpretation you hold to, I believe?

Then the question for me is if knowing the truth we would want to debate anyone at all. It becomes a question of what it meant by "debate" as the word debate implies a nature of debate that is previously unexplained.

So you believe as long as one has the proper interpretation of Genesis before they begin scientific inquiry then all is well, but if one has the wrong interpretation when they get to science then that means big trouble?

 

[Jacob]

I didn't use the phrase 'literal interpretation'. That phrase is a bit meaningless because nobody thinks a wooden literal interpretation of scripture is correct. For example, we understand parables are just a short story to illustrate a point. *We know parables are not to be taken literally.

Likewise, we understand geneaologies are written as history...that it is to be taken as a factual account. What I said above is "*.. I believe the creation account in the Bible clearly is a literal account...and an eye witness account of our origins". *God created us in 6 normal days...and about 6000 years ago.*

If you have been following my posts to noguru you know I differentiated between the idea of a literal interpretation and your focus of the accounts of creation in Genesis being literal.

As for parables, they are true. Literally true truth to be had. As for wooden literal-ism, you may have the right idea or word here. Simply said, that though the Bible is true in every aspect and way, some might point out a particular view of the Bible is false or might be false, even if the proponent of that view says he or she has the right literal view.

 

[noguru]

It's the irrelevant part you dismissed or ignored.

Untellectual I know you want to make science your theological pulpit, but please save it for someone you can easily fool. We are discussing appropriate scientific methodology and whether a specific interpretation of Genesis (whichever one that is) should be considered in science.

If you think you have answered this clearly perhaps you ought to think again.

 

[Jacob]

So you believe as long as one has the proper interpretation of Genesis before they begin scientific inquiry then all is well, but if one has the wrong interpretation when they get to science then that means big trouble?

No. That would be a false inference about my position on your part. If you are reading my all of my responses in my posts to you then this will eventually become abundantly clear if it is not already.

If you read the Bible you will not find falsehood in it. It will only help your view whether you are already in science or not or already engaged in scientific inquiry or discussion or not. We can discuss science without being scientists. But if you have to decide on which to study first study the Bible first as it will lead you to all truth and your personal salvation as well. Studying science may or may not lead you to salvation. But religious or spiritual inquiry into the Bible will help one to find the identity and attributes (or character) of the one who created them, the world in which we live, salvation and that which is to come.

 

[noguru]

If you have been following my posts to noguru you know I differentiated between the idea of a literal interpretation and your focus of the accounts of creation in Genesis being literal.

6days has me on ignore, because he is a deceitful coward.

 

[Jacob]

Untellectual I know you want to make science your theological pulpit, but please save it for someone you can easily fool. We are discussing appropriate scientific methodology and whether a specific interpretation of Genesis (whichever one that is) should be considered in science.

If you think you have answered this clearly perhaps you ought to think again.

I just spoke with you about a fact of nature. But now you want me to leave. Either your timing is off or you don't care about what I say.

 

[Jacob]

6days has me on ignore, because he is a deceitful coward.

If you are on ignore he still should be able to see what I am responding to when I quote your responses, as I understood this last.

 

[noguru]

No. That would be a false inference about my position on your part. If you are reading my all of my responses in my posts to you then this will eventually become abundantly clear if it is not already.

If you read the Bible you will not find falsehood in it. It will only help your view whether you are already in science or not or already engaged in scientific inquiry or discussion or not. We can discuss science without being scientists. But if you have to decide on which to study first study the Bible first as it will lead you to all truth and your personal salvation as well. Studying science may or may not lead you to salvation. But religious or spiritual inquiry into the Bible will help one to find the identity and attributes (or character) of the one who created them, the world in which we live, salvation and that which is to come.

Can you please stop with all this fluff. I am asking you a clear and direct question

Where should we place debate on interpretations of Genesis, prior to scientific inquiry, within scientific inquiry, or neither?

You said "neither". I am not asking whether science will lead one to salvation. You are muddying up the water again.

I want you to tell me where you think this places debate about interpretations of Genesis?

 

[noguru]

If you are on ignore he still should be able to see what I am responding to when I quote your responses, as I understood this last.

Yes, but similar to you he does not really care about getting this subject clear in his head. He would rather cling to his unreasonable delusions.

 

[Jacob]

Can you please stop with all this fluff. I am asking you a clear and direct question

Where should we place debate on interpretations of Genesis, prior to scientific inquiry, within scientific inquiry, or neither?

You said "neither". I am not asking whether science will lead one to salvation. You are muddying up the water again.

I want you to tell me where you think this places debate about interpretations of Genesis?

To answer your two questions in this post:

1) Because your salvation is more important than your view on Genesis and the creation accounts I must maintain my answer of neither. Otherwise you have the weight of science (if you view science should be first before God, Theology, and the Bible including the creation account in Genesis; or even if you view that science and not the Bible is the ultimate truth or view of reality) from whatever angle you come from set against Genesis and a pulpit regardless of that interpretation.

2) Debate about interpretation of Genesis should either involve science or not, depending on the person. For example, a Theologian may know nothing of science. Or a scientist may in his personal view reject God or the Bible or both. But there are people committed to both God and science who find no difficulty in discussing Biblical interpretation of Genesis and the rest of the Bible as pertains to creation and the world around us. But if a person has difficulty, that does not mean we should not declare unto them the gospel of their salvation in God through the person of Jesus Christ.

 

[Jacob]

Yes, but similar to you he does not really care about getting this subject clear in his head. He would rather cling to his unreasonable delusions.

I think your purpose included degrading him for ignoring you, a fact to which I was not privy.

 

[alwight]

Likewise, we understand geneaologies are written as history...that it is to be taken as a factual account. What I said above is "*.. I believe the creation account in the Bible clearly is a literal account...and an eye witness account of our origins". *God created us in 6 normal days...and about 6000 years ago.*

Personally I suspect that understanding science is a whole lot easier without having to presuppose that a particular ancient middle eastern religious scripture is more scientific than science. lain:

 

[6days]

Personally I suspect that understanding science is a whole lot easier without having to presuppose that a particular ancient middle eastern religious scripture is more scientific than science

Understanding science is a whole lot easier when you start with the correct history of our origins. *We have the History Book of the universe by the One who made science possible. He created an orderly universe where equations such as E=mc2, law of gravity, etc make sense. **

 

[noguru]

Understanding science is a whole lot easier when you start with the correct history of our origins. *We have the History Book of the universe by the One who made science possible. He created an orderly universe where equations such as E=mc2, law of gravity, etc make sense. **

No. Nothing you say makes sense. You are a moron.

 

[noguru]

I think your purpose included degrading him for ignoring you, a fact to which I was not privy.

Nope. I degraded him and then he started ignoring me. I don't like to mince my words. If you really think he is not a moron, provide one post you think does not demonstrate that he is a moron.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Understanding science is a whole lot easier when you start with the correct history of our origins. *We have the History Book of the universe by the One who made science possible. He created an orderly universe where equations such as E=mc2, law of gravity, etc make sense. **

Dear 6days,

I do understand everything you've said here. I couldn't have put it better myself. Our lungs could not even draw one breath without Him making them about. Same with the electricity for our heart beat. He's my hero!! Just Awesome and Wonderful!! Glad to share Him with you 6days,

Much Love In Christ,

Michael

:rapture:

 

[noguru]

Dear 6days,

I do understand everything you've said here. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Much Love In Christ,

Michael

:rapture:

So in other words you think it is better to settle on a view of origins before you have thoroughly investigated all the evidence regarding origins?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Nope. I degraded him and then he started ignoring me. I don't like to mince my words. If you really think he is not a moron, provide one post you think does not demonstrate that he is a moron.

Dear noguru,

Post No. 5656 right above it shows that he knows what he's talking about. At least I understand it just fine and agree wholeheartedly with him. I wish you weren't so hard on him.

In Jesus' Forgiveness,

Michael


:rapture: