Well good.
However, there must be an explanation of each step made to the BB folks so that we all can examine your work and test it by the Scriptures.
Most of us are educated to some level of understanding and are willing to spend the time working through what you present.
However, you have to also understand that for me to place science discoveries as valuable, they must agree with Scriptures, not Scriptures agree with science.
I don't need Genesis validated by "testable proof."
I expect the Science to be validated by being tested by the Scriptures and then either discarded or held as valid.
How does a non-believer make sense of the Bible?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by elysse77, Dec 7, 2019.
Page 4 of 4
-
-
Are you assuming that the opening sentence of Genesis is presenting that creation was a display of perfection?
Personally, I do not have difficulty with some OT passages presenting a dual view - one in which is specific to that time, and one that projects the scene upon a future date.
However, caution would have us guard against tunnel vision in such a manner that we do not consider that the landscape is not the view from the tunnel but the tunnel may be a part of the landscape. -
1. Genesis 1:21 shows that every living creature that moveth was made from water on the 5th Day. Science recently discovered the same. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/s...-ancestor.html Jul 25, 2016
3. Chromosone 2 fusion shows that Adam, the first Human was first made, long before plants, herbs, rain, trees, or any prehistoric person. Genesis 2:4-7 Science is currently ignorant of this Truth.
5. Genesis 1:1 correctly shows that Water was not created but came forth from Heaven or air.
Above is three of these proofs of God since He is the only one who knew this 3k years ago. No one has ever been able to refute these proofs either Scripturally, scientifically, historically, genetically or mathematically. I have 12 of these proofs from Genesis. Amen? -
-
Why should there be “proofs of God?”
Does not Genesis state that water covered the earth, and the earth emerged as water was displaced?
The nytimes link doesn’t work.
Chromosome 2 fusion, as I elementarily understand, considers human kind as developed rather than specifically designed, therefore fundamentally a failure. It does not conform to the Scripture statements.
Any consideration in which the veracity of the Scripture is questioned must be discarded.
God made humankind from dust, not water. When humankind die they ultimately return to dust, not water.
Speculation may certainly be fun to engage, but never are the Scriptures to be conformed to speculation. -
God created two named items but both contained unnumbered elements.
That one item “was” (can also be translated “became” - though most scholars reject that thinking) void, and that no light was present, does not oblige that God created without form and light.
God is light. In Him is no darkness.
The presence of both no form and darkness compels one to consider God’s creation became violated, confusion and turmoil (tohu, bohu).
The demand, “Let there be light!” was the establishment of Redemption because all that was made was made by Him.
That the oasis was further polluted by one man’s sin, did not diminish that light and life are created by Him.
That believers are a new creation created in (by) Him. -
Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:
The only way to reach the lost unbelievers, who are part of ALL flesh, is to show God's Truth, empirically, literally and testably, with the Truth discovered by mankind in the past 3,000 years. God's Spirit IS the Spirit of Truth, Jhn 16:13 and His Truth AGREES in every way with every discovery of man. God hid this Truth in Genesis for all the people of the last days to find. Daniel 12:4
https://www.google.com/search?q=las...j69i57j0l4.14321j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
-
-
-
Page 4 of 4