What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[__ Science __ ] Do Conservatives have a “Difficult Relationship with Science”?

Is it 'conservatives' that have a "Difficult Relationship with Science"? I think it's pretty funny that so many people nowadays will automatically accept the presumption (before having a chance to think about it) that it is conservatives who reject rationality, especially when you consider who tends to promote that notion.
 
christian1724 said:
Is it 'conservatives' that have a "Difficult Relationship with Science"? I think it's pretty funny that so many people nowadays will automatically accept the presumption (before having a chance to think about it) that it is conservatives who reject rationality, especially when you consider who tends to promote that notion.
Click to expand...
Yes. Good point. I know lots of conservative Christians who have no problems with science. One of the great conservative evangelical Christians wrote:

“I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.” Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74
 
Barbarian said:
Sorry, they are Christians for the reason you learned. They espouse the Nicene creed, which defines who is a Christian. In fact, it is the way Christians identified each other during the Roman persecutions.

Sorry, that's how one is identified.

The early Christian Church. In it's earliest form, it was known as the Apostle's Creed, because it was what the Apostles taught.
In its oldest form, the Apostles’ Creed goes back to at least 140 A.D. Many of the early church leaders summed up their beliefs as they had an opportunity to stand for their faith—see, for example, 1 Timothy 6:12. These statements developed into a more standard form to express one’s confession of faith at the time of baptism. It is not Scripture, but it is a simple list of the great doctrines of the faith.

What is the Apostles' Creed?

The Apostles' Creed, though not written by the apostles, is the oldest creed of the Christian church and is the basis for others that followed.
billygraham.org billygraham.org

As you learned, there is no need to inject scientific facts into Scripture. That's not what it's for. There are many things that are true, that you won't find in Scripture. It's for your salvation, about man and God and our relationship. That should be enough for you.

Unless you reject things in the Creed, it won't matter if you reject what God says about the way He created things. It's not a salvation issue.
Click to expand...

Sorry, being part of Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, or Protestant churches doesn't make one a Christian. What I learned is your definition of Christian. Making your 'most' irrelevant.

Again, the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ are believed by you. You said it is because they are presented as fact or literal history. But the first 3 chapters in (Genesis),Flood, Joshua's long day, and Jonah and the whale are also presented as fact and literal history. So why should they be viewed as figurative or an allegory. Answer, because you interpret them through your science.

If you want to believe your evolution, go ahead. Just quit trying to inject it into the Bible.

Quantrill
 
wondering said:
God is not the author of the bible.
Men, who were inspired by God, authored the bible. It's important to understand the difference.

Serpents don't speak.
They represented evil.

In chapter one vegetation came first.
In chapter two man came first.
Click to expand...

No, God is the author. Men are just the writers inspired by God. I'ts important to know the difference.

The serpent in (Gen. 3:1-5) did.

No. Vegetation came before man.

Quantrill
 
jaybo said:
"Most all of these -- Roman Catholicism or Greek Orthodox or Protestant churches -- have liberal and false doctrines not to be believed", but you are the embodiment of all truth? Seriously??
Click to expand...

Yes they do.

Your free to believe any doctrine you like.

Quantrill
 
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. Precept may be upon precept, line may be upon line, and yet the Word of the Lord may be to some a Word of Judgment; that they may fall backward, and be broken and be snared and be taken! There may be a spiritual fulness, which the World may call drunkenness; as in the second Chapter of the Acts. There may be, as well, a carnal confidence upon misunderstood and misapplied precepts, which may be called spiritual drunkenness."
Oliver Cromwell

This is on my desk. Should be on everyone's mind. Cromwell, for all his errors, understood this truth.
 
Quantrill said:
No, God is the author. Men are just the writers inspired by God. I'ts important to know the difference.

The serpent in (Gen. 3:1-5) did.

No. Vegetation came before man.

Quantrill
Click to expand...
Have you read chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis?
In chapter one there is vegetation before man is formed.

In chapter two man is formed brfore there is any shrub, and then God makes a garden for him.

Which is it?
 
wondering said:
Have you read chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis?
In chapter one there is vegetation before man is formed.

In chapter two man is formed brfore there is any shrub, and then God makes a garden for him.

Which is it?
Click to expand...

Yes. I have read both chapters of (Genesis).

Cite the passage that shows man is formed before any shrub.

Don't just say something. Show me where man is created before vegetation.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
Yes. I have read both chapters of (Genesis).

Cite the passage that shows man is formed before any shrub.

Don't just say something. Show me where man is created before vegetation.

Quantrill
Click to expand...
I usually have but I'm on a phone out of necessity and I find it a bit difficult.

If you've read chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis you really should know the verse. However, you're right about posting them.

See Genesis 2:5

Man was created before vegetation because it had not rained yet and because THERE WAS NO MAN to cultivate the ground.

In Genesis 1 man is created at the end of creation. Vegetation was already in existence.
 
wondering said:
I usually have but I'm on a phone out of necessity and I find it a bit difficult.

If you've read chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis you really should know the verse. However, you're right about posting them.

See Genesis 2:5

Man was created before vegetation because it had not rained yet and because THERE WAS NO MAN to cultivate the ground.

In Genesis 1 man is created at the end of creation. Vegetation was already in existence.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to explain.

Yes, man was created on the 6th day. According to (Gen. 1:27).

Yes, vegetation was created on the 3rd day. According to (Gen. 1:11-12).

And God rested on the 7th day from all His work. According to (Gen. 1-3).

So what are you saying with (Genesis 2:5)?

Quantrill
 
wondering

My Scripture reference in post #(131) concerning the 7th day should be (Gen. 2:1-3).

(Gen. 2) is not another account of God's order of creating. It is supplementary to (Gen. 1). It gives additional information to the account given in (Gen. 1).

My point is that the order is not important in (Gen. 2:4-25). The relationship of man to the creation is the emphasis. Thus (Gen. 2:4) says, "These are the 'generations' of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
Yes. I have read both chapters of (Genesis).

Cite the passage that shows man is formed before any shrub.

Don't just say something. Show me where man is created before vegetation.

Quantrill
Click to expand...
Genesis 2:5-7, "Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

You need to read your Bible more carefully.
 
Quantrill said:
wondering

My Scripture reference in post #(131) concerning the 7th day should be (Gen. 2:1-3).

(Gen. 2) is not another account of God's order of creating. It is supplementary to (Gen. 1). It gives additional information to the account given in (Gen. 1).

My point is that the order is not important in (Gen. 2:4-25). The relationship of man to the creation is the emphasis. Thus (Gen. 2:4) says, "These are the 'generations' of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."

Quantrill
Click to expand...
My Bible, the NET 2.1, has Genesis 2:4 as " This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the Lord God made the earth and heavens."

The translator's note on the word "account" reads, "The Hebrew phrase אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת (ʾelleh toledot) is traditionally translated as “these are the generations of” because the noun was derived from the verb “beget.” Its usage, however, shows that it introduces more than genealogies; it begins a narrative that traces what became of the entity or individual mentioned in the heading. In fact, a good paraphrase of this heading would be: “This is what became of the heavens and the earth,” for what follows is not another account of creation but a tracing of events from creation through the fall and judgment (the section extends from 2:4 through 4:26). See M. H. Woudstra, “The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Significance,” CTJ 5 (1970): 184-89. sn The expression this is the account of is an important title used throughout the Book of Genesis, serving as the organizing principle of the work. It is always a heading, introducing the subject matter that is to come. From the starting point of the title, the narrative traces the genealogy or the records or the particulars involved. Although some would make the heading in 2:4 a summary of creation (1:1-2:3), that goes against the usage in the book. As a heading it introduces the theme of the next section, the particulars about this creation that God made. Genesis 2 is not a simple parallel account of creation; rather, beginning with the account of the creation of man and women, the narrative tells what became of that creation. As a beginning, the construction of 2:4-7 forms a fine parallel to the construction of 1:1-3. The subject matter of each תּוֹלְדֹת (toledot, “this is the account of”) section of the book traces a decline or a deterioration through to the next beginning point, and each is thereby a microcosm of the book which begins with divine blessing in the garden, and ends with a coffin in Egypt. So, what became of the creation? Gen 2:4-4:26 will explain that sin entered the world and all but destroyed God’s perfect creation."

I agree with what the well-qualified translators have written, not your mis-exposition of a single word.
 
JLB said:
Growing number of infections among vaccinated people.
Click to expand...
As the percentage of vaccinated people rises, so will the number of vaccinated people being infected. How can that be?
(I'm just tossing out numbers to show the point)
1. Suppose the vaccine is 80 percent effective against infection and 90 percent effective against dying of the infection.
2. Suppose 100 people are vaccinated and exposed to the virus. That means 20 will be infected, and 10 will die of it.
3. Suppose the number vaccinated rises to 1000. 200 will be infected and 100 will die.
4. As more people are vaccinated, the ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated people will affect percentages.

Which means that as vaccinated people increase and unvaccinated people decrease, we will see a larger percentage of infected people being vaccinated, even if the vaccine continues to provide a high level of protection.
 
jaybo said:
Genesis 2:5-7, "Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Click to expand...
As you suggest, this is not a contradiction, since the "days" of Genesis are not literal days, or even periods of time.
 
Barbarian said:
As you suggest, this is not a contradiction, since the "days" of Genesis are not literal days, or even periods of time.
Click to expand...
My Bible says "days" -- which means, believe it or not, days. Why should I believe your misinterpretation when all translations say there were days?
 
jaybo said:
Genesis 2:5-7, "Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

You need to read your Bible more carefully.
Click to expand...

See post #(133).

Quantrill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top