I don't see that natural laws have any separate existence.Ã‚Â That would make them independent of God.
How intertwined to you see God in natural laws and in this world? Obviously you see it more controlled than me, but do you feel that God is controlling every single sub-atomic particle, or is there a middle ground where you stand?
This is plain logic.Ã‚Â The restoration of the world involves the removal of predation (Isaiah) and of death itself (Revelation).Ã‚Â It is absolutely clear that death is an enemy and evil.Ã‚Â (Consider Jesus' deep emotion at the tomb of Lazarus.)Ã‚Â But the evolutionary view requires death and predation in the world from the very beginning, before man existed.Ã‚Â This is not good; but Genesis tells us that all that God created was very good.
In the evolutionary model death was here in the beginning. And obviously we perceive death as horrible. But at the same time many people realize that there is a time when all must die, and through this death we are released from our earthly bondage and take our place which the Lord shall command us to go, whether that be from heaven or hell. Basically, yes death is bad, but most people realize that death is also part of God's plan.
Thanks, after midterms I'll check these sites out.
It is depressingly true that a large part of the church is so sunk in unbelief that they uncritically accept theories like this.Ã‚Â However, if you are a Christian, you presumably accept that Jesus is God.Ã‚Â He is your Lord and you are his slave.Ã‚Â Jesus accepted and endorsed the whole of the Pentateuch as the work of Moses, which is quite enough for me to reject the JEDP theory, without even looking at its obvious idiocies.
JEDP arose in Germany in a time of rampant unbelief.Ã‚Â It is part of an attitude to the bible that is an expression of humanistic ideas that put man in judgement over the scripture, rather than accepting them as the word of God.Ã‚Â Most of the traditional protestant churches ahve fallen victim to this attitude, so that they have become exemplars of those people whom the bible describes as "holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof". (2 Timothy 3:5)
After I look at the sites we'll be able to have more discussion on this topic, if that is okay with you.
How do you know this?Ã‚Â In such a system of thinking, how could someone write a plain factual account and have it understood that way?Ã‚Â I think this is an idea made up by people seeking an excuse not to believe the bible.Ã‚Â The obvious answer to "What does Genesis mean?" is that it means what it says.
I'm sorry I don't have any links or anything on this matter, this came from a talk with a religion professor a few years ago. But if someone wanted to write down a plain factual account they would write it in their history, not their sacred texts. Although there have been examples where cultures have taken factual accounts and embellished them and used them as figurative tools in sacred texts. The most famous example would be the Gilgamesh flood, or Noah's flood, since many people think that it is the same story. There is evidence that a natural dam broke and water rushed into the surrounding area destroying everything, killing thousands while dispersing even more people, and the times match up with when scholars think that the flood stories were recorded. Thus many people think that the flood stories were based off of real events that have been exaggerated in sacred texts to reveal truths to us.
The evidence certainly does support a straight reading of Genesis.Ã‚Â Evidence is data interpreted according to a set of presuppositions.Ã‚Â We presuppose that the bible is true; the evolutionist presupposes that it is false.Ã‚Â Which do you think the Christian should presuppose?
As I've stated with another person it is possible to believe in Jesus and accept evolution at the same time. With that being said obviously the Christian should see the bible as true, but not scientifically enlightening.
Since Revelation prophesies the downfall of human kingdoms, it became an embarrassment when the church turned itself into a part of the human system under Constantine.Ã‚Â Hence the development of amillennial interpretations, which fundamentally deny the content of scripture.Ã‚Â Most of the current institutional churches are inheritors of this state church idea and all the baggage that goes with it.
What are the amillennial interpretations and what do you mean when Constantine turned the church into a part of the human system?
Date-setting about the end times is a futile exercise, seeing that Jesus said that even he did not know the time.Ã‚Â Nevertheless, many have been deluded into prophesying exact dates and have universally been proved wrong.Ã‚Â However, Jesus told us to be aware of the signs of the times.Ã‚Â In view of those, we have good reason to expect his early return.
I agree with you completely on this matter. Date-setting is useless. I think setting a date for the end of times will only lead people further away from Christ, especially people that do not already believe. When the common person sees a Christian prophesying the end of the world in such and such date, and again and again nothing happens, it discredits the religion as being nothing more than superstition. At least that's what I see going on.
Peace be with you