References to the four corners of the earth and sunrise and so forth are in poetic and prophetic books. References to six-day creation are in historical narratives right in there with the genealogies, the troop movements, and all the literal stuff. Further, references to six day creation are referred to as literal by Moses, Jesus, Paul, and others. They are never referred to as being metaphorical.
This would be more easily accepted if all of Christianity agreed with it. But they don't. In fact, there are plenty of Christians on this very thread that would take issue with this. The problem is that no one knows when the bible switches from literal to "poetic", from historic to prophetic. Hence, the endless array of denominations, internal bickerings, OEC's vs. YEC's vs. Theological Evolutionists, etc, etc, etc.
Firstly, I am not a degreed scientist and doubt I ever will be.
I'm NOT trying to be a jerk here, but... those who DO have degrees in the specialties dealing with those skulls... they DO know what they are talking about. Just as theologians who have studied the original Hebrew know a heckuva lot more about the Bible than I do - and I wouldn't argue with them or disagree with them.
Secondly, those who believe God created the world dont get grants from secular or governmental institutions.
The majority of scientists who seek grant money in America are Christians who believe in God.
‘I’m NOT trying to be a jerk here, “ I appreciate that, but do understand, the journals, textbooks, web sites and other information I digest and disseminate are indeed products of degreed scientists, mostly PhDs.
I have mentioned in other creation/evolution threads, my son has a BS in Physics from UCLA, homeschooled K-10 by me (went to college early), and is a six day creationist as we taught him. Science and creation need not conflict.
posted on 02/19/2009 10:45:29 PM PST
(Ora et labora)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson