Come on, you don't have to lie. You sound like someone who is throwing around words and have no idea what they mean. For instance, you don't have to be a Koine Greek scholar to be able to read and comprehend Romans 5. Second, "higher criticism" has nothing to do with doctrine, it deals with the sources of documents and attempting to determine authorship, date and place of composition. So it is difficult to "forgive your ignorance" when you are out to deliberately deceive and don't even know what you are talking about. sigh
The creation myths are attempts to explain theologically that God is the force behind creation.
By what standards of evidence and science are you qualified to call the Creation narrative "myth"? The material evidence that has been collected is consistent with Creationist explanations. For instance, the fossil record, magentic decay, stratification of sediment layers according to what is known about liquefaction are consistent with Creationist theories.
Evolution is NOT a theory but a fact.
Again, you show your ignorance and illiteracy since Evolution doesn't even qualify for Theory, but according to scientific terminology should correctly be called "hypothesis." It shows your prejudice and hate to call Creationism "myth" and toi foolishly call Evolution "fact". Because of your obvious allegiances to atheistic philosophy and a pattern of continual lying, it would seem that an honest person would recuse themselves from comment, but alas, according to the rules of procedure of the Athiestsic Evolutionists, you must always slander Christians, then gratuitously assert the unprovable as fact.
To claim that the Gospel in any way rejects this reality does a disservice to religion.
So far, you are batting a .000 in the truth department. I fail to see how a person who admittedly can't find the topic of "sin" and "death" in the gospel message can somehow feel confidence in saying that the great theological minds of the last two thousand years are all wrong and your biased words are right. But unwarranted pride and arrogance are also hallmarks of the evolutionist zealot, so this too is understandable.
The vast majority of scientists and informed Christians accept evolution.
Again, this is a outright lie. In the general population alone, the most recent surveys show that fewer than one third of the population accept evolution as an explanation of origins. Over half of the general population, Christian, agnostic and of other religions included in the survey accept intelligent design. So you seem to only know nothing but lies and have successfully convinced yourself of it.
Perhaps in your "reading the Gospel in Greek" you may have stumbled across Romand 1 and 2 Peter 3:5 which you embody quite well.
Stick that in your "higher criticism" crack pipe and smoke it.
I would normally be offended and not even respond to one
who calls another "deliberately deceptive", "ignorant",
"illiterate", and somewhere "prejudice" and "hate" are
included. But perhaps because I don't think you prefer such
ad hominem attacks to a rational argument and perhaps because I don't take you that seriously and am, in fact,
having some fun, I will just make a few observations. First, you are confusing "higher criticism" with textual
criticism. I would suggest you read the Nov. issue of
National Geographic for some understanding of what nearly
all scientists think about evolution. On the cover it
reads " WAS DARWIN RIGHT?" If you read the article you
will discover that the scientific community says "YES."
Please don't write the editors and say they are deceptive
liars, ignorant, illiterate, and full of hate and prejudice. You might unnecessarily insult the world's
foremost biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, and
anthropologists. Worse, if they're as good natured as I
am, they might embarrass you by asking for some facts.
If you'd like to learn more about biblical criticism (and
there are many types) I'd be glad to discuss it - and I'm
not being facetious, I mean it. All best,
Evolution by natural processes and without a prime mover is an idea that is accepted on faith. There is no way to verify it as there are no time machines. All one can do is assume it as fact and make it the interpretive framework for all geological and paleontological endeavor.
Creation by Divine fiat through mechanisms we are not capable of understanding is an idea that is accepted on faith. There is no way to verify it as there are no time machines. All one can do is assume it as fact and make it the interpretive framework for all geological and paleontological endeavor.
Anyone who claims their theory as scientific fact or, worse, points to popular sentiment to back their assertion, is either lying, blind, or deluded.
After reading thru his posts, he strikes me more of a methsmoker, and he writes like a breathless woman chasing a train, Good discernment on your part
Sorry, Reuben, but the Earth simply is a LOT older than 7,000 years. You can't read the bible that way. Seriously... just how do you suppose the space shuttle poked its way through the firmament (Gen. 1:7)?
And as for the fossil record: Yes, fossils can be deposited sometime in a layer or so above where they "should" be deposited. I presume you have already read and ignored how this can occur. But on the large scale, the fossil record is fantastically consistent. While you debate minutia whether a dinosaur is indigenous above or below the K-T boundary, ever seriously explain why vertebrates dont exist in pre-Cambrian rock? Why birds and mammals dont exist in pre-Devonian rock? Why human remains don't exist as in pre-Quarternary rock?
Evolution is called a theory, not a law, because by its nature it is impossible to recreate in a laboratory setting, not because there is any degree of uncertainty among scientists. Facets of micro-evolution have been elevated to law.
What science hasn't shown are the big points: How the chain of events was started in the first place, how the phenomenon of consciousness, how rationalism emerged, why it all took place. Until you deny God, the enormity and antiquity of the universe only serve to emphasize how treasured mankind is.
Newspapers' depiction of evolution is flat-out false. Their "life-in-a-bottle" are absurd. But they do not represent the truth of science. They are twisting science to achieve their nihilistic ends. BUt science has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the Earth is older than 7,000 years.
Heck, even just simply tracing our human family tree, we find that humanity is 1,000 generations removed from a common ancestor. (But yes, we do have a common grandmother only 1,000 generations ago.)