re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites

quote:

---

The Biblical narrative of creation is self-interpreted by the rest of the Scriptures as being a literal account.

Jesus taught so from His words, and Moses did, as well, in recounting the giving of the law where in the 4th commandment is based on creation, being patterned after 6 literal days. Paul references a literal Adam and literal Eve (Rom. 5:12–19; 1 Cor. 15:21–22, 45–49; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13–14) and the author of Hebrews seems to interpret the days of creation as literal (Hebrews 4:3-4).

---

Truth, brutha. Truth. Let it stand strong and bright to the Highest Heaven.

quote:

---

"Dinosaurs" if they exist were merely dragons.

---

This thread.

Muh-Dinosaurs!! Muh-T-Rex!!" "Muh-Fossils!!" "Muh-Museum Skeletons!! "Muh-Missing Links!!" "Muh-BILLLLLLIONS of years!!" Muh-BIG BANG!!"

The "Evidence": "THE SCIENCE sez so!!"

quote:

---

Fair enough. But you're still inferring meaning based on your beliefs. We all do that. The problem is when what one person infers from a non specific statement becomes a required belief for everyone else.

---

Well, the issue is that the Bible claims to be the very word of God. If it is (I believe it is), and there is a teaching in there, then we are to understand and believe it, since God hasn't given His revelation to be ignored or dismissed.

The issue is whether or not we are understanding and interpreting the Bible correctly to come to the right understanding. That's why we take the time to read it, study it, pray over it, look to other godly, knowledgeable men's thoughts, and overall seek the Lord's guidance by His Spirit to help us understand it. We are then supposed to teach it to others to help them understand it.

All of that to say, truth matters, and we should be striving to know and understand it.

Regarding your concern about making doctrines "required belief[s]": that depends on the belief. I think the biblical teaching of creation is just as clear as the teaching of the Trinity, even if the Trinity has much more support in terms of volume of textual data in the Bible. Obviously those two things are very different in terms of necessity for salvation. While no one must accept a young earth view of creation, no one can reject the doctrine of the Trinity and be saved.

Likewise for evolution. Evolution, in itself, is not a primary doctrine that determines whether one is a Christian or not, however it can lead to that. If a person accepts theistic evolution, for instance, but believes that all people are guilty of sin and that Christ died to justify sinners, then that person can be saved in spite of that evolutionary belief. However, if someone who believes in evolution lets that belief cast doubt on the accuracy and authority of Scripture, so that Christ's existence or teaching on salvation or man's fallenness is put into doubt, then that could lead someone away from orthodoxy and even salvation.

quote:

---

creation as a literal 6-day event, as Jesus taught

---

So all of the brilliant Bible experts who aren't YEC get this wrong? That seems awfully hard to believe. What's more likely is yom is being interpreted in an extremely narrow way that wasn't intended by the creation narrative

quote:

---

In the context of the time period and the audience, He absolutely was referring to a six literal days

---

This is absolutely not definitive because the Jews did not always interpret yom to mean a 24 hour period.

quote:

---

if you believe the Scripture is authoritative then you are led to believe in a literal, six day creative act

---

Again, not necessarily the case because that wasn't the point of the creation story anyway.

I wish I could understand why people have to take such a hard stance on the age of the earth, whether from a biblical standpoint or scientific. It's completely unnecessary

quote:

---

Well, the issue is that the Bible claims to be the very word of God. If it is (I believe it is), and there is a teaching in there, then we are to understand and believe it, since God hasn't given His revelation to be ignored or dismissed

---

While the Bible does record accurate facts about the world and continues to be vindicated more and more, it was never intended to be a scientific treatise. The Bible can still be accurate and harmonize with science while using the phenomenological language of the day or metaphorical language. Interpretational problems arise when this truth is ignored in favor of a needlessly strict interpretation. Yom is an example. There is no need to force it into a literal 24 hour period. No need whatsoever. To do so ignores the semantic range of the word in other usages and clashes with the intention of the passage

quote:

---

I wish I could understand why people have to take such a hard stance on the age of the earth, whether from a biblical standpoint or scientific. It's completely unnecessary

---

As I and others have said, there are a few reasons for why the stance is hard.

First, it is important for Christians to seek to understand God's revelation accurately. If we believe God has revealed a younger age for the earth, then faithfulness to Scripture requires Christians to be vocal about it.

Second, there really are theological ramifications for the age of the Earth, both in terms of the reliability of the Scriptures themselves, as well as essential doctrines like original sin.

It's not some arbitrary position as some make it out to be.

quote:

---

This is absolutely not definitive because the Jews did not always interpret yom to mean a 24 hour period.

---

His audience would have been using common terminology and scriptural interpretation. It would not have been a debate about what “yom” means.

quote:

---

Dinosaurs" if they exist were merely dragons.


We talking Komodo or Game of Thrones?

---

We talkin bout the BIG azz kind with wings and evil voices that they only use sparingly unless some man is speaking for god again - as always regarding some matter concerning the things a man should be doing

or not