Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 97: Line 97:     
The Genesis version of creation was written for the Hebrews.  I read the 7-day creation account simply as a way to illustrate the Sabbath rest.  I think an important distinction needs to be made with the Old Testament as it says in the New Testament it the old covenant is obsolete.  The New Testament is written for us and this should be the foundation of our belief.
 
The Genesis version of creation was written for the Hebrews.  I read the 7-day creation account simply as a way to illustrate the Sabbath rest.  I think an important distinction needs to be made with the Old Testament as it says in the New Testament it the old covenant is obsolete.  The New Testament is written for us and this should be the foundation of our belief.
 +
 +
{{unsigned|AdamB}}
 +
 +
:I totally reject that science has disproved creation in six days.  Perhaps you could explain to me how it has done this?
 +
:I agree that the scientific account of creation supports a creator—that's what creation science is all about!
 +
:Although the Big Bang theory does propose a beginning, it does not propose that the universe was created by God.  It proposes that nothing became something for no reason.
 +
:God said to work for six days and rest on the seventh ''because'' he took six days to create and rested on the seventh.  So what does that mean if He ''didn't'' actually take six days?
 +
:The New Testament did make the old ''covenant'' obsolete.  That doesn't change the ''history'' of the Old Testament.
 +
:If you think that the New Testament should be the foundation of our belief, why is it that Jesus founded so much of what He said on the Old Testament?  Including endorsing the creation account?
 +
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 13 November 2007 (EST)
nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254

edits

Navigation menu