nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 71:
Line 71: + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of Creation (view source)
Revision as of 04:09, October 25, 2008
, 04:09, October 25, 2008→Biblical Inconsistency?: A third possibility
I don't know about anyone else, but that second possiblity is personally very disturbing. But the question still remains: where's the other universe? --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 19:16, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't know about anyone else, but that second possiblity is personally very disturbing. But the question still remains: where's the other universe? --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 19:16, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
: There is a third possibility: That what you see as an inconsistency is not actually an inconsistency. The first part of the account is chronological, the second is not, yet you make a chronological claim about it. The NIV translates {{Bible ref|Genesis|2|19}} as "Now the LORD God ''had formed'' out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." (my emphasis).
: The language of Genesis 1 is that of narrative, and the [[Creation week|experts agree that it was meant as history]]. And that's a point to keep in mind: The Bible was not written as a ''science'' textbook, but it does contain a lot of ''[[history of the Bible|history]]'', and some of that history does overlap areas that science claims. But is it really science (observation and testing) or ''history'' that is in dispute? We can run tests to see if scales have the capability of turning in feathers, but we can't run tests to see if that's what actually happened in the past. The former is ''science'', and the latter is ''history''. Okay, the two are not mutually exclusive, and certainly science can aid our understanding of history, but we must not blur the distinction.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:09, 25 October 2008 (EDT)