fnci@comcast.net (Frank J) wrote in message news:<38c5d0dd.0402141003.510da09e@posting.google.com>...
> "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<c0jm8c$jgr$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > news:c0jjk0$k96$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> > > Uncle Davey wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>I read Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial.
> > > >>He mentioned that US's Jewish community is not interested to
> > > >>fight against neodarwinism/evolution.
> > > >>It seems embarrashment to creationists ?
> > > >>Jewish people know perhaps better the original hebrew version of Genesis
> > > >
> > > > ;)
> > > >
> > > >>In fact I remember only one Jewish creationist :Spetner.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>--
> > > >> A marvelous jeweler told me rumors about gray mold in US theater.
> > > >> A marvellous jeweller told me rumours about grey mould in UK theatre.
> > > >> How come ? Well, the farther from Darwin the more corrupted language ;)
> > > >> - http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's a good question, and I believe I have worked out the answer to it.
> > > >
> > > > There are a number of Christians who believe in a theistic evolution, as
> > > > most Jewish believers seem to do, but for those who take seriously the
> > > > central Christian doctrine of the Resurrection, and, what goes hand in
> hand
> > > > with that, a new heavens and a new earth, all resurrected, so, in other
> > > > words, a new creation, a problem occurs which doesn't occur for the
> Jewish
> > > > believer, for whom the resurrected form of the afterlife is not a
> central
> > > > doctrine. This problem is, if we say that God was unable to create the
> old
> > > > world directly, and miraculously, without waiting for billions of years,
> > > > then what of the new creation?
> > >
> > > So, how do you get from "God created the world in billions of years" to
> > > "therefore God is unable to create to create a new world directly"?
> > >
> >
> > If we are to believe that God will create the new world immediately, by a
> > miracle,
> > then what's the problem with believing the first was also a rapid,
> > miraculous, direct Creation?
>
> Two reasons: (1) The evidence of the past supports a different
> account, and (2) The Bible commands us not to bear false witness.
>
The evidence of the past supports either account. There are things
which neither account can fully explain, and some things appear better
explained by one or other of the two accounts.
> >
> > Especially when the new world promise comes from the same Bible as the old
> > world creation account.
>
> And the same Bible that says "the letter killeth but the spirit giveth
> life."
> >
> > Uncle Davey
That pasage refers to the letter of the law, not the literality of the
resurrection.
Please don't bear false witness yourself, about what the Bible is
saying.
Please don't use glib interpretations out of context to make the Bible
look like an unworkable document.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
|