Hot answers tagged

22

God and Stephen Hawking, by John C. Lennox, is a popular direct reply to The Grand Design. Alister McGrath calls it "a brilliant response," and the book won an Award of Merit in Christianity Today's 2012 Book Awards. Whether it "makes sense," as you say, to Hawking, is perhaps debatable. But Lennox is no slouch: he's a Professor at Oxford University, ...


9

I'm Amish -- sort of.* You are correct that there is a lot of variation within the Amish tradition (and even more if you include Mennonites, another branch of the Anabaptist heritage), so I can't speak for all. However, I think I'd be fairly safe to say that many, if not most, of us believe generally in a young earth and a literal six-day creation. ...


8

You appear to be slightly misunderstanding Zacharias's argument. Here are his four options: No world Amoral world (no such thing as good and evil) Constrained world (no possibility of choosing evil) Free world (possibility of choosing evil) Out of these options, he says that the fourth option, the actual Creation, is the only one in which love is ...


6

The explanation is quite simple. They had the same teeth, but they ate plants. Whether they struggled to eat plants is another question and mostly opinion based. Generally, Young Earth Creationists when challenged with this point, will note that there are examples of animals with carnivorous teeth, yet they are herbivorous. The most common example is the ...


6

'Āḏām comes from the Hebrew 'āḏām, meaning "human being, mankind collectively, cognate with Phoenician 'dm (probably adam), Arabic 'adam human being; further etymology uncertain: perhaps related to 'aḏamāh earth, ground (compare the juxtaposition of 'āḏām and 'aḏamāh in Genesis 2:7, where God forms man out of earth) or to 'aḏom red, ruddy" (OED).


6

It's true that the Bible says that man has "dominion" over the animals: And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:28, ESV) But there are many, many passages in the Bible ...


4

The belief of Jehovah's Witnesses and other religions regarding a water canopy that existed at the time of earth's creation is not a concept that is a result of doctrine but one that is advanced in the Bible itself. Genesis 1:7 says: "So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so." The Jewish Tanach ...


4

There's certainly no reason Jesus couldn't have used the story of Creation for teaching purposes even if He had been a theistic evolutionist—that's why everything in the Bible is there. But there's nothing in Catholic teaching even insisting that theistic evolution is correct, let alone stating what Jesus' belief on the subject was. The Catechism of ...


3

Creationists rarely think about the planets of the solar system. As we see at a site that calls itself YEC Headquarters, science is likely to "redefine the truth", and planets tend to make science the focus of discussion. This YEC site does not tell us what Young Earth Creationists think did happen, but only that scientists are wrong about the origin of the ...


3

The other answer seems to largely explain it, and I was going to comment to add this but could not for want of rep. Genesis 9:3-4 states that: Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. (NRSVA) This seems to often ...


3

The first thing to keep in mind is that in the Old Testament, doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not at all explicit. The passage in Genesis 1:26 is frequently interpreted as a prefiguration of the Holy Trinity, but it would be a mistake to say that the human author of Genesis is affirming anything about the Divine Persons. Similarly, it would be a mistake to ...


2

Introduction: Scentific Evidence Other answers have already discussed the Biblical Basis for this question, so I will address the second part of you question: what is the scientific evidence the proponents use to support this theory? Simply put, there is no scientific evidence to support this theory. In fact, the scientific evidence rebuts this theory ...


2

THE LORD WAS SPEAKING TO THE ANGELS I'll beg to differ with the previous poster. This is not the Trinity speaking to Himself, as too many mistakenly believe; rather, this is The Lord speaking to the host of heaven, also known as the Divine Council. This is God's assembly, His heavenly family, His entourage, called "bene elohim" (sons of God) in Hebrew. ...


2

Though I am not sure I can speak for an entire denomination, I do have a major in Bible from Free Will Baptist Bible College, so I can say the denomination educated me. With the preliminaries out of the way, one must consider that there is no mention in any form of the Genesis account of the creation of Angels. That leaves two possibilities (because such a ...


2

On Nakedness and Shame In Gen. 2:25, it states "and the two of them were naked" (וַיִּֽהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים), but it does not say that Adam and Eve knew they were naked (cp. Gen. 3:11). The statement that they were naked is merely an objective fact. Because they did not know they were naked, "they were not ashamed" (וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ) (ibid). Yet, ...


2

Though our English translations of the Old Testament use the word "man" and the name "Adam", they come from a single Hebrew word. Whether it is generic (man) or specific (Man/Adam) depends on the context. Interestingly, in the New Testament, Paul used two different Greek words: The first man [anthropos] Adam [adam] became a living being... (I Cor. 15:45) ...


2

First of all, the dispute has definitely been around for a long time. Here is a link defending an allegorical day interpretation. It references Origen (not a saint) and St. Augustine: http://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/early-interpretations-of-genesis St. Augustine specifically makes the point that there was no sun or earth on the ...


2

As a 'Young Earth' creationist, the question of Lions having teeth doesn't really make a lot of sense. We don't believe there were any Lions or Tigers as we know them today, only big cats. Those big cats contained the genetic information for sharp teeth, not so sharp teeth, and all the way in between (just like your parents have the genetic information for ...


1

A most definite no. Satan does not have the power to create; only God does. Theologians for centuries have been using the phrase ex nihilo to describe God's creative activities. That saying is fine as far as it goes, but I suggest that a better expression than "God created all things out of nothing" is God created all things out of the fullness of his ...


1

Even though your question doesn't make a lot of sense I think your answer is found in Genesis 11. After Noah the people of the Earth spoke one language and attempted to build a tower to heaven. Genesis 11: 7-9 7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.” 8 So the Lord dispersed them ...


1

The short answer is that the Church does not have a definitive teaching on the O.P.’s question: whether God can create “new” angels. However, the perennial philosophy that is the basis for the Church’s theological reflections suggests that, although God has the power to create as many angels as He wishes, from our point of view, the creation of the angels is ...


1

From the "Treatise on the Angels" in St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica (q 61. Of the Production of the Angels in the Order of Natural Being, a. 1 Whether the angel has a cause of his existence? c.): It must be affirmed that angels and everything existing, except God, were made by God. God alone is His own existence; while in everything else the ...


1

Short Answer to "does God create new angels?" We don't know. Angels are created by God, and current teaching is that God has already created Angels. I can see nothing that would prevent further creation, if God so wills it, but the official teachings don't address that. Discussion The language in the Catechism (current teaching) holds that the ...


1

No, there is no catholic teaching that serpents had legs. As you say, NABRE assumes Genesis as allegorical, therefore I would take their description of the serpent as allegorical. That is, allegorically "the serpent had legs" - as in, was in right standing with God (before Satan's fall). Then "lost the legs" / was punished meaning is no longer in the ...


1

The Last Superstition By Edward Feser addresses this. Also, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith Also try Answering Atheism


1

It may not be the only "purpose of life", but it's one of the things that we get to do. "15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it." -- Genesis 2:15 (NET) from: https://lumina.bible.org/bible/Genesis+2 Jesus gives us additional purposes of life in the Gospels: “37 Jesus said to him, “‘Love the ...


1

The Swedenborgian or "New Church" tradition, which draws on the Christian theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), views Adam (or "the human") in the early chapters of Genesis as encompassing both sexes. However, this tradition rejects the idea that Adam was an individual human being. It holds instead that Adam was a figure representative of the earliest ...


1

You are correct - the Hebrew word for Adam is as androgenous as a word can be in a language which has no gender neutral pronouns. There are many, though obviously not all in Christian community who believe that humankind was fist created androgynous. The Junia Project's article "Quick Start Guide to Equality in Genesis" says the following: The Hebrew ...


1

Water suspended in zero gravity would be frozen as ice crystals and would not be boiling, the freezing cold temperatures of space would help keep the water from doing such. Also, one thing we all know about water is that it is translucent! This canopy could have diffused the light somewhat making the natural light at ground level less intense, which would ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible