Hot answers tagged

21

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, ...


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

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 ...


5

'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).


4

Reasons to Believe is an organization which presents arguments in favor of Old Earth Creation, and on their Who We Are page, founder Hugh Ross states: One of the approaches I've developed, with the help of my RTB colleagues, is a biblical creation model that is testable, falsifiable, and predictive. Their web site offers an overview of their ...


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

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 ...


3

Most English-language Bibles begin with "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth," although the first three Hebrew words of Genesis are: "בראשית ברא אלהים" (B'reishit bara Elohim). There is no definite article and the grammar is complex, if not confusing, but there is a general consensus among scholars that this can not be translated correctly ...


3

Creationists do sometimes make falsifiable theories and predictions, but I want to note first that: These predictions are not universally held among all creationists, or depending on the theory even relatively common They are based on assumptions that are not derived from scripture and which are not even logically required by the idea of creationism or ...


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 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 ...


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 ...


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

I am adding a bit more to this question as this view point has not been explored in the other answers: Genesis 2:1-3: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, ...


2

This question is about confusion in reading the creation account in Genesis 1:1-2:4a, and the confusion arises because you are trying to see the creation story as a literal account. The existence of daylight and evening before the creation of the sun and moon is only the most superficial issue in understanding the creation story. Contrary to science, a ...


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) ...


1

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever ...


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

Just glimpsing at the question, there are inherent falsifiable things in "creationism". I am going to use a Hypothesis / Falsifiable argument format H: Life comes from life F: If a non-living (rock) thing becomes alive H: Living animals cannot change their kind through reproduction F: If a cat breeds with another cat, and produces a non-cat (like a pig) ...


1

A fundamental tenet of Christian belief is that God created the world, with the primary evidence for this found in the Book of Genesis. What is usually meant by Creationism is not so much about whether this is read literally or symbolically, but about creating a "science" that can be put alongside the science of evolution and therefore defend the biblical ...


1

Many people reason that Eve was not created on the 'sixth day' because there are two quite separate creation stories in Genesis - verses 1:1-2:4a (attributed by scholars to the Priestly Source) and verses 2:4b-25 (attributed to the Yahwist). The first story says that man and female were both created on the sixth day, but does not mention Eve. The second ...


1

Scientists are not a single cohort, so when we find that some will agree and some will disagree, this provides little in the way of useful information unless we know what we intended to mean by 'scientists' and then understand the profiles of the scientists. Richard Dawkins says, in The God Delusion, page 100, that a study by Larson and Witham appeared on ...


1

In the Bible light is used to represent goodness, knowledge, freedom, etc... while darkness is used to represent evil, suffering, ignorance, etc... But it must always be kept in mind that this comparison is given to make it easy for us to understand the great war between good and evil. The physical light or the physical darkness does not mean good or ...


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

There is no biblical reason to limit information about creation to Genesis. If it's in the Bible but not in Genesis, it's still in the Bible! And, as a philosophical point, anyone who reads any of these answers is already going outside of the Bible and thereby relying on our extra-biblical interpretations of Genesis or of the Bible as a whole, so the same ...



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