Sentences with phrase «of biblical creation»

Attacks on evolution come largely from conservative Christians who believe in a literal reading of the biblical creation story.

They had to be: dinosaurs gave an age to the Earth that wasn't the 5,000 years of Biblical creation; they revealed the possibility of a prehuman past and a posthuman future.

The first is an unequivocal, even stirring affirmation of the biblical creation - faith, the faith in the absolute sovereignty of God as Creator and Sustainer of the life, the time, and the total environment of man.

«The core issue raised by ancient Near Eastern data has helped calibrate the genre of the biblical creation accounts.

Your listing of the biblical creation story, is lame.

(2) Evolution has often been taught with the implication that it was a rejection of the biblical creation account, by ignoring or dismissing the creation stories as prescientific myths surpassed by superior modern versions.

In Levenson's reading, creation ex nihilo, in the sense of an instantaneous change from nothing to something, fails to capture the theological implication of the biblical creation story:

The purpose of the volume, according Harold Attridge, is to explore «the ongoing controversy in the United States about the relationship between science and religion, particularly evolutionary biology and traditional readings of the biblical creation story.»

Not exact matches

The ID Movement does not hold to the Biblical model of Creation.

Under the radar, the «establishment» in university science departments has been finding ways to get rid of professors who have any belief in the creation / Biblical viewpoint.

They speak so much about the Sovereign - God, but what about the Creator - God, because many of them reject the biblical account of creation in favor of Darwinism.

Furthermore, to base one's ID position on a non-literal reading of Genesis, incorporating the central tenet of special creation by the biblical deity, is, in fact, an exercise in bible - based reasoning.

As has been pointed out to you countless times, science has shown that the biblical myths of creation and life are not true — they are simply stories invented to satisfy an ignorant populace.

I also spend years in studying good christian apologetics books - namely Answers for Aethists, Design vs Evolution, Biblical creation, Bible Authenticity, Is Jesus Christ - Yeshua Hamashiya, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Bible Prophesises etc..

Most biblical stories were adoptions of earlier myths and legends, such as the virgin birth, creation and Noah's flood.

The Biblical accounts of God - to - human relationship and affairs going from the very obvious to the very mysterious, starting with creation and going through a multitude of stages, the fall, the expulsion and curse, trials and covenants, rebellion and Law, culminating with God's «Ultimate Provision» for Salvation, the «Good News» of the Lord Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, the «New Covenant,» the «Millennial Kingdom» to come, the end of time, and the afterlife, are the basis for the Christian Theology on «Time Dispensations.»

For example, he or she may be asked, How does the biblical account of creation relate to the Big Bang theory?

Some people don't like the notion of a universe forming from quantum foam, but, instead, would much rather imagine a god forming the universe, which is why we have thousands of creation myths, including the two biblical ones, the one written by the Priestly Source in Genesis 1 and the older creation myth written by the Jahwist in Genesis 2, which borrow from older Sumerian mythology.

To suggest science «compliments» the Biblical creation story is akin to suggesting the science investigating the mammalian physiology of Rangifer tarandus «compliments» the story of Santa Claus and Rudolph.

But there is evidence — beginning with Genesis 1, where we are told that God looked at the whole creation and saw that it was good — that biblical thinking is not nearly so anthropocentric as many interpreters of the Bible have supposed.

In the light of the Biblical vision of the Garden of Justice, Shalom, and Harmony (Integrity) of Creation, these religious and cultural resources, particulary appropriated by the poor and oppressed, can be revitalized to be flowers, fruits and even roots of various elements in the Garden of God, in which humans are gardeners.

Given these historical errors and oversights in both our biblical interpretation and our artistic engagement, we must support efforts to study and present a true, uncompromising picture of both the glory of God's creation and the depths of human folly.

Secondly as stated further up the thread, the biblical account of creation was to show the authority of God to an ancient people.

Radical or countercultural feminist religion offers a rejection of biblical faith and the creation of a new faith to respond to a vision of the equality of men and women; Christianity could offer an even more comprehensive and profound vision.

The believer may claim that but have no evidence of that — the biblical creation myth is incorrect and it is the only thing offered as evidence.

Some people don't like the notion of a universe forming from quantum foam, but, instead, would much rather imagine a god forming the universe, which is why we have thousands of creation myths, including the two biblical ones, the one written by the Priestly Source in Genesis 1 and the older creation myth written by the Jahwist in Genesis 2, myths which borrow from older Sumerian mythology.

[4] Biblical Account of Creation Analysed, Sep. 12 1979 [5] On the Dignity and Vocation of Woman § 25.

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

When the Hellenistic Church once again bestowed upon the world the biblical name of «creation,» it thereby abandoned a truly eschatological form of faith.

The logic of covenant, progressively unveiled within the biblical process (compare, for example, Exodus with Esther), works toward the greater enfranchisement of the human for the sake of the redemption of creation.

Henry Morris, the father of the modern creation movement, explains why in his examination of the biblical data related to such a matter.

His stirring opening statement invoked a repeating Biblical pattern of creation, death, and resurrection to new creation to suggest that Protestantism is not a diseased form that needs to be restored to its original health, but the historically - necessary senescence of something bound to die and rise again as some new and unforeseen synthesis.

As in other cases, Rowan Williams is characteristic: his theology is deeply informed by Luther, Schleiermacher, Barth, Rahner, von Balthasar, Bonhoeffer and other continental Europeans, besides theologies from other parts of the world, and his recent book On Christian Theology covers theological method, biblical hermeneutics, creation, sin, Jesus Christ, incarnation, church, sacraments, ethics and eschatology, with the Trinity as the integrator.

My read leads me to conclude the biblical God is a creation of men of that time, not a transcendent, perfect being.

Contemporary environmentalists transform Francis's biblical piety about God's creation into a prototype of their worship of a quite different god, Gaia.

Reaching back to the original biblical understanding of creation involving the increasing emergence of order out of chaos, Keller writes:

One might call this the soteriological captivity of creation, because it succeeds in emptying the world of its own meaning as a realm of divine governance and human involvement prior to and apart from the biblical story of salvation culminating in Christ.

Evolution, with its evidence of transitional fossils, geological column, DNA evidence, vestigial organs etc., is very damning to the biblical Creation Story.

Some feel it reflects a negative valuation of human sexuality based on the dualism of Hellenistic thought, which saw salvation as a freeing of the soul from the body, rather than the biblical tradition which affirms the goodness of the whole creation.

Surely, however, the basic affirmation of Christian theism, founded (once we have got behind the images in which often it was phrased) on the biblical witness to the faithfulness and consistency of God and to his unfailing maintenance of the creation in being, is that all things at all times and in all places are present to God, that he is always at work in them, that he constantly energizes through them, that he never ceases to move in the creation towards the accomplishment of his holy will and the revelation of his holy purpose.

I said:» Evolution, with its evidence of transitional fossils, geological column, DNA evidence, vestigial organs etc., is very damning to the biblical Creation Story.»

While it is true that the biblical view of creation sanctifies time and nature as created by God — and therefore good — it does not follow that the creation accounts as such are to be understood chronologically or as natural history.

We have already noted the conflict which runs through most of Christian thought between the biblical vision of God as the creative and redemptive actor in the history of his creation, and the metaphysical doctrine inherited from the synthesis of the Christian faith with neo-platonic philosophy which conceives God as the impassible, non-temporal absolute.

Nygren gives an important suggestion about the history of doctrine when he says that the Church Fathers were saved from falling completely into a Greek pattern of thought by the three biblical assertions of Creation, Incarnation, and Resurrection.32 But rather than conclude, as Nygren does, that these themes require us to reject all metaphysics, why not say that they require us to reconsider our metaphysics?

Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies of creation is easily obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism.

Walter Brueggemann's book Genesis, in citing the biblical chapter 11:1 - 9, suggests that the story of the Tower of Babel describes humanity's attempt to organize itself around an instrument of its own creation.

First of all; the «biblical model of marriage,» is with Adam and Eve... They ar the creation model..

Biblical literalism, in its treatment of the days of creation, substitutes a modern arithmetical reading for the original symbolic one.

«Liberty and justice for all,» marvel at the diversity of creation, welcome for one another: these, alas, are true biblical values.

Science and natural history as we know them simply did not exist, even though they owe a debt to the positive value given to space, time, matter and history by the biblical affirmation of creation.