Search results

Non-historical literature is also to be taken seriously. Jesus' parables, for example, and Revelation. "Historical" is not the only way to understand Genesis 1, and never has been. The early theologians (such as Augustine) weren't kow-towing to atheist scientists, so don't assume that modern...

Apologies - for some reason I assumed you were talking about sedimentary rocks. We know that dead animals are normally scavenged and eaten. That's the norm. And if they're eaten, they won't fossilise. Therefore, fossilisation is the exception, not the rule.

Of course not. However they interpret Genesis 1, all Christians agree that God is the Creator.

James is speaking ironically. Anyone who never sins with their tongue must surely be perfect - if there were in fact anyone! He's making the point that everyone commits sins of speech!

What rocks have been formed in "modern times"? How do you define "modern"? No species was "declared" extinct millions of years ago. Extinction is assumed if there are no modern specimens known, but then obviously if one turns up the scientists change their minds! Bear in mind that only a tiny...

Hmm... Why are atheistic scientists (like Richard Dawkins) so keen to interpret Genesis 1 in the most literal way possible - and why do so many Christians feel the need to agree with them? Actually, Christians have always had differences of opinion over Genesis 1. St Augustine of Hippo (the...

It isn't a case of one denomination being "right" and all the others "wrong". Different denominations have different strengths and weaknesses. They have different worship traditions, different ways of celebrating Communion, different approaches to evangelism / prayer/ church government etc. The...

The disagreement isn't between science and the Bible, but between science and a particular interpretation of part of the Bible (the early chapters of Genesis). So don't be in such a hurry to condemn the science. The Bible contains many types of literature, not all of which are intended to be...

Seems pretty obvious to me

I've already told you.

I wasn't intending to make a distinction. We neither become angels (automatically, or by our own efforts) nor are turned into them (by God).

If you look at the verse I quoted from I Corinthians, it suggests that after the resurrection we will indeed be "higher" than the angels! Because God will raise us up to reign with Christ over all creation. But that's not the same as being turned into angels.

It's a very popular belief. But the Bible is quite clear that human beings and angels are different categories of being. We were made "a little lower than the angels" (Psalm 8:5), we are served by angels (Hebrews 1:14), and in the age to come we shall judge angels (I Corinthians 6:3) In the age...

This really isn't logical. None of the food we eat has exactly the same "cellular structure" as our own bodies, but animal foods will be a lot closer than anything plant-based. Milk, of all things, has no "cellular structure" anyway. It's a liquid which may have a few odd cells floating around...

That's a very good point!

Only if deciding not to wear make-up was part of your fast when you started. Make-up has nothing to do with witchcraft that I know of. And Jezebel wasn't a witch. There is one reference to her putting on her make-up, just before she was put to death (II Kings 9:30), but that was an act of...

I don't find this logical. The more familiar one is with the Scriptures, surely the less of a problem it is when a phrase or sentence isn't repeated quite so many times. I read God's Word (NIV) a great deal, and I've never found these "missing" bits a problem, because I can still read them in my...

What these lists never tell you is that the vast majority of the "omitted" phrases and verses are actually duplicated elsewhere in the Bible - especially in the Gospels. So you will find them in the newer Bible translations - just not necessarily in all the places where you expect them to be...

Your interpretation is impossible because the word "chosen" (or "elect") is plural. So it can't possibly be referring to Peter; it has to be referring to the expatriates. Greek rules for word order are very different from English. It's not unusual to have two words that actually belong together...

I don't see the problem. What is it to you if I use and memorise a different translation (which I do)? The meaning doesn't change! And nobody that I meet 'in the flesh' uses the KJV anyway!