Signature failures.

Bushido216 · #**111** 24th January 2004, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Bulldog

Somone should make a signature: " If science contradicts scripture, than it is our interpretation of science that is wrong."

Ugh...

Bulldog · #**112** 24th January 2004, 01:52 PM

All I'm saying is this: we KNOW that the scriptures are infallible (because they are inspired by God), but we do not know that science is infallible because it is a MAN-MADE. My faith is not dependant on what scientists DO but what Christ DID.

LewisWildermuth · #**113** 24th January 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Bulldog

All I'm saying is this: we KNOW that the scriptures are infallible (because they are inspired by God), but we do not know that science is infallible because it is a MAN-MADE. My faith is not dependant on what scientists DO but what Christ DID.

How are they infallible when Jesus himself took issue with some of them?

How can they be wrong according to Jesus and yet infallible at the same time?

Godzman · #**114** 24th January 2004, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by ThePhoenix

Jesus didn't create the world, God did. God certainly created a very special world, the one we live in. So what does the evolution rob Jesus of?

There is no Theos without Christos, no one has seen God except what is revealed through Jesus Christ.

ThePhoenix · #**115** 24th January 2004, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Godzman

There is no Theos without Christos, no one has seen God except what is revealed through Jesus Christ.

Then what did Moses see?

Bushido216 · #**116** 25th January 2004, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by Bulldog

All I'm saying is this: we KNOW that the scriptures are infallible (because they are inspired by God), but we do not know that science is infallible because it is a MAN-MADE. My faith is not dependant on what scientists DO but what Christ DID.

You're right. Scripture is infallible. However, there are many ways of interpreting Scripture. If you take it literally, that's still one way of interpreting it. Since sound science contradicts a literal Genesis, we should re-evaluate the way we look at it.

lucaspa · #**117** 26th January 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Bulldog

All I'm saying is this: we KNOW that the scriptures are infallible (because they are inspired by God), but we do not know that science is infallible because it is a MAN-MADE. My faith is not dependant on what scientists DO but what Christ DID.

LOL! Another person denying that God created.

There is no place in scripture where they are said to be infallible. And, in fact, Mark 10 and Matthew 19 have Jesus saying that a part of scripture is out and out wrong.

What's more, Christians over the years have decided that certain interpretations of scripture are wrong. Christians used to think that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the solar system based on scripture. We now know that those ways of reading scripture are wrong.

What we have here is a discussion about why you think Genesis 1-3 isn't in the category of the flat and immovable earth passages.

Finally, what is science? It is the study of the physical universe. Who made the physical universe? God. Thus science is the study of God's second book -- His Creation. What you are saying is that we should ignore God and concentrate on a man-made interpretation of parts of the Bible. I don't think so.

And what does evolution have to do with what Christ did? I don't see the connection.

lucaspa · #**118** 26th January 2004, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Bulldog

Somone should make a signature: " If science contradicts scripture, than it is our interpretation of science that is wrong."

Can't. To do that means that you are denying God. And no one wants to be in that position.

lucaspa · #**119** 26th January 2004, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Godzman

There is no Theos without Christos, no one has seen God except what is revealed through Jesus Christ.

ThePhoenix gave an excellent response. I would add:
Who were the prophets receiving info from?
Who communicated to Abraham?

Judaism existed for at least 1,500 years before Jesus was born. Are you saying that nothing was revealed to them?

In 2 Timothy when Paul says that scripture is useful, you realize that he was not referrign to the NT? The NT hadn't been written yet! None of the gospels had been written when Paul was writing his letters. And he did not consider his letters to be scripture. (we should think really hard about that one.)