Creationist Verses

Status
Not open for further replies.

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
RightWingGirl said:
That is an interesting interpretation. When do you think God rested, and after what, specifically?

What do I think? I think the whole purpose behind that particular part of scripture is to remind us to take some serious period of time and set it aside as a time in which we are primarily connecting with our spiritual selves and furthering our relationship with God.

It's not so much important to answer "When did God rest and after what." but to remember that God did rest and because of that we are to rest as well.

I think I worded my question wrong. How did you learn in the first place that God came down to earth, was made flesh, died and rose again? When you first learned this event ever happened how were you told, if the Bible cannot be trusted to be factual on historical matters? What did you trust in and take as truth although it contradicted science? For science tells us man cannot rise again.

Deconstructing 35 years of history, especially the last 20 or so, isn't going to be an easy task. Sure you want me to do it?

Seriously, I think you're putting too sharp a point on this. There are a lot of really good recent posts in the forum on how nature =/= without God, and how the dichotomy between science and faith may be artificially inflated in an unwarranted way.

Also I seem to be seeing a quality of fact=truth; non-fact=non-truth in your thinking. If this is so, then we have a hurdle to surmount, since fact=/=truth in my POV.

[bible]Rom. 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God[/bible]

Again, let's look at the whole story:

Romans 10:1-21 NIV said:
Romans 10
1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."[a] 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[f]
14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"[g]
16But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?"[h] 17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
"Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world." 19Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,
"I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding."[j] 20And Isaiah boldly says,
"I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."[k] 21But concerning Israel he says,
"All day long I have held out my hands
to a disobedient and obstinate people.


Here Paul is talking about his desire to save the Jewish people. And he's pulling from about six different texts fromt the OT, if I read my notes correctly to try an establish a theological proof as to why the scripture (which, remember, would have been the OT to Paul and his audience - not our modern Bible) points to Christ as the Saviour, and why He is the Saviour of Jews and non-Jews alike.

Most pertinent to your question are verse 14-15

Romans 10:14-15 CEV said:
14How can people have faith in the Lord and ask him to save them, if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear, unless someone tells them? 15And how can anyone tell them without being sent by the Lord? The Scriptures say it is a beautiful sight to see even the feet of someone coming to preach the good news.

Here Paul lays out a concise logical progression as to how one arrives at belief: asking for help founded upon belief founded upon hearing founded upon telling (witness) founded upon being sent.

Turn it around and what Paul is saying is that the Lord sends a messenger to tell to the hearing ear of a ready believer, who called for help, the Good News that God indeed is ready and willing to respond to this call and help (save.)

I'm not a Bible scholar. I know neither Greek nor Hebrew, but in my reading of these English translations, what I see is Paul establishing a theological principal: the Good News is heard through the telling. Wow! What a testament to the oral tradition of Paul's day.

Now, let's look at verse 17 in this light:

Romans 10:17 CEV said:
17No one can have faith without hearing the message about Christ.

Romans 10:17 NIV said:
17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

Romans 10:17 NASB said:
17So faith comes from (Z)hearing, and hearing by (AA)the word of Christ.

Christ is the emphasis here, not scripture.

The Jews have scripture, and their understanding of it let them down. What Paul is saying is that in order to save the Jews the church most go out and speak of the Good News of Christs salvation to them directly. Those who are ready to listen will be witnessed to by those who have been prepared for God.

So, is v17 saying that faith is founded upon scripture? I don't think so, since Paul is talking about the Jews, who at that time had scripture and thought they had a completely understanding of it.

No v17 is saying that faith is established upon hearing the message of Christ - being told about Christ's redemptive story - something that would not have been found in scripture at that time.

Finally, keep in mind that I am not saying that scripture is unnecessary. I am saying that scripture is unnecessary for faith.
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
RightWingGirl said:
[bible]Rom. 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God[/bible]

KJV, right? I just realized that the KJV is the only translation that I have access to that translates v17 as 'by the word of God'. rather than Good News, or word of Christ.

And since it seems to be a modern trend to equate 'word of God' to 'The Bible' I can see where you get your understanding of this passage.

Interesting.
 
Upvote 0

RightWingGirl

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
971
28
34
America
✟8,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
chaoschristian said:
Deconstructing 35 years of history, especially the last 20 or so, isn't going to be an easy task. Sure you want me to do it?
Yes, if you wouldn't mind. I'm just curious what other than the Bible could convince you to belive contrary to science.


Also I seem to be seeing a quality of fact=truth; non-fact=non-truth in your thinking. If this is so, then we have a hurdle to surmount, since fact=/=truth in my POV.
I think "truth" means
  1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
  2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
  3. Sincerity; integrity.
  4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
  5. Reality; actuality.
And "fact"
  1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
  2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed:
  3. A real occurrence; an event
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
RightWingGirl said:
Yes, if you wouldn't mind. I'm just curious what other than the Bible could convince you to belive contrary to science.

I was kidding. I'm not actually prepared to deconstruct the last 20 years of my life in a public forum just to satisfy your curiosity.

If we are taking about evolutionary theory, then I believe I have made my position clear: the revelation of Creation, through science and reason, indicates that God uses evolutionary processes to create the diversity of life that we know existed in the past, exists today and can expect in the future. We are the products of evolutionary processes set in motion by God and guided by God. I accept the science of this. What scripture reveals as the will, character and nature of God affirms this position.

There are only two things that would sway me from this position: revelation of evidence, discovered and tested through science and reason, that evolutionary theory is falsified. This would include the emergence of a new, paradigm busting theory to explain everything that evolutionary theory did plus the new evidence and make better predictions about what would be expected in the future. That is a tall order, but I do not presume to exclude the possibility that it could happen. Likewise, just as unlikely, but still very possible, is a direct revelation to me from God, who says in no uncertain terms that I am wrong and He actually created by [fill in the blank].
 
Upvote 0

RightWingGirl

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
971
28
34
America
✟8,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
chaoschristian said:
I was kidding. I'm not actually prepared to deconstruct the last 20 years of my life in a public forum just to satisfy your curiosity.

If we are taking about evolutionary theory, then I believe I have made my position clear: the revelation of Creation, through science and reason, indicates that God uses evolutionary processes to create the diversity of life that we know existed in the past, exists today and can expect in the future. We are the products of evolutionary processes set in motion by God and guided by God. I accept the science of this. What scripture reveals as the will, character and nature of God affirms this position.
].
Sir, could you answer me this?

At one point in your life you seemed to have taken the word of scripture over the dictates of science. For science tells us man cannot rise again, and you believe that one Man did. At some point you learnt for the first time (likely from the Bible, or someone reading the Bible) that God came down to earth, was made flesh, died and rose again. When you learned this event ever happened, you trusted that it was true, although science would tell you otherwise.
Now you would not believe that God created in six days, although that is what He seems to tell us in the simplest terms possible, because Evolutionary science tells you otherwise. On the surface, there seems to be an inconstancy here. Is this inconsistent, or did you not believe the Bible as fact in the first place?
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
RightWingGirl said:
Sir, could you answer me this?

At one point in your life you seemed to have taken the word of scripture over the dictates of science. For science tells us man cannot rise again, and you believe that one Man did.


One man who just so happened to be God incarnate... let's not forget that little detail.

At some point you learnt for the first time (likely from the Bible, or someone reading the Bible) that God came down to earth, was made flesh, died and rose again. When you learned this event ever happened, you trusted that it was true, although science would tell you otherwise.

All things being equal, people do not rise up again after being dead for three days.

Being God in the flesh does grant one certain advantages over the rest of us.
Reason would tell us that all things were not equal.


Now you would not believe that God created in six days, although that is what He seems to tell us in the simplest terms possible, because Evolutionary science tells you otherwise.

God tells us that he does not lie or deceive. The Bible is quite clear on that point as well.

Science (and far from just evolutionary science) shows us that if the world was created in six days, 6,000 years ago, then someone went to a whole lot of trouble to hide this from our sight, and instead planted billions of years worth of false evidence.

Reason tells us that this simply cannot be.

On the surface, there seems to be an inconstancy here. Is this inconsistent, or did you not believe the Bible as fact in the first place?

On the surface, it is an inconsistancy... Which is why we shouldn't be content with just the surface. Look beneath the surface and see what you find.
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
sir.gif
Seriously, my conversion to Christianity had nothing to do with scriptural witness, but the personal testimonies of certain people who were close to me (and by witness I mean not just people telling me, but by the way the lived their lives with integrity) and the birth of my son. Those things coupled together with God's grace were the foundation of my conversion.​

While scripture is a comfort, it is not central to my faith.​

And it's not true that I've ever taken scripture over science, or that I take science over scripture. The two work together to tell me different parts of one truth - the truth of God and His Creation.​

It is not necessary for me to understand the science behind the resurrection for me to believe that it is true, and in believing that it's true I do not necessarily reject that there might be a scientific explanation for it (albeit one we haven't discovered yet or may never discover).​

Scripture/witness/science/Creation are not mutually exclusive to one another as you seem to propose, but are all facets of one truth.​

I accept (not believe) what Creation tells me about itself through science and reason. The revelation of truth that Creation provides is just as valid and just as holy and the revelation of truth that scripture provides.​

Likewise, I believe in the revelation of scripture despite what science and reason would tell me. Because of scripture the faith community of Christians writ large have the opportunity to engage in a common and universal experience that binds our unique and local experiences.​

You see a contradiction and you want to resolve it.​

I am satisfied to live in the paradox.​

P.S.: There is nothing simple about scripture, especially Genesis. One must be prepared to do a lot of hard work in order to understand the historical,cultural and literary contexts of scripture to begin to form a real appreciation for it. The whole notion of 'scripture must be simple and easy for me to understand' is one I roundly reject and is a trend that I fear will lead many earnest Christians away from seeking the deeper and more substantive value that scripture has to offer. But that's just cantankerous ole' me.​






RightWingGirl said:
Sir, could you answer me this?

At one point in your life you seemed to have taken the word of scripture over the dictates of science. For science tells us man cannot rise again, and you believe that one Man did. At some point you learnt for the first time (likely from the Bible, or someone reading the Bible) that God came down to earth, was made flesh, died and rose again. When you learned this event ever happened, you trusted that it was true, although science would tell you otherwise.
Now you would not believe that God created in six days, although that is what He seems to tell us in the simplest terms possible, because Evolutionary science tells you otherwise. On the surface, there seems to be an inconstancy here. Is this inconsistent, or did you not believe the Bible as fact in the first place?
 
Upvote 0

RightWingGirl

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
971
28
34
America
✟8,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
chaoschristian said:
Seriously, my conversion to Christianity had nothing to do with scriptural witness, but the personal testimonies of certain people who were close to me (and by witness I mean not just people telling me, but by the way the lived their lives with integrity) and the birth of my son. Those things coupled together with God's grace were the foundation of my conversion.​
Then the foundation for your conversion to the Christian faith was the words of a few people? They induced you to belive that Science was wrong, and that a Man did rise from the dead?



P.S.: There is nothing simple about scripture, especially Genesis. One must be prepared to do a lot of hard work in order to understand the historical,cultural and literary contexts of scripture to begin to form a real appreciation for it. The whole notion of 'scripture must be simple and easy for me to understand' is one I roundly reject and is a trend that I fear will lead many earnest Christians away from seeking the deeper and more substantive value that scripture has to offer. But that's just cantankerous ole' me.​
Have you ever considered that it might just mean plainly what it says?


In Luke 1:70 Zacharias, "filled with the Holy Ghost" prophisied saying..."As he spake from the mouth of his holy prophets which have been since the world began." This verse says that there have been men alive since the beginning of the world.
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
RightWingGirl said:
Have you ever considered that it might just mean plainly what it says?
I'm pretty certain that's the first thing we all considered. It quickly became apparent that such an interpretation was incorrect, so we proceeded to consider others.
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
RightWingGirl said:
Then the foundation for your conversion to the Christian faith was the words of a few people? They induced you to belive that Science was wrong, and that a Man did rise from the dead?

I am satisfied to live in the paradox.

Have you ever considered that it might just mean plainly what it says?

Sure, one brief moment in time when I was in 3rd grade.


In Luke 1:70 Zacharias, "filled with the Holy Ghost" prophisied saying..."As he spake from the mouth of his holy prophets which have been since the world began." This verse says that there have been men alive since the beginning of the world.

Luke 1:67-79 said:
Zechariah's Song

67His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied:
68"Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,
because he has come and has redeemed his people.
69He has raised up a horn[a] of salvation for us
in the house of his servant David
70(as he said through his holy prophets of long ago),
71salvation from our enemies
and from the hand of all who hate us—
72to show mercy to our fathers
and to remember his holy covenant,
73the oath he swore to our father Abraham:
74to rescue us from the hand of our enemies,
and to enable us to serve him without fear
75in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.
76And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High;
for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him,
77to give his people the knowledge of salvation
through the forgiveness of their sins,
78because of the tender mercy of our God,
by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven
79to shine on those living in darkness
and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the path of peace."

V70 bolded for emphasis. Like real estate there are three things that important when considering scripture: context, context and context.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
RightWingGirl said:
Then the foundation for your conversion to the Christian faith was the words of a few people? They induced you to belive that Science was wrong, and that a Man did rise from the dead?

Could you please either show me a scientific paper stating that God cannot raise people from the dead or quit repeating this lie?
 
Upvote 0

Gwenyfur

Legend
Dec 18, 2004
33,284
3,326
Everywhere
✟66,698.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Constitution
I would like to interject one point...

Charles Darwin, who's theory (based on Hutton and Lyell) only held a degree in Theology. No science degree, no philosophy degrees....a theology degree...
and yet...religion has no place in that great scientist's theory of evolution...

irony on top of irony....
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Gwenyfur said:
I would like to interject one point...

Charles Darwin, who's theory (based on Hutton and Lyell) only held a degree in Theology. No science degree, no philosophy degrees....a theology degree...
and yet...religion has no place in that great scientist's theory of evolution...

irony on top of irony....

So can you show me where religion shows up in the scientific method or science in the theory of evolution, or any scientific theory? If science observes and tests the natural world, and supernatural phenomenon (religion) is untestable and unobservable by science, where's the irony?

If anything, the irony is all the YECists jumping on the ID ship when all the major IDer's (Dembski, Behe) accept an old Earth and common descent.
 
Upvote 0

Gwenyfur

Legend
Dec 18, 2004
33,284
3,326
Everywhere
✟66,698.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Constitution
Dannager said:
In favor of what argument?

not neccessarily on favor of anything...just the irony...

The constant argument of "theologians have no place in science" and yet science has based their 'all' for origins on the theory of a theologian...

It strikes me as very ironic...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
Gwenyfur said:
not neccessarily on favor of anything...just the irony...

The constant argument of "theologians have no place in science" and yet science has based their 'all' for origins on the theory of a theologian...

It strikes me as very ironic...
Theologians have plenty of place in science. There are a large number of Christian-funded or Christian-administrated labs, and the Vatican itself maintains and has priests staffing all manner of research project.

Theology has no place in science.

EDIT: But you've been told this before. I'm still not sure what your motives are behind bringing up such a clouding point.
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
Gwenyfur said:
I would like to interject one point...

Charles Darwin, who's theory (based on Hutton and Lyell) only held a degree in Theology. No science degree, no philosophy degrees....a theology degree...
and yet...religion has no place in that great scientist's theory of evolution...

irony on top of irony....

Ironic indeed... Despite the fact that Darwin's formal education was in Theology, he based his theory of evolution not on any theological learnings, but on personal experience, empirical knowledge, and inductive reasoning.

Darwin found his facts from the HMS Beagle, not the Bible. Thank you, Gwenyfur, for not only proving that religion is in fact not a factor in the development of evolutionary theory, but for disproving, once and for all, the tired old "Darwin was an Atheist" lie that Creationists like to trot out all too often.
 
Upvote 0

RightWingGirl

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
971
28
34
America
✟8,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
chaoschristian said:
I am satisfied to live in the paradox.

V70 bolded for emphasis. Like real estate there are three things that important when considering scripture: context, context and context.

Luke 1:70 kaqwV {ACCORDING AS} elalhsen {HE SPOKE} dia {BY [THE]} stomatoV twn {MOUTH} agiwn twn ap {HOLY} aiwnoV {SINCE TIME BEGAN} profhtwn {PROPHETS} autou {OF HIS;}


It translates to "Since time began:" Some newer translations are a bit more PC, and say "from old" or "from the earliest times" but this is not accurate to the old texts. Adam would have been the first prophet, but Enoch, Methuselah and a few others were more major prophets.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.