• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Water into Wine.

Status
Not open for further replies.

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
53
Bloomington, Illinois
✟26,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It was quality, he immediatly knew it was good stuff, not the cheap stuff.
Dont things get better with age?

Can the crappy tasting wine turn into good wine in time?
Nope, age changes wine little, no wine before its time is a slogan, not a fact. Time will turn bad wine worse, there is no saving bad wine. Good wine will keep for long periods of time, but it does not magically turn good because of time.

Besides, let us look at the man who said it was really good wine.

This guy has been at a party all day, and given the type of party and the time, maybe several days, has drank from every bottle opened, barges into the serving area (a big no-no I believe), talks glowingly about wine but does not notice that it is being poured from water jugs...

I've seen a few parties like this, and the guy that does this is often found kneeling before the toilet soon after these comments.

Again, what in this story implies age at all?
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟26,929.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nope, age changes wine little, no wine before its time is a slogan, not a fact. Time will turn bad wine worse, there is no saving bad wine. Good wine will keep for long periods of time, but it does not magically turn good because of time.

Besides, let us look at the man who said it was really good wine.

This guy has been at a party all day, and given the type of party and the time, maybe several days, has drank from every bottle opened, barges into the serving area (a big no-no I believe), talks glowingly about wine but does not notice that it is being poured from water jugs...

I've seen a few parties like this, and the guy that does this is often found kneeling before the toilet soon after these comments.

Again, what in this story implies age at all?

Doesn't any wine take time to ferment?

How much time does there have to be for a valid comparison? Is it even necessary? The simple point is that the apparent age of rock or anything else proves very, very little. Since God is said to be able to do anything, we either believe that or not. Does this disprove evolution? THe only essential argument here is that appearance is not the final word on whether God made something instataneously. He quite obviously can.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
The simple point is that the apparent age of rock or anything else proves very, very little. Since God is said to be able to do anything, we either believe that or not. Does this disprove evolution? THe only essential argument here is that appearance is not the final word on whether God made something instataneously. He quite obviously can.

Yes, he obviously can. That is why the point of the argument does not relate to God's power but to God's truthfulness.

For what purpose would God, who is truth, make a rock to appear old when it is actually young?

At a deeper level it is about the reality of creation. Did God make a real creation or a creation that is fundamentally illusory?

The argument that things in nature are not what they appear to be essentially favours the idea that creation is an illusion and/or that God is not truthful.
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟26,929.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, he obviously can. That is why the point of the argument does not relate to God's power but to God's truthfulness.

For what purpose would God, who is truth, make a rock to appear old when it is actually young?

At a deeper level it is about the reality of creation. Did God make a real creation or a creation that is fundamentally illusory?

The argument that things in nature are not what they appear to be essentially favours the idea that creation is an illusion and/or that God is not truthful.

Well, in the story of Cana, what the guests drank was clearly perceived by them to be something that had been pressed, bottled, fermented, and probably aged to some extent. Does their misunderstanding prove Jesus was untruthful in making the water into wine? I just don't see how that follows. In looking at rocks, why is the perception of the guests not in question rather than the character of God?
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,865
14,333
60
Sydney, Straya
✟1,463,661.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
For what purpose would God, who is truth, make a rock to appear old when it is actually young?
How old do you think Adam and Eve appeared only moments after their creation? What about the trees and birds and animals? Why should the rocks be any different?

John
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Well, in the story of Cana, what the guests drank was clearly perceived by them to be something that had been pressed, bottled, fermented, and probably aged to some extent. Does their misunderstanding prove Jesus was untruthful in making the water into wine? I just don't see how that follows. In looking at rocks, why is the perception of the guests not in question rather than the character of God?

The difference is in purpose. Changing the water to wine is a symbolic gesture announcing the presence of the Bridegroom (not the bridegroom getting married in Cana). It is, as John says, the first of the signs identifying Jesus as Messiah.

What purpose is there in giving rocks a false appearance of age?
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
How old do you think Adam and Eve appeared only moments after their creation?

Depends on whether you are speaking of a superficial glance or really looking at them. If you were standing 10 feet away, a glance at Adam and Eve would suggest that they were mature adults.

But what if you looked closer?

Would Adam have a belly button? Since he was never in his mother's womb, he should not have. This would indicate that there is a difference between him and those who are naturally conceived and gestated. Would either Adam or Eve have a scar perhaps from having tripped and scraping their knee on a rock? If they did, it would indicate a past history not consistent with appearing only moments ago. If we examined one of their cells under a microscope would we find the shortened telomeres on their chromosomes that indicate age? If we did, that also would not be consistent with appearing only moments ago.

In short, there are a number of ways in which we could check whether their apparent age coincided with their real age.

Why should the rocks be any different?

They shouldn't be. Just as with Adam and Eve, there are a number of tests by which we can discriminate whether or not the apparent age and the real age are the same or different. Rocks which are only apparently old, for example, should not contain fossils, for those plants and animals preserved in the rocks never lived. If they contained fossils, that history would be a lie. Nor should they contain a history of radioactive decay.

What we have are a number of pieces of evidence that are not consistent with a recent appearance of many rock formations. In short, they don't just appear to be old, they appear to have a history. Just as Adam and Eve would appear to have a history if they had belly buttons, scars or shortened telomeres.

For what purpose would God plant a false history into a recent creation?
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
298
✟30,412.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
I think trying to draw analogies between miraculously aged wine and a miraculously created earth is problematic for the simple reason that we can make any claim we want when the Bible is silent on the matter and there is no evidence to verify anyone's claims.
Case in point: I see a lot of people here arguing that Jesus did not just turn water into wine, but that he turned it into delicious, aged wine. I could just as easily argue that Jesus made it so that the peoples' tongues tasted the wine as aged, despite the fact that it wasn't ("appearance of taste," if you will). And there is no way such a view could be refuted because the Bible is silent on the matter and because neither claim can be verified.
So arguing over the "just so's" of miracles is somewhat fruitless, methinks.
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟26,929.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think trying to draw analogies between miraculously aged wine and a miraculously created earth is problematic for the simple reason that we can make any claim we want when the Bible is silent on the matter and there is no evidence to verify anyone's claims.
Case in point: I see a lot of people here arguing that Jesus did not just turn water into wine, but that he turned it into delicious, aged wine. I could just as easily argue that Jesus made it so that the peoples' tongues tasted the wine as aged, despite the fact that it wasn't ("appearance of taste," if you will). And there is no way such a view could be refuted because the Bible is silent on the matter and because neither claim can be verified.
So arguing over the "just so's" of miracles is somewhat fruitless, methinks.

That's right. This simple inference is much less helpful than the actual passages of Genesis, which stimulate endless analysis.

However, the inference has a limited purpose. It is simply trying to talk several folks out of using the argument that "old appearing rock" created in six days would be deceptive or untruthful on the part of the creator.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
298
✟30,412.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
However, the inference has a limited purpose. It is simply trying to talk several folks out of using the argument that "old appearing rock" created in six days would be deceptive or untruthful on the part of the creator.
I don't think it works this way. Here's why:
If Jesus really did create aged wine, he did so with a purpose: so that it would be palatable.
The question then becomes: What purpose did God have for creating a young earth with the appearance of age and history? Surely an omnipotent God could have created a fully-functional young earth that also looked its age.
YECs have yet to answer this question, despite the fact that gluadys and others have asked it time and again.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
The simple point is that the apparent age of rock or anything else proves very, very little. Since God is said to be able to do anything, we either believe that or not. Does this disprove evolution? THe only essential argument here is that appearance is not the final word on whether God made something instataneously. He quite obviously can.

Yes, God can make something instantaneously. BUT, why hide that He did it that way? Did God hide that the wine was made by miracle instantaneously? NO!

But in the rocks and the fossils, you have God deliberately deceiving us. That is unacceptable for Christians.

You see, if God did make the universe instantaneously only 6,000 ago, the universe could easily look that way. And we would have concluded that the universe really was young.

This apologetic of "Appearance of Age" is only necessary because the universe does NOT appear young. That disproves young earth creationism.

What is being saved here is the theory of young earth creationism. NOT God. Instead, God gets harmed by this argument that the universe only looks old but is really young. The argument tells us what the proponent is really worshipping: creationism. Not worshipping God, but creationism. And worshipping creationism is a violation of the First Commandment.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
No, i am just teaching that God said it right, that we should believe God over what all humans on the entire earth say and think.

DiscipleDave, what did God create? The physical universe, right? What do scientists study? The physical universe.

Thus, what scientists study is just as much "God said" as scripture. Because the physical universe is from God.

i see, so you choose to believe the DATA ( what humans say ) over the SCRIPTURES ( what God says ).

No. I believe what God says in His Creation over a human interpretation of scriptures. I worship God. You appear to worship a book.

the evidence is contrary to Scriptures something has got to be wrong,

See the first quote in my signature. Yes, something is wrong: our interpretation of scripture.

BTW, ask yourself why you capitalize "Scripture" like we capitalize "God". Another piece of evidence you have turned an interpretation of scripture into your god. Not a good idea.

So now we also see you do not believe Scriptures concerning the Flood. Scriptures say the flood happened, you don't believe, scientist says the flood never happened, this you believe.

A world-wide Flood never happened. There is considerable evidence that at least one very severe local flood happened in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. That was their "entire world".

What part of Scriptures do you believe ?

The parts not contradicted by God in His Creation.

Do you believe Jesus Christ was the Son of the living God?

Yes.

Whether or not this is True or not, i know not, but i know the flood took place because it is written that it did take place.

This is more evidence you are worshipping a book, not God. You are concerned with contradictions to a book. I'm concerned about God.

Tell me, if the World was flooded,and then the water receded, would the heiroglyphs still be present?

Not with a Flood violent enough to lay down all sedimentary rock. Egypt lies atop sedimentary rock that was supposedly deposited by the Flood. There are fossils of dinosaurs in the rock that were supposedly drowned in the Food. That means that the original surface of the ground was far below where we find the heiroglyphs! That's where we should have found the heiroglyphs, not on the present-day surface.

What is funny is that every major culture in the World has a flood story, yet it never happened.

No, they don't. Someone has told you a false witness, and you are repeating it. That makes it your false witness, too. Not a good idea.

Richard Andre did a comprehensive collection of myths about the floods. It was Die Flutsagen: Ehnthographisch Btrachtet, 1891. Andre had nearly 90 deluge traditions. Of these, 26 arose from the Babylonian story and 43 were independent. He noted a lack of deluge traditions in Arabia, Japan, northern and central Asia, Africa, and much of Europe. He concluded that not everyone had descended from survivors of a single deluge, otherwise the traditions would all have been much more identical and there would be deluge traditions in every society instead of a minority.
lol

The flood stories you got, including Noah's Flood, are derived from the Sumerian/Babylonian story.

It is no wonder you don't believe the flood, for if scientist say anything that is contrary to Scriptures, this you believe and not Scriptures, why is that?

Because science studies God's Creation. What they find is just as much God talking as scripture. Truth cannot contradict truth. If what God tells us in His Creation contradicts what man says scriptures say, we can be sure we aren't interpretation scripture properly.

i see, it does not surprise me at all, that you think mere men wrote the Bible, and not that they were inspired of God to write what they did write.

Inspired is different from dictated. See Mark 10 and Matthew 19. Jesus tells us that mere men wrote the Bible, and they got it wrong occasionally. I thought you listened to Jesus. Guess not. You just invoke his name in vain, I guess.

You say Creation is more God's book than Scriptures, and what doctrine is this, yours ?

Nope, Christians'. It follows from what scripture does teach. Again, who created? What did God create?

Scriptures teach the Earth was created in 6 days,

Not all scripture. Genesis 2:4 teaches, when read literally, that the earth was created in one day.

scientists say the Earth is billions of years old, you choose to believe them over what Scriptures teach,

You keep saying "scientists". Like you don't believe God really created. I choose to believe God. You choose to believe some men's interpretation of some scripture.

you teach appearence of God's creation is more God's book than Scriptures. You are witness of yourself, that you believe those things that you see in nature and of the EArth, more then you believe the things of God.

What we see in nature and earth are "the things of God". What else are they? Only God created, didn't He?

"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

"Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth. One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939.

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

Bacon would be surprised at the fanaticism today, where people maintain, as you do, that we should not listen to God's works.

But then, I don't think Bacon ever thought people would turn the Bible into a graven image.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Not i only, but all the Disciples did, Paul did, Moses did, many prophets of old did.

But they weren't contradicted by God. You are.

A person must first have faith, in order to hear Him, that is, a person must first believe that He does talk to people still, before He will speak with them, However He is able to speak to whomever He desires.

You realize that you just contradicted yourself within 2 setences. I think you tied for second place -- I have seen someone contradict himself in as little as 5 words, but this is close.

So you are saying God is able to speak, but people won't hear? You've got to be kidding. My, what limits you set on God! God speaks, but He can't make people hear Him. Wow!

I suggest you read the works of CS Lewis. He didn't believe that God does talk to people still. Yet God talked to him.

i am what He called me to be.

You mean God called you to promote worship of a false idol? That's difficult to believe.

my favorite subject has always been science, i love science, and even have science magazines, Now listen carefully so you do not miss what i am about to say.
i only disagree with any science that contradicts Scriptures. Did you get that, i do not disagree with science, but only the science that contradict Scriptures,

I got it. You disagree with God when He contradicts your false god.

i know all about the speed of light, and einstein theories, and distances from stars, and how light works and travels,

But knowing that, you won't accept that we see light from objects farther away than the 6,000 years light has had to travel since you say God created the universe.
 
Upvote 0

DiscipleDave

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2006
486
35
Midwest
Visit site
✟834.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God clearly said that the bread and wine were his Body and Blood. Why are you making something simple into something so difficult? Isn't that what you accuse us of doing? God also said in Scripture that a 1000 years is as one day.

Yes you are correct, God clearly said that the bread and wine were His Body and Blood, and ALSO clearly explained what He meant by so saying that, please read previous post. You ask me why i am making something simple into something so difficult? i really don't know what you mean by this, please explain.

You say " God also said in Scripture that a 1000 years is as one day " Yes He did say this, 1000 years to us, is but one day to God. This also is simple to understand, God's time is not our time.

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^
 
Upvote 0

DiscipleDave

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2006
486
35
Midwest
Visit site
✟834.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
i have told all of you the Truth, and that Truth is from Jesus Christ, what He told me, i have told to you, if you do not believe, you do not believe Him.

i believe Scriptures and this is True, those who teach things contrary to Scriptures, do not believe Scriptures but are teaching a false doctrine, doctines of men.

Well did Timothy speak of these people when he said:

2Tm:4:3: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4: And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

such fable that are taught by men ( scientists ) instead of what Scriptures teach. i have not failed to tell you the Truth concerning this matter, and He is pleased with me, because i have not failed to teach the Truth which He told me to teach, that i have done, but it would seem upon deaf ears, but it is not my calling to convince any of you, of the Truth, but merely to reveal the Truth unto you, so you no longer have a cloke to hide under, that you did not know the Truth, but lo i have told you, therefore your cloke is removed.

Jn:15:22: If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟26,929.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't think it works this way. Here's why:
If Jesus really did create aged wine, he did so with a purpose: so that it would be palatable.
The question then becomes: What purpose did God have for creating a young earth with the appearance of age and history? Surely an omnipotent God could have created a fully-functional young earth that also looked its age.
YECs have yet to answer this question, despite the fact that gluadys and others have asked it time and again.

OK. I'm game to try.

Because to do it in six days meant that paradise was possible. To do it over millenia and to let death moderate the "progress" of his creation would have been painful to him and our ancestors. And for any longer period of creation, death would be required to control populations. Death would be required. Hello, Mark Kennedy.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
298
✟30,412.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
OK. I'm game to try.

Because to do it in six days meant that paradise was possible. To do it over millenia and to let death moderate the "progress" of his creation would have been painful to him and our ancestors. And for any longer period of creation, death would be required to control populations. Death would be required. Hello, Mark Kennedy.
Thanks for trying, busterdog, but you didn't actually answer my question. My question was: What purpose did God have for creating a young earth with the appearance of age and history?
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
53
Bloomington, Illinois
✟26,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
i have told all of you the Truth, and that Truth is from Jesus Christ, what He told me, i have told to you, if you do not believe, you do not believe Him.

i believe Scriptures and this is True, those who teach things contrary to Scriptures, do not believe Scriptures but are teaching a false doctrine, doctines of men.

Well did Timothy speak of these people when he said:

2Tm:4:3: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4: And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

such fable that are taught by men ( scientists ) instead of what Scriptures teach. i have not failed to tell you the Truth concerning this matter, and He is pleased with me, because i have not failed to teach the Truth which He told me to teach, that i have done, but it would seem upon deaf ears, but it is not my calling to convince any of you, of the Truth, but merely to reveal the Truth unto you, so you no longer have a cloke to hide under, that you did not know the Truth, but lo i have told you, therefore your cloke is removed.

Jn:15:22: If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^
Yes, yes. we know, if we do not believe everything you say you'll kick us out of heaven... Anyone who disagrees with you or your church is danged to heck... Yadda yadda yadda.

Sorry I do not buy it. I do not feel your interpretation of the scriptures is the correct one. If that makes me less of a Christian in your eyes, oh well, because personally I don't give two cents about your opinion of me, just what God thinks.
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟26,929.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for trying, busterdog, but you didn't actually answer my question. My question was: What purpose did God have for creating a young earth with the appearance of age and history?

In the case of starlight, so that people could enjoy the view.

And belly buttons are kind of cool. You sort of need something right there to break up the six pack -- well, some people do.

This assumes that that it looks "old." Man has established the criteria to judge such things. It is not God's fault that these are the wrong criteria.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.