how can one...

[archaeologist2]

have a relationship with God when they call Him a liar, His word lies and adopt secular ideas as scriptural?

i said something similar to this in another thread but it was ignored so i will start a new one to solely address this issue.

God said inthe Bible 'friendsip with the world is emnity with God' thus how can people who call themselves christian flock to an obvious secular and anti-God theory?

they shouldn't, and their weak attempts to marry that secular thought with the holy Bible is a desperate attempt to find spiritual legitimacy when there is none to be had.

they have compromised themselves with evil and God does not do that plus in all scriptures which refer to creation, not 1 says anything remotely close to a process being used.

even Jesus referred to a creation not a process and since the word 'christian' means 'Christ like' itis obvious thatthose who hold to alternative theories other than a literal Gen. 1 are not being 'Christ-like'. They are being 'darwin-like'.

there is nothing in ancinet history that supports an evolutionary idea or thought. not one ancient civilization has an evolutionary myth or tale but they all have a creation and flood story.

there is nothing in archaeology that supports an evolutionary process, in fact all things discover point to the validity of the Bible not darwin. it is the field of anthropolgy which makes the assertions based upon whacky dating processes and the omission of common sense/reality. Their outlandish dates fly in contrast to what is found in the archaeological world.

it has always struck me as funny how anthropologists seemto find bones millions of years old, andfound in dirt of the same age(?) at the surface of the earth while archaeologists who dig 10-100 feet down find things only a few thousand years old.

the ludicrious explanations made by anthropologists and evolutionists are just that--ludicrious and such explanations demonstrate their deluded state (this is including the leakeys).

It is also ridiculous to think that anthropologists can date a small artifact and describe its stature, ability, mentality based upon a toe bone or a jaw fragment. such actions also show a desperation to prove a theory true no matter how stupid is the evidence.

The book The First Humans by Ann Gibbons, probably didn't intend to provide evidence for the creationist to use to show how weak and insipid the arguments and proof anthropologist have. But it is filled with great material/examples to show that the evolutionist has nothing and builds its arguments upon conjecture and wild eyed thinking.

it is insane to think that one part of the earth is millions of years old, when another part, less than a thousand miles away, is only thousands of years old. the argument, that the earth pushed up the older dirt does not wash because no such dirt has been found in all the archaeological digs around the world at any depth.

now i will expect the usual chorus of 'you do not understand evolution..' or other similar responses but guess what-i do and i also understand archaeology. which is why i can say the above and below--

there is nothing true in the evolutionary theory/argument or hypothesis, it is all smoke and mirrors and calling it a house of cards is giving it too much credit. the people who hold to any form of evolution are being decieved and cannot be considered christian.

they preach a different gospel than Jesus and the apostles which dismisses their claims to be of God or anything remotely christian. such theories need to be abandoned, fled from, and ignored ifone wants fellowship with God.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

The people who organised the world view for us all, were not Christians, they considered the bible to be superstition, and not the word of God. The world view which included evolution is absurd in my opinion, and anyone who takes any time to think about it, would I suspect, go along with that, but it provides an ‘understanding’ of reality, for those who think in the non-miraculous.
The usual argument is that the origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution... biological evolution, but it is of the same philosophical ilk.
And about those finches,, by the way, they can breed with each other.
I think there was a real conspiratorial link, with Darwin, and the elitists, ... this elitist plot involved the associates of Darwin, who were arriving at theories about geology. As it was all being established in 19th century England, the concocted theories became dominant in the world, and you will find them mostly unchallenged in the Islamic world now.
When you examine it all, you find that the theories were all starting to form in the 19th century, also during the French enlightenment, and the plot there also of the ‘rationalists’. If the society becomes non or anti-Christian, then the beliefs in how the earth formed, the age of the earth, and the origin of life, will be formed out of ideas, alien to the bible.
I think there are testers, which gauge how effective the philosophy has taken route generally in society. It is rather strange, but I was partaking in a customer service survey, and being asked the usual questions about consumer items and government, etc. and in the same phone-survey; questions about Jesus, the bible, evolution, the age of the earth… very odd.. as what has that got to do with anything? Unless the powers at be are checking on the mind-set of the general population, if the country has become fully accepting of Darwin’s evolution etc..
I suspect most are accepting of it, although over in America, you still get the evolutionists who say that people need to be educated... because still, a large p/c of the population don't buy evolution, but then the americas are still Christian... yes, it's a little condescending, as usual, to say that the general population needs re-educating...
It’s the same with the Bible.. if you get a bunch of non Christians to translate the Bible, you will end up with a non Christian bible, and that is exactly what has happened to the new translations, after the King James. The New King James is the best of a very bad lot.. the other bibles are totally corrupted.
But about your points.. I think it is the force of culture, and the overpowering influence of the 19th century scientists, in geology, and Darwin, followed by an increasingly non-Christian western culture. And the power of the media, and the indoctrination of evolution in schools.
It’s also a theory which is perfectly satisfying to non Christians.
It says in Genesis that God breathed life into the first man, personally, and that human life was unique and a separate creation from the animals. Humans were created to love God and vice-versa. People only need to open their eyes and look around to see that humans were created in the image of God.

Just a curiosity, but the last heresy now, is the idea that Galileo was wrong.. I don’t know one way or other.. but apparently Einstein and Hubble thought that there was no proof that the earth orbits the sun.. something I’ve been looking into of late…

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...881&ei=2WVISYWwD4jO-AGc0rz0BQ&q=geocentralism

 

[archaeologist2]

i am going to make this point short:

the fallacy or weakness of the 'prediction' model.

in secular science they put much weight on being able to make predictions concerning one's theory or experiment. yet the problem is, that this idea of prediction omits the possibilities of alternative processes which can produce the exact same results.

too often i have heard a scientists say 'if evolution is true such and such will happen...' even if it does happen that does NOT mean that evolution was responsible for the result as the result came from something else--God's design (for lack of a better word) which was influenced by sin and corruption that entered the world at adam's fall.

to say a prediction declares a truth, is just proclaiming the outcome long before the results are in and in the real world we call that 'puttng the fix in' andit is wrong. there is No way to prove that evolution was involved let alone capable of producing said results.

to declare evolution true, one has to eliminate all other possibilities or alternatives first which the evolutionary scientist refuses to do. they want their prediction and validation not the truth nor do they want to do the work to see if creation, corrupted by the fall of man, was actually the one responsible for the result.

why? scientists do not like being wrong, they do not like to have their beliefs proven wrong, they do not want to ruin a life's work. to be honest, one cannot rely on prediction as i can make one right now:

"if creation is true, women will have babies tomorrow, animals will have pups tomorrow and plants will re-grow in the spring from seedlings"

it is not hard to make a prediction when one knows the results will vindicate the prediction before they come in. evolutionists are not honest, they are lazy and they do not have the truth.

 

[busterdog]

have a relationship with God when they call Him a liar, His word lies and adopt secular ideas as scriptural?

i said something similar to this in another thread but it was ignored so i will start a new one to solely address this issue.

God said inthe Bible 'friendsip with the world is emnity with God' thus how can people who call themselves christian flock to an obvious secular and anti-God theory?

Quite simply, when you tell your "friend", I will be there at 5:00 to pull out of a very deep ditch, the liberal theological use of language translates that to mean, "I will be thinking kind thoughts about you at some point."

When you tell a child, I am your Dad, and this is your Mom, who brought you into this world for the best possible life and ultimate life with Jesus, what that really means is, "Yes, we have some involvement with your conception, but you are more or less on your own, and dont get too hung up on anything I say."

Simple language is rendered all but (though not completely) worthless. There is no such thing as simple language under this view. Plain meaning is fungible and can be exchanged for subjectivity.

they shouldn't, and their weak attempts to marry that secular thought with the holy Bible is a desperate attempt to find spiritual legitimacy when there is none to be had.

Yes, there is an agenda.

But, we YECs have our own agendas that color scripture in the wrong light at times. Our mistake does not excuse the mistakes of evolutionists.

they have compromised themselves with evil and God does not do that plus in all scriptures which refer to creation, not 1 says anything remotely close to a process being used.

Well, they do find some significance in the text. They are not without all truth. God is working in them even when their errors contaminate their reading of the word.

So, forgive the evil, as we ask God to forgive us our misreading and misunderstanding of the text.

even Jesus referred to a creation not a process and since the word 'christian' means 'Christ like' itis obvious thatthose who hold to alternative theories other than a literal Gen. 1 are not being 'Christ-like'. They are being 'darwin-like'.

In this one area, yes. There is some Jesus in what they do, but rejecting the WOrd is against His commands. If you love Him, you keep His commands, like honoring what His Word says.

And again, we YECs have our own mistakes to deal with, mostly in other areas of the Word.

there is nothing in ancinet history that supports an evolutionary idea or thought. not one ancient civilization has an evolutionary myth or tale but they all have a creation and flood story.

Actually, evolution is a plausible idea. It has evidence. If you are in Court as a witness to an accident, and if you and a busload of nuns saw that driver X had a green light, the guy who was not too attentive, not too bright, and possibly colorblind, but who thought driver Y had green is making a plausible case.

Some evolutionists dont deserve that level of accusation, but they all rely on someone with such problems.

But, evolution is an elegant theory with lots of data. The plain text of the Bible says it is the work of the "wise". That means, its not always goofy, stupid or fraudulent. Its error, but alot of it comes of wisdom at some level. God confounds the wisdom of this world, not just the frivlous things.

there is nothing in archaeology that supports an evolutionary process, in fact all things discover point to the validity of the Bible not darwin. it is the field of anthropolgy which makes the assertions based upon whacky dating processes and the omission of common sense/reality. Their outlandish dates fly in contrast to what is found in the archaeological world.

it has always struck me as funny how anthropologists seemto find bones millions of years old, andfound in dirt of the same age(?) at the surface of the earth while archaeologists who dig 10-100 feet down find things only a few thousand years old.

And every ten years or so they change their minds about it.

the ludicrious explanations made by anthropologists and evolutionists are just that--ludicrious and such explanations demonstrate their deluded state (this is including the leakeys).

Again, it is not always ludicrous.

It is also ridiculous to think that anthropologists can date a small artifact and describe its stature, ability, mentality based upon a toe bone or a jaw fragment. such actions also show a desperation to prove a theory true no matter how stupid is the evidence.

Sometimes it is ridiculous, sometimes not. Sometimes it is wrong, but not ridiculous.

The book The First Humans by Ann Gibbons, probably didn't intend to provide evidence for the creationist to use to show how weak and insipid the arguments and proof anthropologist have. But it is filled with great material/examples to show that the evolutionist has nothing and builds its arguments upon conjecture and wild eyed thinking.

it is insane to think that one part of the earth is millions of years old, when another part, less than a thousand miles away, is only thousands of years old. the argument, that the earth pushed up the older dirt does not wash because no such dirt has been found in all the archaeological digs around the world at any depth.

If you are an evolutionist, it is ok for you to say that you have a work in progress. If a creationist says your theory is really pretty half-baked and not "likely", that is of course heresy to them.

now i will expect the usual chorus of 'you do not understand evolution..' or other similar responses but guess what-i do and i also understand archaeology. which is why i can say the above and below--

Tell us more.

there is nothing true in the evolutionary theory/argument or hypothesis, it is all smoke and mirrors and calling it a house of cards is giving it too much credit. the people who hold to any form of evolution are being decieved and cannot be considered christian.

How does the woodpecker have a tongue that precisely wraps around its brain for the purpose of allowing predatory behavior? That sounds like evolution, albeit micro-evolution. Some thorns seem to be "evolved" (or cursed) flowers.

they preach a different gospel than Jesus and the apostles which dismisses their claims to be of God or anything remotely christian. such theories need to be abandoned, fled from, and ignored ifone wants fellowship with God.

They preach lots of Gospel. Unfortunately, what God said was "very good" prior to the fall of Adam, is to them a land full of death, which is necessary for evolution.



My thesis:

1. Forgive them so that you have peace.
2. They don't fight fair or listen well. (See 1. above)
3. Most discussion with evolutionists might help you craft your arguments and gain knowledge, but if you want a friendly discussion, you usually wont get it. It might be civil, but it is not friendly in the sense that someone tries to see your point of view.
4. There is a mixture of YECs, some of whom can recognize the elegance and sophistication of evolution and some of whom cant. I would advise that the former is a better approach.
5. Yes scripture is just that obvious on the age of the earth, the nature of paradise and the entrace of death into creation by the fall.
6. Decide why you are on this board or in a thread. If you can't take the frustration of being frivolously contradicted, then use the ignore list and unsubscribe to the OT threads.

 

[archaeologist2]

one more thing about this 'prediction' criteria that is heavily used and relied upon by secular scientists. it isn't scriptural and it amounts merely to 'trial and error'.

there is no mystique about 'predictions' in science, it is not as important as the secularists would lead people to believe. It also is a close-minded idea which tries to omit all possibilities that would actually explain the results.

those of us who are creationists, all ready know how things will work. they will work as God designed them to with the influence of the corruption that entered into the world at the fall of man.

unless the secular world is ready to include all the data and information, then they will always be far from the truth.

 

[archaeologist2]

i am convinced by the few discussions i have had with the residnet TEs that one cannot be in fellowship with God and follow after evolution or one of its variants.

such a theory(ies) basically say that God lies, misleads, fooled and more, which would mean that God has darkness or sin in Him. 1 John 1:3-7 is very clear about this verse 6 is very hard hitting.

then there is the passage that warns us NOT to call evil good and good evil and that is exactly what those who follow evolution or its variants are doing.

evolution has no origin in God it is NOT good, it is NOT true and to call it good is sinful and then to say that Gen. 1 is evil is just doubling one's error. Every verse in the Bible clearly states that God created and that there was no process yet those who have been decieved via the field of science cannot see this or refuse to see this because their love for secular science is greater than any feeling they may have had for God.

one cannot say God lied or continue to pursue wrong science and claim to have fellowship with God, one has to suspect their salvation claim for they are not proclaiming God's ways but evil's.

this is sad and it gets sadder as those who follow evolution or its variants, use scripture badly to justify their pursuit of what God said NOt to do. The homosexual community does the exact same thing as the claim the 'love of God' will not condemn them but accept them even as the pursue their evil lusts. NOT so.

one cannot practice what God said NOT to do and expect to receive the benefits reserved for those who obey God and accept His words. if one thinks they can, then they are just fooling themselves.

 

[laptoppop]

Echo - again, this is the wrong forum for this discussion.

But is believing what is true hypocritical? Hardly! Jesus did more than talk. He died a horrible death. Three days later, He rose to life again. This was witnessed by hundreds of people. I have a personal relationship with Him, because of His love. This can be hard to understand when you are on the outside looking in, but He is life itself.

 

[busterdog]

Echo - again, this is the wrong forum for this discussion.

But is believing what is true hypocritical? Hardly! Jesus did more than talk. He died a horrible death. Three days later, He rose to life again. This was witnessed by hundreds of people. I have a personal relationship with Him, because of His love. This can be hard to understand when you are on the outside looking in, but He is life itself.

Maybe he is waiting for something a little more nasty.

Reps for the Gospel!

 

[archaeologist2]

p.s. christians cannot call those who believe, teach or follow alternatives to the gospel that Jesus and the apostles taught, christian. they are not following Christ but their own desires.

 

[vossler]

God said in the Bible 'friendship with the world is emnity with God' thus how can people who call themselves christian flock to an obvious secular and anti-God theory?

Not to defend TEs, but this isn't something exclusive to them. YECs are sometimes just as guilty; we're all, to varying degrees, guilty. Even someone as revered as Billy Graham is guilty. Graham once said ""I fully adhere to the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith for myself... but as an American, I respect other paths to God." The point is all of us have been on the wrong side of the truth at one time or another. What separates us is how we evaluate or measure the Truth. My biggest problem with TEs is that for them science is final Truth and the Bible ultimately must conform to it and there is no Scriptural basis for this.

they shouldn't, and their weak attempts to marry that secular thought with the holy Bible is a desperate attempt to find spiritual legitimacy when there is none to be had.

True, but then you have to ask yourself why would they do that? I believe its the one thing that keeps all of us from recognizing the Truth at important junctures in our lives. Pride.

the ludicrious explanations made by anthropologists and evolutionists are just that--ludicrious and such explanations demonstrate their deluded state (this is including the leakeys).

It's only ludicrous because we know the Truth in this area. Try to think of areas where you struggle, usually that struggle exists because we are not willing to submit ourselves to our Lord and His Word.

there is nothing true in the evolutionary theory/argument or hypothesis, it is all smoke and mirrors and calling it a house of cards is giving it too much credit. the people who hold to any form of evolution are being decieved and cannot be considered christian.

This is really too simplistic of an answer. There has to be some truth to what they say. The problem is when you mix a little bit of truth with some conjecture and speculation the last thing you'll come up with is the Truth, certainly not anything one can rely on.

The question you have to ask yourself is why. Why do they not see the Truth? I believe it's the age old problem of needing to be in control. By convincing ourselves that we know more than we think we do it helps justify our independence, however small it may be, and gives us a sense of power and control.

i am convinced by the few discussions i have had with the resident TEs that one cannot be in fellowship with God and follow after evolution or one of its variants.

Be careful not to judge too harshly for as you judge you will be judged.

p.s. christians cannot call those who believe, teach or follow alternatives to the gospel that Jesus and the apostles taught, christian. they are not following Christ but their own desires.

We all follow our own desires, some more than others. I'm not in a position to accuse others of not following Christ when I have a log in my own eye. Let's remember that following Christ is primarily measured in the heart and none of us knows the heart of someone else. I'll leave that part to God.

 

[archaeologist2]

Not to defend TEs, but this isn't something exclusive to them

there is a difference between what you are saying and what i am referring to. it would be wise not to assume i do not know anything some things are said in a manner to draw out a response.

My biggest problem with TEs is that for them science is final Truth and the Bible ultimately must conform to it and there is no Scriptural basis for this.

there is no logical basis for this either as any scientific field is very limited in its data and often there are leaps to conclusions which have no basis in fact.

i was reading Hans Kung today (his book on beginnings) and he gave as an example of at least 1 scientist who rejected any theory that he could not conform to or support with his athiestic beliefs.

this is the weakness of relying on science--it is too subjective and prone to all sorts of dishonesty and corruption.

I believe its the one thing that keeps all of us from recognizing the Truth at important junctures in our lives. Pride

that is possible and probably one of themain reasons but there are others.

It's only ludicrous because we know the Truth in this area. Try to think of areas where you struggle, usually that struggle exists because we are not willing to submit ourselves to our Lord and His Word

your argument doesn't work here as it is too limited and doesn't allow for the non-believer to realize how ludicrious some of the arguments are.

This is really too simplistic of an answer.

no, it is a boiled down version to avoid going into detailed explanations.

There has to be some truth to what they say

it would be better if you used the example of con men. their cons do not work unless they combine it with some truth. as for evolution it is the accreditation thatyou have to watch for. they may happen across the real thing but they label it something different than what it is. e.g. mutations. they say that is evolution at work but in reality, that is genetics under the influence of the fall of man.

The question you have to ask yourself is why. Why do they not see the Truth? I believe it's the age old problem of needing to be in control

no, it is called deception and the devil at work. when you pinpoint the correct source then you can fix the problem.

Be careful not to judge too harshly for as you judge you will be judged.

this has to be the most mis-used and mis-understood word in christendom. i was not judging but stating a fact, i can point to howard stern and say 'he is not a christian'. that is not judging but declaring a truth, making a statement etc. based upon the facts, the fruits, his behavior, and so much more.

christians have become too afraid to use the criteria given us in the Bible to protect the flock and separate those who teach false doctrine and false gospels and allow the devil to work his confusion and destructive ways.

one has to look to 1 John to see how John tells us what to watch out for, churches have become to afaid, as well, to practice church discipline, they usually just pick the easy ones and let others slide.

We all follow our own desires, some more than others

that is a sweeping generalization you cannot prove and it would insult many.

I'm not in a position to accuse others of not following Christ when I have a log in my own eye.

again it is not an accusation in most circumstances, it is not judging in others. people have so blurred the lines that they cannot tell the difference between judging, commenting, warning and many more. it is also a very bad use of the scripture and seems to be used to avoid christian responsibility.

I'll leave that part to God.

and whom does God use to warn His followers? people like you and me. when people like you abdicate their christian duty then one part of the family of God becomes vulnerable and that is not good.

then when we have forums like this who are too politically correct, or too wishy washy and can't make astand for God and His word it is no wonder we lose souls to the devil.

if you want to see how rules are done, click on the website in my signature, then click on the discussion forum and find the thread that says rules. It is not a busy place but God has honored those rules and even militant atheists behave themselves.

 

[theFijian]

.

 

[Biblewriter]

2 Peter 3
This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

I cannot think of a better description of the basic theory of geology, which is "uniformity of process," than the words "since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." Scripture explicitly said the time would come when men would say this. But it also told us why. "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

They are willingly ignorant of all this because, and specifically because, they do not wish to acknowledge that there will be a "day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." Having been educated as a scientist, specializing in Biology with Geology, I have observed this willful ignirance first hand. The reason evolution makes sense to them is because they begin with the assumption that "there is no God." This renders them fools, because "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalm 14:1)

But then we come to the problem of why professing Christians believe this lie. The problem here is in giving more credence to the words of men than to the word of God. Again and again I have heard of "proof" of (or "they have proved") various things explicitly contrary to the word of God. But how have they "proved" all this? By starting with the assumption that the words of men (or the reasonings of men) are more trustworthy that the word of God.

But there is explicit scripture to back up the OP. In John 5:44-47 Jesus said, "How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

Here Jesus asked how you could possibly believe His words if you did not believe the writings of Moses. And in the theistic evolutionists came, we see this abundantly. Those who deny the explicit truth of the words of Moses also generally deny the explicit truth of much of what Jesus and the apostles said. They reduce all of the Bible to genealities and symbolism of they know not what. But they do not accept it as pure and unadulterated truth.

But this is not all Jesus said here. He gave the specific reason that they do this. As has already been pointed out in this thread, the reason is that they "receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?"

 

[archaeologist2]

But there is explicit scripture to back up the OP. In John 5:44-47 Jesus said, "How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

thisis a very good answer to the claim or questionoftenasked by those who reject Gen. 1: 'does my salvation depend upon my accepting or believing the genesis creation story? (paraphrased)

i would say that this verse is a resounding 'yes' in answer.

Here Jesus asked how you could possibly believe His words if you did not believe the writings of Moses. And in the theistic evolutionists came, we see this abundantly. Those who deny the explicit truth of the words of Moses also generally deny the explicit truth of much of what Jesus and the apostles said. They reduce all of the Bible to genealities and symbolism of they know not what. But they do not accept it as pure and unadulterated truth.

i would agree here as well as we see this in their claims of allegory for passages that are not allegorical.