Believe the Bible - bend the Bible - deny the Bible... pick one

[BobRyan]

Christians choose to believe the Bible. Even when it is "inconvenient".

In Romans 1 - Paul says Christians choose to accept rather than reject "observations in nature" -- science. But Paul also says in Romans 1 that non-Christians will often choose to reject what is clearly seen regarding our Creator - in nature - and deny God.

Here is a great example where "observations in nature" merely affirm our belief in the Bible.

"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Acceptance of real science such as observable biology (as we see in this case) and physics, chemistry, mathematics etc - have strong Bible affirming results as we see in this case.

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

No such language found in even ONE of evolutionism's 'texts' to state that particular "belief".

Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.


So that is "Believe" vs 'deny'.

==================================================
What about "bend"??

On this board we have this plea for help --

There are poor T.E. souls pleading for help --

here is the cry for help --

===========================

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!
===================================================

This was the "BEND" option where the attempt is made to marry the Bible to junk-science -- a religion with a doctrine on origins totally opposed to the Bible.

Darwin himself admits to this contradiction - as do Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers and many others.

Everyone agrees that atheist's do not claim that "God started all by creating the first living cell" -- Rather atheist's need a "big-bang creates planets and planets create life" model something like this mythology "a pile of dirt will sure enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories"

The T.E. might wish to "re-imagine" Genesis 1 to say "in the beginning God created a few amoebas then left" - so that they can have an evolution-scenario that "After the start" is acceptable to atheists - and contradicts the Bible. Hence the problem of our T.E. friend that started the thread on this board - just quoted.

==========================================

By contrast Christians accept both the Bible and actual observable science such as what can be seen in that video -- and for good reason. (This is particularly the case with many of those that argue for "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine, tradition, practice) when it comes to the "doctrine on origins" of all the Genesis 1 "Kinds". (Where mankind - is one of the "kinds" in Genesis 1)

 

[BobRyan]

The T.E. quote above is not the only one who claims that his Christianity was being set aside by belief in the doctrine on origins found in evolution -

Darwin also claimed that faith in evolutionism destroyed Christianity for him - ...

-- Darwinism leads to atheism according to a number of prominent scientists.

When I said in the OP that "rejecting Romans1 is a 'distinctively atheist' position" - I refer to this

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse


Darwinism's ability to destroy christian faith in those that accept it (given a long enough period of time) - is something that Christians 'should not notice' say 'some' in the Christian community. Others argue it should not be discussed so it can continue its work without detection.


"Among leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution is directed Toward an “ultimate purpose.” 12 "
from http://www.kmlhs.org/UserFiles/Serv...e/FACULTY_FILES/Bartelt/losingfaith020214.pdf



Darwin's Christianity - destroyed by belief in evolution
===================================

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.



But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.



I can, indeed, hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true;

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 omits the last sentence which is included in the later version of the work [Barlow (1958)].

=====================


Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that Romans 1 statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

 

[Strong in Him]

What about another option:
Believe that the Bible is the word of God, reveals the truth about God, his love, his will and the way of salvation, but understand that it needs to be read in context, and that we need to wait on the Spirit to understand whether, and how, to apply that word to us today?

For example, Jesus' words, "if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off", are true. But I wouldn't advise anyone to take what he says literally, and then do it.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I think this poll is too limiting.

William Dever laid this continuum out in the introduction to his book, 'Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?'

1. Assume that the biblical text is literally true and ignore all external evidence as irrelevant.

2. Hold that the biblical text is probably true, but seek external corroboration.

3. Approach the text as well as the external data with no preconceptions. Single out "convergences" of the two lines of evidence and remain skeptical about the rest.

4. Contend that nothing in the biblical text is true unless proven by external data.

5. Reject the text and any other data since the Bible cannot be true.

 

[BobRyan]

What about another option:
Believe that the Bible is the word of God, reveals the truth about God, his love, his will and the way of salvation

Sounds like the first option. Believe the Bible - and the "legal code" about God creating the world in 6 days - with mankind created on day 6 - perfect, sinless, mature, intelligent. Then mankind falls into sin - and thus all mankind is condemned to the "lake of fire" -- all of it real. All of it making perfect sense.

Then the Son of God - is incarnate in human flesh and pays our debt of sin on the cross - "all real - all of it making perfect sense".

Far better than "God created amoeba, then amoeba sinned - then God condemned all mankind that would later evolve from amoeba some 3.5 billion years later"

, but understand that it needs to be read in context, and that we need to wait on the Spirit to understand whether, and how, to apply that word to us today?
.

What "context" did you want to add to Exodus 20:11 "legal code" where God "again" says He made the world in 6 days?

Ex 20:11 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

or the statement in Romans 1 that we see in life around us - on this planet the 'things that have been made' by God - and thus the 'invisible attributes of God"?

Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

I think this poll is too limiting.

William Dever laid this continuum out in the introduction to his book, 'Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?'

1. Assume that the biblical text is literally true and ignore all external evidence as irrelevant.

2. Hold that the biblical text is probably true, but seek external corroboration.

3. Approach the text as well as the external data with on preconceptions. Single out "convergences" of the two lines of evidence and remain skeptical about the rest.

4. Contend that nothing in the biblical text is true unless proven by external data.

5. Reject the text and any other data since the Bible cannot be true.

Option 2 in your list -- looks like option 1 in my list.

But I agree that option 1 in your list might be included as "option 1" in my list by "some".

So then 1 and 2 -- but in my mind my option 1 -- is exactly option 2 in your list.

 

[Extraneous]

I choose option 5, meditate on the bible.

 

[Strong in Him]

Sounds like the first option. Believe the Bible - and the "legal code" about God creating the world in 6 days - with mankind created on day 6 - perfect, sinless, mature, intelligent. Then mankind falls into sin - and thus all mankind is condemned to the "lake of fire" -- all of it real. All of it making perfect sense.

Then the Son of God - is incarnate in human flesh and pays our debt of sin on the cross - "all real - all of it making perfect sense".

Far better than "God created amoeba, then amoeba sinned - then God condemned all mankind that would later evolve from amoeba some 3.5 billion years later"



What "context" did you want to add to Exodus 20:11 "legal code" where God "again" says He made the world in 6 days?

Ex 20:11 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

or the statement in Romans 1 that we see in life around us - on this planet the 'things that have been made' by God - and thus the 'invisible attributes of God"?

Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

1. You interrupted in the middle of my sentence, which is not only rude but rather proves my point about taking things out of context. Not only that, but I have no idea what you are saying.

2. Is this a genuine question about how we read, understand and interpret the Bible, so that you know for your information and interest, or are you just asking so you can start an argument about observing the Sabbath?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Christians choose to believe the Bible. Even when it is "inconvenient".

In Romans 1 - Paul says Christians choose to accept rather than reject "observations in nature" -- science. But Paul also says in Romans 1 that non-Christians will often choose to reject what it seen in nature - and deny God.

Here is a great example where "observations in nature" merely affirm our belief in the Bible.

Acceptance of real science such as observable biology (as we see in this case) and physics, chemistry, mathematics etc - have strong Bible affirming results as we see in this case.

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:11 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.


So that is "Believe" vs 'deny'.

==================================================
What about "bend"??

On this board we have this plea for help --

There are poor T.E. souls pleading for help --

here is the cry for help --

===========================

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!
===================================================

This was the "BEND" option where the attempt is made to marry the Bible to junk-science -- a religion with a doctrine on origins totally opposed to the Bible.

Darwin himself admits to this contradiction - as do Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers and many others.

Everyone agrees that atheist's do not claim that "God started all by creating the first living cell" -- Rather atheist's need a "big-bang creates planets and planets create life" model something like this mythology "a pile of dirt will sure enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories"

The T.E. might wish to "re-imagine" Genesis 1 to say "in the beginning God created a few amoebas then left" - so that they can have an evolution-scenario that "After the start" is acceptable to atheists - and contradicts the Bible. Hence the problem of our T.E. friend that started the thread on this board - just quoted.

==========================================

By contrast Christians accept both the Bible and actual observable science such as what can be seen in that video -- and for good reason. (This is particularly the case with many of those that argue for "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine, tradition, practice) when it comes to the "doctrine on origins" of all the Genesis 1 "Kinds". (Where mankind - is one of the "kinds" in Genesis 1)

Can you quote specific verses, instead of Romans 1 followed by your opinion. What is that? A general bundle and throw in a bunch of other stuff.

Please break this down into digestible parts that make sense.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In Romans 1 - Paul says Christians choose to accept rather than reject "observations in nature" -- science. But Paul also says in Romans 1 that non-Christians will often choose to reject what it seen in nature - and deny God.

Looks to me like someone voted to bend the Bible to fit their preferences. Because nothing in Romans ch. 1 relates to the topic of science. It has to do with idolatry, and is Paul's opening to address the universal problem of sin. Paul begins by talking about how "bad those icky pagans are" and then in ch. 2 is quick to address how the Jewish believers are in no place to judge.

My suggestion here? Perhaps read Romans for what it's actually saying.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:11 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes" are "CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

so then I said -- Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes" are "CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Can you quote specific verses, instead of Romans 1 followed by your opinion. What is that? A general bundle and throw in a bunch of other stuff.

Please break this down into digestible parts that make sense.

I read
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse

and gave a small digestible part - in my post

 

[BobRyan]

so at this point have 3 votes for option 1, 0 for option 2, and 0 for option 3.

Looks to me like someone voted to bend the Bible to fit their preferences.

already we see a 'gap' in real observations as the thread tracks the votes - and what some are now claiming to see. "perception is reality"?

Here is an example of the "bend" or else "deny" Bible option being taken seriously by at least one poster in the GT forum -

===========================

Colter said: ↑
The Bible is only infallible to people who make an idol or fetish out of it.

from - Thursday at 11:52 PM #2014

Colter said: ↑
the Bible was written by men who didn't even claim to be writing by inspiration. I would only be making, as ou say, a liar, out of the control freaks in religion that promote their writings as Gods.

This attack on the Bible in defense of the "all praise evolutionism" model - is much predicted.

While Christians may reject this position as stated by the one just quoted - still it is a logical conclusion based on its premise of faith in evolutionism - you have to at least admit that it is a logical conclusion once one takes the misguided step away from the Word of God and towards the atheists-doctrine on origins.
=========================================

hence the "difficulty" of that T.E. post in the OP. Is is the T.E. poster himself (and not some creationist) pleads for "help".

 

[BobRyan]

Roman 1

Romans 1 -
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse

nothing in Romans ch. 1 relates to the topic of science.

Only if science is careful to avoid all that God has created - all that is "clearly seen" -- all the "things that have been made", which is not the case with "observations in nature". Such "observations" in chemistry, physics, observable biology -- are specifically in the area of "what God has made".

The objective unbiased reader will not assume that what the Bible says "God has made" is not subject of scientific inquiry and discovery.

And there is a great deal of evidence pointing out the junk-science religious nature for the doctrines of evolutionism so opposed to the Bible.
Yesterday at 10:58 AM #341 -- in the example of the horse series.
Yesterday at 12:50 PM #343 -- in the example of "an awful lot of similar cases"
Yesterday at 12:56 PM #344 -- in the example of what is "shallow" and what "should not be taught in high school"
Yesterday at 1:09 PM #345 -- in the example of what might "mislead the reader"

 

[BobRyan]

2. Is this a genuine question about how we read, understand and interpret the Bible, so that you know for your information and interest, or are you just asking so you can start an argument about observing the Sabbath?

While some may have certain text that they need to avoid -- I don't.

In this case I reference the "legal code" of Ex 20:11 because I am addressing the failed argument of some that the "Bible can be bent to being nothing more than parable, myth, poetic symbols whenever it talks about God actually doing some creative work" -- my point is that Ex 20:11 is not poetic symbolism or parable - it is literal "legal code" and so no "bending the Bible" when it tells us about the literal days of creation "six days you shall labor... for in six days the Lord made" -- legal code... not "myth".

Which is why the OP has this -

=====================================


Here is a great example where "observations in nature" merely affirm our belief in the Bible.

"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

(the force of the truth - from the pen of an atheist and diehard evolutionist - not at all a Christian. A Christian would say it - with a great deal more earnest and sincerity in the force of that truth.)

Romans 1 -
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse

Acceptance of real science such as observable biology (as we see in this case) and physics, chemistry, mathematics etc - have strong Bible affirming results as we see in this case.

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:11 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

 

[ToBeLoved]

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse

But you said that was about nature? What I read is that in creation there is revealed the power of God, since He created all. That's what I see this being about. His power and what He can do.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Roman 1

Romans 1 -
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse





Only if science is careful to avoid all that God has created - all that is "clearly seen" -- all the "things that have been made".

The objective unbiased reader will not assume such a thing.

The objective, unbiased reader will read the entirety of Romans ch. 1 and read it within the epistle's entire context. Such a reader would see the following:

"for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles."

Such a reader would keep reading:

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

And then you'd eventually discover what the Apostle has to say here:

"for we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: 'There is no one who is righteous, not even one; there is no one who has understanding, there is no one who seeks God.' ... For 'no human being will be justified in His sight' by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin."

And then also: "But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by His blood, effective through faith. He did this to show His righteousness, because in His divine forbearance He had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that He Himself is righteous and that He justifies the one who has faith in Jesus."

So we see why the Apostle has said,

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, 'The one who is righteous will live by faith.'"

For the Jew, the Greek, the Barbarian has come the grace of God by the Gospel, justifying the unjust freely in the Lord Jesus Christ.

So please, don't quote Romans ch. 1 out of context in order to further your anti-science agenda.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

But you said that was about nature? What I read is that in creation there is revealed the power of God, since He created all. That's what I see this being about. His power and what He can do.

The text says "the creation of the world" -- nature.
The text says "the things that have been made" -- nature
The text says that even the ungodly - pagans of Romans 1 - saw this "clearly" in nature... 'the things that have been made' and thus were "without excuse".

What is interesting is that these are not "pagans with a bible" in Romans 1-- Paul is talking about the force of the truth that is apparent to those without a Bible at all - and it is via 'the things that have been made' and "what they see".

 

[Job8]

I choose option 5, meditate on the bible.

One can only meditate on the Bible if one first believes the Bible as written.

 

[BobRyan]

The objective, unbiased reader will read the entirety of Romans ch. 1 and read it within the epistle's entire context. Such a reader would see the following:

"for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles."

Such a reader would keep reading:

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

And then you'd eventually discover what the Apostle has to say here:

"for we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: '

Which does nothing to delete the Romans 1 point made about the pagans that have no Bible at all - being convicted by the observations in nature - "the things that have been made" -- since the "creation of the World" -- by God - the Creator.

The fact that even these pagans without any bible at all could see in nature "The things that have been made" by God - and even 'they' are "without excuse" - means that God not only knows that Christians see nature as the work of the Creator - but even those with no Bible at all are convicted on that point as they observe nature.

Thus the rejection of the Romans 1 teaching that the handiwork of God is clearly seen in "the things that have been made" -- is a "distinctively atheist" POV.

As for the gross equivocation that all groups in Romans 2 are that 1 pagan group in Romans 1-- context does not support it.

in Romans 1 there are the saints and the pagans. In Romans 2 there are the Jews and the Gentiles.

Details matter.

 

[Job8]

But you said that was about nature? What I read is that in creation there is revealed the power of God, since He created all. That's what I see this being about. His power and what He can do.

CREATION = NATURE = THE NATURAL WORLD