Is God a liar?

[Aman777]

"...and believe that Genesis is accurate literal history" according to some of our YEC colleagues. Otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about it.

Those who are born again Spiritually must first receive the Gift of God. Can you tell us HOW to get the Gift of God?

BTW, For thousands of years, the YEC, by Faith, have told us that in 6 Days, God makes a perfect Heaven and then rests. That is God's Truth. The only difference I show is that we live at the end of the present 6th Day at Genesis 1:27 since God is STILL creating Adam/mankind in Christ Spiritually on this Day of Salvation. Verses 1:28-31 is Prophecy of events which take place AFTER Jesus comes at Armageddon.

 

[Smidlee]

Ok - you make a good point here - I agree that science and the Bible agree... that nature agrees with its author. But we do not know the age of the universe is any better determine by man than the age of Dinosaurs or life on planet earth. Those guesses are likely to both be in error.

What is clear - as you say -- is that the "Big Bang" is pointing to "in the beginning God said" -- a key detail and difference between atheism and the Bible

I believe Christians should stay away from the Big Bang since it's self refuting. Both the Big Bang and evolution is based on the religious belief , the principle of continuity. Scientist in the past like Isaac Newton rejected this principle as he stated gravity explains how our solar system operates but not it's origins. Modern scientists are still trying to explain away their origins with the four forces that the universe operates on.

 

[Aman777]

I believe Christians should stay away from the Big Bang since it's self refuting.

Genesis 2:4 shows that other Heavens were made on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day Adam's Earth was made. The FIRST Heaven was made on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8

This means that the universe which is now was caused on the 3rd Day or 3 of God's Days ago, which is 13.8 Billion years in man's time. God's Holy Word AGREES with modern Science in every way IF you have the proper interpretation. God Bless you

 

[Smidlee]

Genesis 2:4 shows that other Heavens were made on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day Adam's Earth was made. The FIRST Heaven was made on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8

This means that the universe which is now was caused on the 3rd Day or 3 of God's Days ago, which is 13.8 Billion years in man's time. God's Holy Word AGREES with modern Science in every way IF you have the proper interpretation. God Bless you

I disagree of course as the Bible doesn't teach the principle of continuity. The Big Bang has so many problems that even according to science it refutes itself. (If this principle was true then why didn't Jesus mention it?)
I feel basing your scripture interpretation on science is like building your house on sand. What happens when the Big Bang gets rejected?
The Bible foundation is LIFE created the universe while modern day science foundation is the universe created life. One is solid as a rock while the other is self refuting.

 

[BobRyan]

I believe Christians should stay away from the Big Bang since it's self refuting. Both the Big Bang and evolution is based on the religious belief , the principle of continuity. Scientist in the past like Isaac Newton rejected this principle as he stated gravity explains how our solar system operates but not it's origins. Modern scientists are still trying to explain away their origins with the four forces that the universe operates on.

The "Big Bang" argument is that all matter - all of creation - had a beginning instead of being eternal and unchanging. The "steady state" science prior to that -- had a made a god out of nature arguing that it was eternal and unchanging. Matter could be neither created nor destroyed in that old model.

Christianity argued by contrast that all the universe came into existence at a point in time - that God created it.

"In the beginning God created..." was not at all the "steady state" model of science before the "Big Bang" theory took over science.

 

[BobRyan]

Genesis 2:4 shows that other Heavens were made on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day Adam's Earth was made. The FIRST Heaven was made on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8

This means that the universe which is now was caused on the 3rd Day or 3 of God's Days ago, which is 13.8 Billion years in man's time. God's Holy Word AGREES with modern Science in every way IF you have the proper interpretation. God Bless you

Well not in real life. IN real life atmosphere on Earth alone is made on day 2.
In real life plants on earth or made on day 3.
in real life our local solar system is made on day 4.

The 7 day creation week is not about the creation of God's throne or Angels -- it is only about this earth, our solar system. etc.

 

[Smidlee]

The "Big Bang" argument is that all matter - all of creation - had a beginning instead of being eternal and unchanging. The "steady state" science prior to that -- had a made a god out of nature arguing that it was eternal and unchanging. Matter could be neither created nor destroyed in that old model.

Christianity argued by contrast that all the universe came into existence at a point in time - that God created it.

"In the beginning God created..." was not at all the "steady state" model of science before the "Big Bang" theory took over science.

The Big Bang is a lot more than just the universe had a beginning as I wrote it's totally based on the principle of continuity. Scientist like Isaac Newton had no problem in believing the universe had a beginning yet still rejected this principle. Big Bang needs a lot of fudge factors like dark matter , dark energy and inflation. Inflation leads to the multi-verse which leads to the Boltzmann Brain paradox which science then refutes itself. The very science use to back the Big Bang will lead you to concluded the universe doesn't even exist. (Stephen Hawkings has even suggested it that the universe is the product of the human mind instead of God's mind... God's word)
The fact the universe had a beginning has nothing to do with the Big Bang but the known four forces which the universe operates will eventually lead to star death. Thus the universe is slowly running down which points to the Creator who had to get it started.
Again the four forces explains well how our universe operates but not it's origins just as Isaac Newton stated about gravity.

 

[Smidlee]

In day one God said let there be light before the mentioning the sun, moon and stars exactly like in Revelation there will no longer be a sun as God will be the light. This goes against the principle of continuity from the very beginning. This is like an artist paints a blue sky before he paints a yellow sun. Even if you don't take Genesis 1 literally it still reads as a Creator (like a painter) creating His own universe and are not bound by His own creation. I believe He literally spoke it into existence as a programmer(s) types on the keyboard to "speaks" man's universe (creation) into existence as in World of Warcraft.
By the way what is light? Light as we know it doesn't come from the sun. The universe is in complete darkness. The sun gives off electromagnetic waves which our eyes detect then our visual cortex produces a 3-D imagine with color. When you look into the night sky you see darkness but the sky is filled with electromagnetic waves from all those stars and galaxies. Those waves are just shifted away from the ones that are detected by our eyes.
So our minds and the universe are interconnected just as a cell phone is connected to the towers. Einstein hated quantum physics because it pointed to the fact the moon may not exist without someone or some creature to observed it. Then it doesn't matter if the universe appears to be billions of years old as for all we know the universe just as old as the observers .... man.
As one physicist wrote years ago we need to stop seeing the universe as something physical and more mental.

 

[BobRyan]

The Big Bang is a lot more than just the universe had a beginning as I wrote it's totally based on the principle of continuity. Scientist like Isaac Newton had no problem in believing the universe had a beginning yet still rejected this principle. Big Bang needs a lot of fudge factors like dark matter , dark energy and inflation. Inflation leads to the multi-verse .

1. It is not at all clear or even claimed that Inflation leads to "multi-verse" rather both Leonard Susskind (father of string theorgy) and Martin Rees ( who came up with "multi-verse" in the first place) - both admit that the entire multi-verse fiction was simply "imagined" in response to the cosmological constant on the order of 1 / 10^120 . If you want to claim that the cosmological constant leads desperate atheists to posit a multi-verse in desperate efforts to get atheism to survive "observations in nature" .. .fine that has some merit.

2. The Big Bang was a pejorative term by the steady-state group who held to the science-orthodoxy of their day - ( the supposed high-ground of their science-orthodoxy) at the time they introduced the fact that the universe had a start instead of being eternal.

3. Nothing in the inflation story dictates that the universe is about the shrink back down to original size - and expand out again. Rather it argues now that the universe expands out forever. No multi-verse in the Big Bang physics

 

[BobRyan]

The fact the universe had a beginning has nothing to do with the Big Bang .

that is not true - even the critics of Big Bang admit that it insists on a beginning for the universe. Just as Hubbel predicted.

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

from: The Expanding Universe and Hubble’s Law - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

"The old model of a static universe, which had served since Sir Isaac Newton, was thus proved to be incontrovertibly false, but Hubble’s discovery did more than just show that the universe was changing over time. If the galaxies were flying apart, then clearly, at some earlier time, the universe was smaller than at present. Following back logically, like a movie played in reverse, it must ultimately have had some beginning when it was very tiny indeed, an idea which gave rise to the theory of the Big Bang. Although now almost universally accepted, this theory of the beginnings of the universe was not immediately welcomed by everyone, and several strands of corroborating evidence were needed, as we will see in the following sections."

 

[BobRyan]

In day one God said let there be light before the mentioning the sun, moon and stars exactly like in Revelation there will no longer be a sun .

Rev 21 does not say that the sun will not exist ...

 

[Aman777]

Well not in real life. IN real life atmosphere on Earth alone is made on day 2.

Not so, since Adam's solid firmament or the boundary of his world was made on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:6-8 Nothing is said about atmosphere.

*** In real life plants on earth or made on day 3.

Amen, but BEFORE the plants, herbs and rain, Jesus formed Adam of the dust of the ground and breathed life into him. Adam was made with an intelligence like God's Gen 3:22 showing the difference been Humans and the sons of God (prehistoric people).

*** in real life our local solar system is made on day 4.

Not so, since our Solar System did not come into being until some 9 Billion years AFTER the Big Bang. The FIRST Stars of our universe lit up on the 4th Day. Gen 1:16

*** The 7 day creation week is not about the creation of God's throne or Angels -- it is only about this earth, our solar system. etc.

False, since God has but 7 Days/Ages and the 7th is Eternity since it has no morning and no evening. The 7 Day Creation week is the entire History of God's Creation, written more than 3k years ago, including future events which happen AFTER Jesus returns at Armageddon. We continue today on the present 6th Day, the Day of Salvation. The prophecy of Gen 1:28-31 is FUTURE to 2017. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

By the way what is light? Light as we know it doesn't come from the sun.

It's Jesus in Genesis. He is the Light of Gen 1:3. He is brighter than the noonday Sun and blinded Saul on the road to Damascus. That's the true Image of God. Many people in the O.T. saw Him but No man has ever seen the invisible Spirit of the Trinity. That's because God is an invisible Spirit and exists physically only in Christ. Col 1:15 speaking of Jesus says:

Col 1:15 ¶ Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Jesus emptied Himself of His Image as God and came to Earth to defeat death.

Phl 2:5 ¶ Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: Phl 2:7 But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Phl 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

 

[Aman777]

Rev 21 does not say that the sun will not exist ...

Here's what it does say:

Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

What is important is to know that New Jerusalem, the city lit by the Lamb, is 1500 miles square and in height, which would cover half the United States and 1500 miles high. Can anyone tell us what Jesus looked like in the O.T.?

 

[Humble Servant of Christ]

1. It is not at all clear or even claimed that Inflation leads to "multi-verse" rather both Leonard Susskind (father of string theorgy) and Martin Rees ( who came up with "multi-verse" in the first place) - both admit that the entire multi-verse fiction was simply "imagined" in response to the cosmological constant on the order of 1 / 10^120 . If you want to claim that the cosmological constant leads desperate atheists to posit a multi-verse in desperate efforts to get atheism to survive "observations in nature" .. .fine that has some merit.

2. The Big Bang was a pejorative term by the steady-state who held the high-ground of orthodoxy at the time they introduced the fact that the universe had a start instead of being eternal.

3. Nothing in the inflation story dictates that the universe is about the shrink back down to original size - and expand out again. Rather it argues now that the universe expands out forever. No multi-verse in the Big Bang physics

Amen brother! Amen

 

[JacksBratt]

Let me get this straight: You are saying that it is somehow wrong to accept the life, death and resurrection of Christ as real events if we do not accept the Genesis creation stories as describing real events and also that they are 100% accurate literal accounts. Is that right?

What I am saying is this:

I fully believe that if the gospel message was not necessary for the salvation of our souls..........people would dismiss it as easily as they dismiss the literal six days of creation.

What I am saying is simply: you believe the story of Christ because and only because you have to.

 

[JacksBratt]

Correction: Those who have NOT been born again Spiritually by the Trinity will not enter Heaven. Jesus:>>Jhn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Now look who is the literalist.

I was simply implying, by the term believer, that they were saved. Sorry I didn't go into enough detail.

Maybe I should have said, "If you are born again" instead of "if you're a believer"

 

[Speedwell]

What I am saying is this:

I fully believe that if the gospel message was not necessary for the salvation of our souls..........people would dismiss it as easily as they dismiss the literal six days of creation.

What I am saying is simply: you believe the story of Christ because and only because you have to.

Do you really think being so offensive gets you anywhere? I believe Genesis to be the inspired word of God--I just don't interpret it the same way you do.

 

[JacksBratt]

Do you really think being so offensive gets you anywhere? I believe Genesis to be the inspired word of God--I just don't interpret it the same way you do.

I'm certainly not looking to "get anywhere".

Tell me what it is about the creation account, as it is written, that is anything but factually written.
Tell me what part was not possible for God to do.
Tell me where you got the facts to question God's written word.

If you are offended by my stating that I don't think you would believe the death and resurrection of Christ, and all His miraculous acts, unless your salvation depended on it, maybe ask yourself "why"? Why are you offended? Why do you accept the supernatural events of Christ's life but pass off the supernatural events of creation, as allegory?

Tell me..........why do you believe the supernatural events of Christ's life? They are pretty outrageous. Pretty miraculous. Pretty easy to just say it was a story, told by His friends. Told so they could create a religion. Told to create popularity. Told to gain fame.....

So, what is it about the two different events that cause you to believe one and reject the other.

 

[Speedwell]

Tell me what it is about the creation account, as it is written, that is anything but factually written.

None of it is the 100% accurate literal history you claim.

Tell me what part was not possible for God to do.

Nothing is impossible to God.

Tell me where you got the facts to question God's written word.

I don't question God's written word. I reject your interpretation of it.

Tell me..........why do you believe the supernatural events of Christ's life? They are pretty outrageous. Pretty miraculous.

Sacred Tradition. the Bible is just corroboration, not the original source of my belief.

So, what is it about the two different events that cause you to believe one and reject the other.

I think you're just jealous that I get to believe in my salvation in Christ without having to believe something stupid about Genesis as part of the bargain..