A simple question

[Critias]

Given that the majority of Christians up to the 20th century were illiterate and could not read the bible, reading per se cannot be a requirement of accepting Jesus Christ.

However, all through Christian history illiterates have been taught from the scriptures by those who could read and who had been instructed by their teachers how to interpret the scriptures --- going back to the first generation which was instructed by Jesus himself e.g as he instructed the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

So while I would not require reading the bible, I would say a person needs instruction in the scriptures to know what it means to accept Christ. "Hearing the gospel" might be a better term than "reading the bible".

I also note that the episode of the Emmaus road also shows that reading the scriptures is not sufficient. The disciples Jesus was speaking to were not ignorant of the scriptures, but they were ignorant of how the scriptures of the OT pointed to Jesus. So even though they knew the scriptures, they still didn't know how to interpret them. (Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch makes the same point. Reading alone is not enough; one needs instruction in interpreting the meaning.)

Many yec's will agree that reading of the Scriptures is not sufficient to be saved. Neither is believing Jesus is the Son of God, for the demons believe and they shudder!

One must follow Jesus Christ. This I believe many Christians don't truly understand. We have been given the Bible to gain knowledge in understanding how to follow Jesus Christ, know who He is, what He has done and why. The Scriptures were inspired by God, who is Jesus Christ. One part of following Jesus Christ is believing what He has said, and we can find that in the Bible. Through Jesus Christ all things were created, in six days. That is Biblical teaching. But you do not accept the latter part.

Just as it was then, so it is now. Christians desperately need instruction and at the same time Christians, ignorantly refuse it. Instead we grasp onto our intelligence, thinking it will not misguide us. Ignorantly unaware of our sinful nature.

Jesus himself counselled caution before making a commitment.

Because it is a serious commitment, not because they should first study everything and gain a deeper understanding before they accept.

Jesus wants us to take this faith seriously and upon being given faith, allow God to grow our faith. Denying ourselves and giving ourselves over to Him completely; believing all that He has said in His Word.

 

[Critias]

No. I have been a Christian as long as I can remember, going back to when I was about 5. I have seen a 7 year old make a serious and thoughtful profession of faith. However, my faith has matured a lot since then; I have had many experiences of deeper conversion that have brought me into a deeper relationship with Christ than the naive faith of my childhood.



Not particularly. They certainly don't need to be able to argue apologetics. But they do need to know enough to trust in God's love for them as expressed in Jesus. Saving knowledge of Jesus is more about love than intellect. Otherwise those who are very young, or with problems related to intellectual development could not become Christians.

However, all Christians have a responsibility not to remain children in the faith, but to develop their understanding as far as they have the capacity to do so. Jesus did say to love God with all our mind, (among other things).

I don't believe in the longer one has been a Christian means they are a mature Christian. Paul had not been a Christian for many years before he was much more mature than most in the faith.

Now you are shifting the goal posts. You are not talking any more about knowing and believing in Jesus (which is necessary to salvation) but about having faith that a literal interpretation of Genesis is a correct interpretation.

I never set any goal posts. I simply asked questions. I have been talking about faith. Faith can apply to more than just believing who Jesus is.

Everyone interprets Genesis to the best of their ability and everyone has faith that their own interpretation is correct. So it is incorrect to imply that someone who accepts the literal intepretation has faith that others don't.

Furthermore, unlike believing in Jesus, which is primarily an act of love and trust, interpretation of scripture is an act of the intellect and it requires exercising one's intellect. Child-like faith is appropriate in a personal relationship to Jesus; it is not an appropriate response to an intellecual challenge. We are enjoined to study the scriptures.

I have seen people who's intellect you would question, yet they have a better grasp of Scriptural knowledge than most people. Intellect only plays a very small part. It is only a concern for those who pride themselves on their mental attributes.

Instead, a Christian should turn it over to God. Allowing God to be our teacher, our mentor, instead of rely on our intellect. I have nothing against intellect except when people start to give credit to it as if it is something they did.

We are enjoined to lean on God to teach us the Scriptures. It is not by our intellect that we will be taught, it is by our faith in God, our reliance upon Him that will teach us so that we might show ourselves approved.

It seems many put their faith in their minds to interpret instead of their faith in the Holy Spirit to interpret.

 

[Critias]

No, I have trust in the evidence in God's creation. And trust that God has provided sense and reason to be used to know and understand it. If you can give me a more comprehensive and more coherent explanation of the evidence, I am ready to listen. But all I hear from YECist is that I should distrust God's creation in nature and in myself. I should distrust the image of God in me which allows his creation to speak to me.

Here we go again! So the evidence speaks now. Without human interpretation?

How is that scientific interpretation, infallible? Hardly a chance of being wrong? Too much pride in intellect here.

I would say that scientists' interpretations help us to hear the word of God in nature more clearly, just as a good interpreter helps us understand a language that is not familiar to us. Similarly a good teacher helps us to understand the word of God in scripture more clearly.

Many good teachers do teach incorrect teachings.

I hope it is not your intention to imply that Christian scientists who listen closely to nature are refusing to be lead by the Holy Spirit. How do you know it is not the Holy Spirit who is teaching them how to interpret nature?

No. Is it your intention to claim I am?

I simply asked ask a simple question. Can you answer it?

Well those who reject Jesus do not have the Holy Spirit within them teaching them.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Here we go again! So the evidence speaks now. Without human interpretation?

Does the Bible?

How is that scientific interpretation, infallible? Hardly a chance of being wrong? Too much pride in intellect here.

And this differs from YEC how...?

Well those who reject Jesus do not have the Holy Spirit within them teaching them.

And those who accept Jesus and reject YEC, what of them?

 

[Critias]

The primary responsibility rests with the poster to communicate. It should be taught as part of good netiquette that one does not post bible verses at random without presenting one's thoughts about them and why it seemed appropriate to present them.

So communication now is a one way street?

The reader holds no responsbility?

If the reader still has questions, that's fine.

You know, it seems you are just justifying the creation of a strawman by the reader.

Only if the context in which it is presented is intended to be a chronological account of the history of creation. There is ample reason to conclude that Genesis is not intended to be a chronological account.

Seems clear enough that it is a chronological account. Care to show us your analysis of why there is multiple creation accounts?

Genesis is not about commanding that the Sabbath be observed but about establishing why the Sabbath is observed.

Or is Genesis about God being the Creator and Exodus about God establishing Law using His work as a point of reference for understanding?

 

[Critias]

Does the Bible?



And this differs from YEC how...?



And those who accept Jesus and reject YEC, what of them?

Can you answer my questions? I will answers yours after take a moment to answer mine...

 

[azzy]

Well,what do I know,but looking across the planet,and seeing the folly of man,and looking across the historical times gone by,I have decided man knows very little.I mean ,like,I hear a program about how the planet was made,and the guy acts like he was right there when it happened .Even though it was millions and millions of years ago.Give me a frieken break.You are talking about a very long time ago,and we cant even predict the waether,how in the world can we tell what happened to the whole frieken solar system?

The earth is delicately balanced out here in the middle of nowhere,we are so far from the nearest solar system,that even if there were any life out there,they would have forgotten where they came from,and why,cause it is so far away,and please dont tell me about warp drive!

The fool has said in his heart,there is no God.The evidence of God is given to those who ask for it.People dont know God,cause they have alreay decided he isnt real,and if he was,they still wouldnt believe(like I heard a pagan tell me one time).Someone told me one time,If Jesus Christ was standing right in front of them,they still wouldnt beleive. This is rebelion against the heavens,and agaisnt God.

Thats what I think,but what do I know.

 

[GenemZ]

Many yec's will agree that reading of the Scriptures is not sufficient to be saved. Neither is believing Jesus is the Son of God, for the demons believe and they shudder!

Demons do not believe that! It says, they only believe that there is one God.

James 2:19 niv
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."


Religious Jews who reject Jesus Christ, believe that there is a God. They are not saved. Believing in Jesus Christ is a gift from the Father to be saved.

Acts 16:30-31 niv
"He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

There was very little to know about Jesus at that time. Yet, all that was required to be saved was to believe in Him.

Through Jesus Christ all things were created, in six days. That is Biblical teaching. But you do not accept the latter part.

In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth. That took place before we see "Day One." The six days describe what was created to live on the surface of the earth that was already existing. How long? Science may hold the key to that one!

Just as it was then, so it is now. Christians desperately need instruction and at the same time Christians, ignorantly refuse it. Instead we grasp onto our intelligence, thinking it will not misguide us. Ignorantly unaware of our sinful nature.

That is true. One very good source for instruction (free of charge) can be found at the following address. Teachings which were straight from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

http://www.rbthieme.org/

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[azzy]

Well,you dont need to be a scientist to be saved.He that has the Son,has life.Thats what I think.I believe God will save any who look to him for help.God hears the cry of the opressed,and he hears the cry of the humble.But the proud he nows afar off.

 

[Scholar in training]

Mankind was coming out of great darkness. Hearts of men back then were not like we find today. The Holy Spirit has been transforming cultures where Christianity thrives slowly over the years. It took many years to rid many cultures of slavery. Yet, in parts of the world it exists today.

Just the same, slavery was a means to pay off a debt. For some, it was a way to a meal ticket and board. It was not seen like it is today. The Holy Spirit was not indwelling men and transforming them back then. It was a different mind set in many ways.

What do you mean?

God was rightly described in the following, as well. This is about the future.

I agree that God was rightly described.

Which passage in Joshua? You mean where God made the sun stand still?

Precisely. It reveals the ancient belief of geocentrism. It is in Scripture. If you were to say that Scripture is 100% inerrant, not once tainted by fallibility through our own shortcomings, then you would have to believe the sun revolves around the earth.

It does not say how he made the sun stand still. Does it? It simply says that it stood still in the sky. What was causing the lack of movement is not mentioned. If it said explicitly that God made the sun stop moving around the earth? Then you would have some merit badges due. It only says it stood still in the sky. That was how it appeared to all. It was a statement of relativity. Not one of scientific analysis.

Nevertheless, you are neglecting the fact that these Israelites did believe the sun revolved around the earth. They had the same amount of spiritual insight from God that is found today; in other words, they didn't have some knowledge that was lost over time. I think it is very likely that they believed the solar system was geocentric, and included this mistaken belief into Scripture. That doesn't mean that the rest of Scripture is any less true. If anything, in a way, some fallibility as far as unimportant details go give credence to Christianity; it reminds us that we need to focus on what the Bible says, but then we must apply that to our own lives, because it is something real, less tangible than the good book, perhaps, but more alive in another way.

 

[vossler]

Keep in mind that evolution is truth.

Therein lies the fundamental difference, the key to where each of us comes from. For you evolution is truth, which by default puts it on the same level as scripture. For me scripture will never be put on the same level as anything man derived. This is the crux of my concern that "science" and its proponents have elevated the knowledge therein to a point where it is now considered truth. It can be argued, rather successfully, that there are many facts within the scientific community worthy of our careful consideration and to be included under the umbrella of truth. However, these facts that are considered truth are observable, clearly distinguished and most importantly proveable. Whereas evolution calls for a lot of speculation mixed with a few facts, certainly not anything worthy of serious consideration.

Now I know you can come back and make your case that evolution is far more than speculation and tell/show/present to us a quite convincing case to the contrary, one that the non-discerning and uninformed Christian in today's world has swallowed hook, line and sinker.

However, I'll leave you with this observation:

If you were to hypothetically ask 100 atheists do you believe in the evolution theory as presented in your post #245, most, if not all, would say yes (except for of course the references to God ). Now if that same question were presented to 100 born-again, church attending, bible studying Christians I think it could be argued safely that at least 50 percent would say they didn't believe in evolution. I say all that to make the point that regardless of the percentage it is the world, almost without exception, that believes in evolution and not in a young earth created in 6 days.

Jesus said: "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many."

We should be alarmed when the world embraces any form of our theology while many Christians don't.

 

[shernren]

Hmm. Yet again, the argument that "I'm quite sure my theory is right since everybody else believes that it is wrong." Just because atheists believe that 2+2=4, doesn't mean that I should believe 2+2=5. Just because atheists go to the doctor when they have fevers doesn't mean I should go to the pastor first instead.

 

[GenemZ]

What do you mean?

I said what I meant. What is it that you did not understand?

Precisely. It reveals the ancient belief of geocentrism.

It does not describe the sun or earth's orbit pattern. It simply states that the sun (where it was located in the sky) stood still. I would say the same thing if I saw such a thing happen today. So would anyone else.

You are reading too much into that passage. If it said specifically that the sun stopped rotating around the earth, then you would get a gold star. It does not say that. It only indicates a stop in motion.

How would you have worded it to make it correct?

Nevertheless, you are neglecting the fact that these Israelites did believe the sun revolved around the earth.

It does not say that. It simply said that the location of the sun did not change. It did not discribe the means by which it stopped in one place. You keep reading too much into this.

They had the same amount of spiritual insight from God that is found today; in other words, they didn't have some knowledge that was lost over time. I think it is very likely that they believed the solar system was geocentric, and included this mistaken belief into Scripture.

The Bible does not teach that the earth rotates around the sun. Nor, the opposite.

Funny. I just looked at some web pages for a scientific journals.

NASA has one that uses the term..."the sun went down."

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=science+sun+went+down&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u=liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/news/2001/news-spacewalk.asp%3Flist12192-95&w=science+sun+went+down&d=A5A88F48D8&icp=1&.intl=us


This next one used the term, "sun rise."

Does the sun really rise?

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=science+before+sun+rise&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&u=www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ArchiveIndex/v02n02/sts40ov/Text13.shtml&w=science+before+sun+rise&d=33EDC587BE&icp=1&.intl=us



Believe it, or not! Its a page (New Frontiers in Science) concerning scientific space exploration. Does that mean because they used the term "sunrise", that they are advocating a concept of geocentrism? After all, us enlightened ones know that the sun does not rise! The earth rotates in orbit around the sun. (maybe, you ought to email them and straighten them out?)

That doesn't mean that the rest of Scripture is any less true.

How nice of you to allow that to be so.

Wishing you a wonderful Day, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

For you evolution is truth,

No, evolution is truth. My opinion on the matter is irrelevant, as is yours.

For me scripture will never be put on the same level as anything man derived.

Evolution is not man-derived. Evolution is creation-derived. It is a fact of nature. It is as much a fact of nature as that water runs downhill.

However, these facts that are considered truth are observable, clearly distinguished and most importantly proveable. Whereas evolution calls for a lot of speculation mixed with a few facts, certainly not anything worthy of serious consideration.

Evolution is observable and observed. It is one of the best established facts of biology. There is no speculation at all that evolution happens. The questions in evolutionary biology relate to the mechanisms of evolution and to the history of specific lineages, not to whether or not evolution happens. Evolution is a fact.

If you were to hypothetically ask 100 atheists do you believe in the evolution theory as presented in your post #245, most, if not all, would say yes (except for of course the references to God ).

Totally irrelevant. The facts of nature are not made more or less so by their popularity with atheists or any other groups.

Now if that same question were presented to 100 born-again, church attending, bible studying Christians I think it could be argued safely that at least 50 percent would say they didn't believe in evolution.

Only in the US. And again this is totally irrelevant. Facts are facts even if 99% are of a contrary opinion. When the vast majority of both Christians & atheists believed the earth stood motionless at the centre of the universe, did that stop the earth from moving in its orbit? You cannot change facts by changing people's opinions about them.

Jesus said: "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many."

And this is irrelevant to the point at issue. Evolution is not about the way to salvation. So why do you cite this scripture?

We should be alarmed when the world embraces any form of our theology while many Christians don't.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. In any case, my point is that evolution is fact. That is not a theological matter.

 

[depthdeception]

This is the crux of my concern that "science" and its proponents have elevated the knowledge therein to a point where it is now considered truth. It can be argued, rather successfully, that there are many facts within the scientific community worthy of our careful consideration and to be included under the umbrella of truth. However, these facts that are considered truth are observable, clearly distinguished and most importantly proveable. Whereas evolution calls for a lot of speculation mixed with a few facts, certainly not anything worthy of serious consideration.

Obviously, you've never studied evolution then...

If you were to hypothetically ask 100 atheists do you believe in the evolution theory as presented in your post #245, most, if not all, would say yes (except for of course the references to God ). Now if that same question were presented to 100 born-again, church attending, bible studying Christians I think it could be argued safely that at least 50 percent would say they didn't believe in evolution. I say all that to make the point that regardless of the percentage it is the world, almost without exception, that believes in evolution and not in a young earth created in 6 days.

The question to this is obvious: Most American Christians have been brainwashed by fundamentalists to believe that there is a giant discontinuity between evolution and a belief in God. HOwever, no such discontinuity actually exists.

We should be alarmed when the world embraces any form of our theology while many Christians don't.

And most Christians think Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen are the greatest thing since sliced bread... Most Christians are not critical thinkers in regard to theology, for they have been bred them to be mindless sheep that "swallow--hook, line and sinker" the Christian religious propoganda of extreme, reactionary segments of the Christian community in America that cares more for asserting its own autonomy and control than actually seeking the truth.

 

[gluadys]

Does that mean because they used the term "sunrise", that they are advocating a concept of geocentrism? After all, us enlightened ones know that the sun does not rise!



The earth rotates in orbit around the sun. (maybe, you ought to email them and straighten them out?)

Just what do you think the rotation of the earth around the sun has to do with sunrise and sunset?

 

[Critias]

Demons do not believe that! It says, they only believe that there is one God.

Matthew 8:29
"What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"

Mark 3:11
"Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God.""

Luke 4:41
"Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ."

James 2:19 niv
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."


Religious Jews who reject Jesus Christ, believe that there is a God. They are not saved. Believing in Jesus Christ is a gift from the Father to be saved.

There is a difference in believing Jesus is the Son of God and believing in Jesus, the Son of God.

Acts 16:30-31 niv
"He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

There was very little to know about Jesus at that time. Yet, all that was required to be saved was to believe in Him.

I should have made this point clearer. It is my fault for not doing so.

Notice the verse above says believe in the Lord Jesus. It is not the simple belief of who He is, although that is part of it. It is following the Lord Jesus that truly matters.

In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth. That took place before we see "Day One." The six days describe what was created to live on the surface of the earth that was already existing. How long? Science may hold the key to that one!

Exodus 20:11
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

From what you are saying it seems you are arguing against this verse.

That is true. One very good source for instruction (free of charge) can be found at the following address. Teachings which were straight from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

http://www.rbthieme.org/

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Thank you. And may God's Grace and Peace be with you as well.

 

[Critias]

Therein lies the fundamental difference, the key to where each of us comes from. For you evolution is truth, which by default puts it on the same level as scripture. For me scripture will never be put on the same level as anything man derived. This is the crux of my concern that "science" and its proponents have elevated the knowledge therein to a point where it is now considered truth. It can be argued, rather successfully, that there are many facts within the scientific community worthy of our careful consideration and to be included under the umbrella of truth. However, these facts that are considered truth are observable, clearly distinguished and most importantly proveable. Whereas evolution calls for a lot of speculation mixed with a few facts, certainly not anything worthy of serious consideration.

Now I know you can come back and make your case that evolution is far more than speculation and tell/show/present to us a quite convincing case to the contrary, one that the non-discerning and uninformed Christian in today's world has swallowed hook, line and sinker.

However, I'll leave you with this observation:

If you were to hypothetically ask 100 atheists do you believe in the evolution theory as presented in your post #245, most, if not all, would say yes (except for of course the references to God ). Now if that same question were presented to 100 born-again, church attending, bible studying Christians I think it could be argued safely that at least 50 percent would say they didn't believe in evolution. I say all that to make the point that regardless of the percentage it is the world, almost without exception, that believes in evolution and not in a young earth created in 6 days.

Jesus said: "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many."

We should be alarmed when the world embraces any form of our theology while many Christians don't.

Gluadys statement "Keep in mind that evolution is truth." is her presupposition when reading anything that concerns origins of mankind. That seems to be what she tests everything in origins against.

Personally, and I am assured you share in this, I feel much better making my basis for understanding, the Bible, and test everything else, science included (such a blasphemous statement to many), against the Bible.

 

[Critias]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. In any case, my point is that evolution is fact. That is not a theological matter.

When did science come out and say common descent is fact, not theory?

 

[The Lady Kate]

When did science come out and say common descent is fact, not theory?

Evolution and common descent are two different things.