does the phrase 'in the beginning...'

[archaeologist]

fijian:

The phrase does not create that model. Stop reading into scripture what is patently not there.

i am not reading into it but putting forth a suggestion which eliminates all alternatives that are not of God. obviously one should extend that idea to cover all of Gen. 1 but this thread is about that phrase.

which does present some parameters from which we can draw boundaries with which we can omit those ideas which are in conflict and contrast to the Biblical account.

We should worry how the world sees us

why? they are not God nor have anything to offer believers, so why cater to their desires when we need to present God in all areas of life.

Why else would Peter tell us to always have answer for hope we have taking care to do so with gentleness and respect. If we act in an arrogant, repugnant, ingracious and un-Christlike manner then we cannot expect people to accept the gospel we preach.

personal attack ignored.
but having an answer means to have the truth as the secular world does not have that.

crawfish:

We won't be bringing many people to Christ when we're observed as being "the bad guys'

if you are a believer then you already are 'a bad guy' the world hates the truth because the hate Christ. compromising doesn't change that fact.

When we fight against science by falsifying data or pushing theology into science class, we make the world leery of our true intentions. Are we out to convert the world through evangelism, or through coercion?

that is a serious charge, which assumes that the secular way of doing science and its conclusions are correct. yet how can they be, if they disagree with God & His word?

is it pushing theology into the science classroom or getting people to study creation correctly? why should christian children be forced to study evolution when it is not of God?

there is more to creation than just origins and there is more to science than wasting one's time pursuing that which is outside of science's scope.

to study science correctly does not mean that believer's are coercing others, in fact that is a charge that should be laid at the foot of the evolutionist and those who advocate alternatives.

i do not agree with intelligent design adherent's motives nor agenda but that does not mean i support evolutionary teaching in the science classroom. we are to teach the truth and evolution or any form thereof is not that truth.

They should exist in two separate realms

are you saying that God is not God of science? that science determines what truth is? or that God and His word are subject to scientific conclusions?

we should not dictate a scientific belief when we're preaching the Gospel.

yes we should because it is true. science, like archaeology and other research fields, deal in a limited amount of information. they do not have all the data, evidence or other events that have transpired throughout the ages, is subject to the results of the fall of man;

God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the only ones who know it all, seen it all take place, know where the evidence is and are not subject to the results of the fall of man yet you want to let science dictate to all what should be believed or followed or declare what took place when and how something should be read?

i think you have it backwards here. look at the bigger picture for a change. sure we canuse science to learn more about God and how things work but that is about as far as science can go. any further and science has stepped beyond its parameters into a position it is not allowed to have or own.

Some Christians will have their faith shaken by scientific discovery

1. only if you let science overrule the Bible which is the only true witness of what took place.
2.only if you let science usurp authority it is not allowed to have.
3. only if you place science above God.

The ensuing battle will force those who believe as I do to speak up and let people know there is an alternative

there are no alternatives. the Bible says 'he who is not for God is against Him' you do not have alternatives to turn to and be safe.

 

[KokoTheGorilla]

... not all children get to live to be adults (chris benoit's child serves as an example to this).

Another example is Koko's kitten All Ball, she was car hitting and dying!

Koko can't posting links, so googling is "koko's kitten all ball"

Koko so sad!

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

two things. one, doesn't mean the change was right.

two, why is it that your side can rarely back up what you say with credible sources? you just make statements like you think everyone should take your word for it.

BTW, in case anyone has not yet worked things out, when Archie asks for "credible sources" he means a quotation from the Bible.

In his view, that is the only credible source. Anything written since - or before - is unsound.

 

[theFijian]

i am not reading into it but putting forth a suggestion which eliminates all alternatives that are not of God. obviously one should extend that idea to cover all of Gen. 1 but this thread is about that phrase.

which does present some parameters from which we can draw boundaries with which we can omit those ideas which are in conflict and contrast to the Biblical account.

I can see this is going to be a fruitless discussion. You clearly only see the pseudoscience of Creationism as the only model and are intent on using ever more inventive eisegesis in an attempt to shoehorn your view into the text.

why? they are not God nor have anything to offer believers, so why cater to their desires when we need to present God in all areas of life.

If you take the paragraph as a whole you will see why. Taking a sentence in the context of which it was written will help you understand what people are saying.

personal attack ignored.
but having an answer means to have the truth as the secular world does not have that.

No that is simply not what Peter is talking about in that passage. It is not merely having the truth but explaining and sharing the truth. Why else would Peter tell his readers to 'do so in gentleness and respect'? It's all about context, once you take some time to understand the context of a passage I'm sure you'll do a lot better at understanding what passages mean.

 

[KokoTheGorilla]

I can see this is going to be a fruitless discussion.

So lets talking about bananas!

Why Koko health 44%?

How to fixing??

 

[crawfish]

if you are a believer then you already are 'a bad guy' the world hates the truth because the hate Christ. compromising doesn't change that fact.

I'd rather be a bad guy by following Christ than be a bad guy by acting in a way that deserves it. You should really read your bible to see what it says our behavior should be. We should act better and more honorable than the world, not less.

that is a serious charge, which assumes that the secular way of doing science and its conclusions are correct. yet how can they be, if they disagree with God & His word?

No, it assumes that such things have been discovered and proven in the past, and they have. Over and over again. Some creationists are so eager to prove that their interpretation of the bible is correct that they justify any means for doing so, including dishonesty. Show me where the bible authorizes that?

is it pushing theology into the science classroom or getting people to study creation correctly? why should christian children be forced to study evolution when it is not of God?

Because if they don't they'll grow up into ignorant people who think the two ideas conflict with each other, and they'll make stupid arguments to try and disprove it.

there is more to creation than just origins and there is more to science than wasting one's time pursuing that which is outside of science's scope.

to study science correctly does not mean that believer's are coercing others, in fact that is a charge that should be laid at the foot of the evolutionist and those who advocate alternatives.

If it's true, then prove it, through viable scientific means. SHOW us that evolution is untrue. Prove that there is a better way. Show us there is a better way to interpret the mounds of evidence that support evolution, and do it HONESTLY. If you are right, then no doubt science will come your way.

i do not agree with intelligent design adherent's motives nor agenda but that does not mean i support evolutionary teaching in the science classroom. we are to teach the truth and evolution or any form thereof is not that truth.

Then send your kids to a private Christian school. There are plenty that refuse to teach evolution.

there are no alternatives. the Bible says 'he who is not for God is against Him' you do not have alternatives to turn to and be safe.

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

 

[KokoTheGorilla]

Archie is ever encountering human who is agreeing with Archie 100%?

Archie is coming back to Koko forum?

Koko missing Archie!

 

[archaeologist]

fijian:

I can see this is going to be a fruitless discussion. You clearly only see the pseudoscience of Creationism as the only model and are intent on using ever more inventive eisegesis in an attempt to shoehorn your view into the text.

why is creationism a pseudoscience? it doesn't add in the secular theories and conclusions to its thinking.

how am i using eisogesis when i am rejecting secular conclusions?

such comments make methink that you are looking for an excuse to continue in what God said not to do.

Taking a sentence in the context of which it was written will help you understand what people are saying.

my style of quoting is done n amanner tosave space on the forum board. sometimes i may only quote a sentence but am replying to the whole text.

It's all about context, once you take some time to understand the context of a passage I'm sure you'll do a lot better at understanding what passages mean.

personal attack ignored.
your assumption is unwarranted.

crawfish:

I'd rather be a bad guy by following Christ than be a bad guy by acting in a way that deserves it. You should really read your bible to see what it says our behavior should be. We should act better and more honorable than the world, not less

do you think everyone is supposed to act like Billy Graham? that would be naive.

Some creationists are so eager to prove that their interpretation of the bible is correct that they justify any means for doing so, including dishonesty

you gloss over the issue and are quick to charge creationists of doing the exact same thing that secular people do. you ignore the factors in secular science which dictates thatscientists come to a certain conclusion. i know of too many instances where evolutionists try to ruin people's lives when they disagree with evolution and speak about. i was looking for some examples to bring to the board as i know of many but jus don't hve themonhand at the moment.

you need to take a more open-eyed look at the secular science you align yourself with.

Because if they don't they'll grow up into ignorant people who think the two ideas conflict with each other, and they'll make stupid arguments to try and disprove it.

again you are assuming that secular science is correct and their way of doing things or thinking is correct. how can it be, whenit is not of God? are you saying God is wrong when He says do not follow the world?

If it's true, then prove it, through viable scientific means. SHOW us that evolution is untrue

science is not the final determiner. nor does it have any authority to say what is right or wrong/ or what exists or doesn't (also when). only God , Jesus, the Holy Spirit have that authority and they have spoken in the Bible.

secular science has no say whatsoever in this matter for it isnot a scientific issue.

Then send your kids to a private Christian school. There are plenty that refuse to teach evolution.

not germane to the issue and i don't send them to public school.

but then public school is for all not just those who teach evolution

 

[crawfish]

such accusations are based in the evil one. you and all theistic evolutions are in sin, following sin, friendly with sin which means you are at odds and an enemy of God. HEED THE CALL, FORSAKE EVIL AND ITS WAYS AND RETURN TO GOD.

I'm reminded of the early Jewish Christians who tried to force their Gentile brothers and sisters into obeying Jewish law. Paul chided them for preaching a false gospel, for including elements to salvation that did not belong there. I'm sure they believed what they were shoveling every bit as much as you do. It just goes to show that you don't understand the TRUE gospel.

 

[archaeologist]

i see this thread has been hijacked. way off topic boys.

 

[archaeologist]

Either way, it's quite silly to try to attack evolution based on the actions of a portion of people who accept the theory.

why do you defend evolution? it is not of God, not scripturally supported, not scientifically provable so why do you hang on to it?

That would be like rejecting Christianity based on the crusades or rejecting Islam because some Islamists are suicide bombers

people do do that, what is your point?

 

[Deamiter]

why do you defend evolution? it is not of God, not scripturally supported, not scientifically provable so why do you hang on to it?

I defend my understanding of evolution because it is currently the best evidenced explanation of the diversity of life on the planet. When you say it is "not of God" what you are really saying is that it does not agree with your interpretation of scriptures. I find all research and investigation into the universe to be gratifying and able to tell us something about the most Holy God who created the universe.

As for scientifically provable -- I'm pretty sure you've gone over this enough times to know that nothing is ever proven via science (with the exception of math where proofs have a very specific meaning). So when you say that evolution cannot be proven by science, I just think "what's your point? Nothing can be proven by science, but that doesn't mean we can't be confident of how your computer works or where the satellite that carries your telephone signal to France will be in 24 hours. The common ancestry of the vast majority of living organisms has been evidenced and is rather well supported (though common ancestry of bacteria isn't as clearly evidenced due to DNA swapping).

I'd quite frankly LOVE to discuss the actual evidence in a thread where you refrain from throwing out ad homonim attacks (i.e. questioning my faith when we're in the middle of discussing endogenous retroviral insertions) but so far I haven't seen a post where you focused on evidence instead of questioning other members' faith.

people do do that, what is your point?

Rejecting an idea based on the actions of one of its proponents is a logical fallacy. Yes, people do reject evolution based on the actions of Dawkins and people reject Christianity based on the actions of Hovind. Suggesting that the actions of an individual or group of people who claim to follow a philosophy or accept a scientific theory is representative of the philosophy or theory itself is a load of crap. Yeah, people will do it, but it's generally because they're too apathetic to actually challenge the philosophy or theory on its own merits.

 

[archaeologist]

I defend my understanding of evolution because it is currently the best evidenced explanation of the diversity of life on the planet

despite all of scripture explicitly stating God did it and did not use a process?

When you say it is "not of God" what you are really saying is that it does not agree with your interpretation of scriptures.

no, when i say not of God, that means it does not have its source in God.

Nothing can be proven by science

if nothing can be proven by science, then why use it? God deems proving to be of a neccessity--rom. 3:4

"Not at all let God be true, and every man a liar. as it is written, so that you will be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

if science can't prove something then they have nothing at all.

The common ancestry of the vast majority of living organisms has been evidenced and is rather well supported (though common ancestry of bacteria isn't as clearly evidenced due to DNA swapping).

through what--inferrance or actual proof that evolution was responsibile?

where you refrain from throwing out ad homonim attacks

haven't thrown out one ad homonim attack nor questioned anyone's faith. my posts have one common thread--forsake the ways of the secular world and get back to God's. adopting and adapting evolution is certainly not believing God.

I'd quite frankly LOVE to discuss the actual evidence in a thread

be my guest and start one. you know what you want to say.

 

[theFijian]

despite all of scripture explicitly stating God did it and did not use a process?

Scripture explicitly says God created, it does not say God didn't use a process. STOP adding to scripture!

 

[archaeologist]

i didn't add to scripture. only the people who add evolution are adding to scripture.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

i didn't add to scripture. only the people who add evolution are adding to scripture.

People who " add evolution" - add to what?

 

[Deamiter]

despite all of scripture explicitly stating God did it and did not use a process?

Genesis 1-2 is full of phrases like "the Earth became formless and void," "let the water under the sky be gathered into one place" "let the land produce living creatures..."

You yourself are denying the very words of scripture if you claim that it says God did not use a process or even that God did not use natural processes!

if nothing can be proven by science, then why use it? God deems proving to be of a neccessity--rom. 3:4

"Not at all let God be true, and every man a liar. as it is written, so that you will be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

Oh quit proof-texting! The word translated "proof" in the NIV is dikaiovw which according to Strong's should be translated:
1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

The NIV is using a common usage of proof to mean "show or give evidence" not the more precise meaning of "show that no other possibility is even possible."

if science can't prove something then they have nothing at all.

Right. Because computers and cars and space shuttles are "nothing at all." Proof requires that you rule out any alternate possibility -- you can't even prove that you exist although you can provide pretty convincing evidence.

through what--inferrance or actual proof that evolution was responsibile?

Neither -- evidence that is used to predict the finding of further evidence. If evolution were not responsible, the predictions of future finds would not be repeatedly shown true.

That's how science works and for all your hatred of science, you can't deny its success since the scientific method alone is responsible for the majority of technology you use daily and for the amazing health-care advances that keep us from dying from simple bacteria infections and regular plagues. No matter your personal feelings toward the procedures, science works to allow us further insight into the workings of God's creation.

 

[archaeologist]

You yourself are denying the very words of scripture if you claim that it says God did not use a process or even that God did not use natural processes

not at all. you are assumng those words mean a natural process.

let the land produce living creatures

right after this phrase is the phrase you left out---'..God made the ...' your quoting is too convenient. also you are leaving out the words '...and it was so...' noprocess, just spoken word, confirmed in hebrews {11:2} and other passages. those other passages do not confirm evolution or natural processes.

Oh quit proof-texting

i have strong's and the way you spelled it is not inthat book, but what is close is:

(1344)​

​

dikaio>w, — dik-ah-yo’-o; from (1342) (di>kaiov); to render​

(i.e.​

show or regard as) just or innocent: — free, justify (-ier), be​

righteous.

i am not proof texting, as you only looked at the word 'proof' and not the word immediately after that--'right' so giventhe above meaning 'to render' + the word immediately following the word 'proof'-- 'right' we have "to render right" {or to use the synonyms--'to show right'}

the only one proof texting is you.

The NIV is using a common usage of proof to mean "show or give evidence" not the more precise meaning of "show that no other possibility is even possible

so you translate it in a fashion to say that God is worng and science is right. too convenient. i have the NIV and that is not what is meant there.

Because computers and cars and space shuttles are "nothing at all."

ifi don't exist, then they obviously don't either.

you can't even prove that you exist although you can provide pretty convincing evidence

that is just inane. so if i take a hammer, beat you up and the prosecuters want to charge me, all i have to say to avoid going to jail is: ' you can't charge me, i don't exist. the man i beat up said so. so if i don't exist, then there was no beating,and no crime.'

this is exactly what you are saying.

evidence that is used to predict the finding of further evidence

1. don't need science to do that
2. is science in the business of fortune telling? anyone can make a prediction and manipulate the process or the find to be seen as correct.
3. here is something you should read-- Is. 47:13ff, also acts 7:51-53.

i wouldn't rely on predictions for they can be from evil as well meant to deceive.

That's how science works and for all your hatred of science, you can't deny its success since the scientific method alone is responsible for the majority of technology you use daily and for the amazing health-care advances that keep us from dying from simple bacteria infections and regular plagues

i wouldn't brag if i were you, since you are only telling part of the story, i also wouldn't be so arrrogant andprideful.

science and technology have also killed more people than any other field. shall i list them for you? besides the obvious , cars, guns, planes...we have side-effects from prescription medication, we have faulty machinery which stops when the electricity stops, super-bacteria {you mentioned this previously} which have become immune to medicines, poisoneous gases, i.e. mustard gas and its friends;

don't be so high andmighty for science has its dark side which suports my saying you need to be discerning when it comes to such study. not all is of God, even in the field of origins.

by the way, science cannot stop human error nor for all its bravado, it is completely powerless to stop one thing: death. all the people it has saved, they still died. science is in subjection to God in all areas of its study and life and has no authority to say what God did and when.

 

[theFijian]

i didn't add to scripture. only the people who add evolution are adding to scripture.

You are claiming the Bible says things it simply does not, ergo you are adding to scripture. Face facts.

 

[Deamiter]

not at all. you are assumng those words mean a natural process.

right after this phrase is the phrase you left out---'..God made the ...' your quoting is too convenient. also you are leaving out the words '...and it was so...' noprocess, just spoken word, confirmed in hebrews {11:2} and other passages. those other passages do not confirm evolution or natural processes.

Eh? God made the living creatures by telling the land to bring forth living creatures. It was so. This does not confirm any particular natural process, but words used throughout the creation account suggest that God ordered creation to "bring forth" rather than simply speaking into existence as you seem to claim.

Surely you would agree that God is entirely capable of telling the earth to "bring forth" and that his doing so would still be an act of God and not simply a natural process. In fact, most Christians who are scientists (whom I've talked to anyway) fully affirm God as the creator and sustainer of all natural processes. Organisms can evolve and since God designed evolution, the existence of diversity today is still an act of God.

i have strong's and the way you spelled it is not inthat book, but what is close is:

I used the English equivalent of the Greek letters -- much easier than pulling up an international font and the English font will display on all computers that browse this board -- some older computers have trouble with fancy fonts.

i am not proof texting, as you only looked at the word 'proof' and not the word immediately after that--'right' so giventhe above meaning 'to render' + the word immediately following the word 'proof'-- 'right' we have "to render right" {or to use the synonyms--'to show right'}

the only one proof texting is you.

Let's look at your original claim -- you said, "God seems to deem proving a necessity" when trying to argue that since science cannot prove anything (due to the definition of proof) science cannot be of God. In fact, science is quite capable of doing what Romans 3:4 says -- to "render right" or "show right." When Copernicus showed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, he was certainly shown right.

so you translate it in a fashion to say that God is worng and science is right. too convenient. i have the NIV and that is not what is meant there.

Absolutely not! First of all, I was never arguing that the verse says God is wrong. Secondly, I was never arguing that the verse indicates that science is right! I was simply countering YOUR claim that the verse indicates that science cannot be right since science is incapable of proof.

Of course, if we want to get to the entire context of the text, this citation of Psalms 51:4 (note that "it is written") refers to God, not to man. The citation refers to GOD being shown right when he speaks and when he judges. Yet another indication that it's not talking about science, since as God is omnipotent, he needs no method by which to systematically study anything.

ifi don't exist, then they obviously don't either.

Not quite -- if you were a figment of my imagination, then technology certainly could exist while I hallucinated you. I'm not in ANY way suggesting that this is true -- just trying to demonstrate that "proof" is not possible outside of math. Science doesn't do proof, but it can still show things to be true or false.

that is just inane. so if i take a hammer, beat you up and the prosecuters want to charge me, all i have to say to avoid going to jail is: ' you can't charge me, i don't exist. the man i beat up said so. so if i don't exist, then there was no beating,and no crime.'

this is exactly what you are saying.

Not quite because in court they don't require 'proof' for the same reason that science doesn't deal with proof -- because it is impossible. Courts stipulate "beyond reasonable doubt" and science requires that hypotheses be tested and experiments be designed that could falsify the hypothesis. Remember, proof has a very specific meaning -- it doesn't mean "show" or "give a whole lot of evidence for" it means "there is no other possibility period." Since we cannot rule out every conceivable possibility (even the inane ones) we cannot prove anything. That doesn't stop us from collecting evidence and showing that things are true -- it's just inaccurate to say that science can "prove" something not because science is worthless but because the word "prove" has a specific meaning that is not achieved via science.

2. is science in the business of fortune telling? anyone can make a prediction and manipulate the process or the find to be seen as correct.

i wouldn't rely on predictions for they can be from evil as well meant to deceive.

Of course simply making a prediction is not science. Even verifying (or claiming to verify) the prediction is not the whole of the scientific method. The experiment that verifies the prediction should also be repeatable so that other researchers can verify the results.

i wouldn't brag if i were you, since you are only telling part of the story, i also wouldn't be so arrrogant andprideful.

science and technology have also killed more people than any other field...

Now now, you've caught me being inprecise! Science hasn't cured anybody and hasn't killed anybody! Science has been USED for many purposes, but you're quite right to point out that while it allows us to heal and help more people, it allows us to hurt more people too. See science is a TOOL, not a set of morals and philosophies. Just as a gun is not evil since it can be used for good (i.e. hunting for food) science too is a tool used to reliably investigate the universe and the results of this use can be used in many ways.