GOD's Visual Aid

[LittleNipper]

The very simple problem with theistic evolution, uniformitarianism, etc., etc., etc., is that instead of considering GOD and HIS Word while rationalizing the Universe, men have chosen to consider the Universe while rationalizing GOD and HIS Word.

Instead of see the Universe for exactily what it is, as a expression of GOD's power, wonder, and expanse; man choose to limit some god to their determination of what they theorize.

For although they knew GOD, they neither glorified HIM as GOD nor gave thanks to HIM, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immeasurable GOD for their own thinking and determinations and things they could do, say or imagine.

 

[Mallon]

Instead of see the Universe for exactily what it is, as a expression of GOD's power, wonder, and expanse; man choose to limit some god to their determination of what they theorize.

I see this the other way around.
Evolutionary creationists aren't at all interested in limiting God in any way. Every time we make a new discovery, whether it be a new evolutionary pathway or some breakthrough in predicting weather patterns, we praise God for the knowledge He has revealed to us concerning His actions in history. And we are free to do so because we do not subscribe to a strict scientific concordance of the Bible. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said (see gluadys' signature), "We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know."
I see special creationists as the ones who want to limit God. They subconciously want to limit God's actions to miracles and signs because they feel that if we are able to explain particular phenomena via natural means, that this somehow negates the need for God. They want to seek God in what we don't know, rather than in what we do know. I think it is important to recognize that God is capable of acting both naturally and miraculously, and that we can learn about the world using both God's written word and God's works.
(Incidentally, if you still think evolutionary creationists are uninterested in giving glory to God, I suggest you check out publications like Perspectives on an Evolving Creation or the journal of the ASA.

 

[Molal]

I have to agree with Mallon. Literal genesis interpretations have limited God and have denied His creation.

TE's, scientists, etc. recognize the inerrancy of the word, recognize Christ and understand the methodology of creation.

It is my contention that creationists are blinded by their own literal interpretation.

 

[crawfish]

Surprise, I agree with Mallon and Molal.

To accept that Genesis is purely literal is to suggest that God's methods are simple because that is all we're capable of understanding. It also blinds itself to many of the incredible glories of God's creation because it cannot comprehend a creation different than what it can perceive.

 

[Molal]

Hey crawfish.

It's good to see you you around. Thanks for your comment.

 

[ClearSky]

Even as a young earth creationist I have also to agree with Mallon.

God speaks to us through Scripture as well as through the laws of nature, and gave us the ability to understand him through reason. It does not make sense to accept only a little part of God's words and acts and to ignore all the rest.

For understanding God's work you need scripture, you need science, and you need to use your brains. Even then you can end up wrong, but you tried at least.

 

[LittleNipper]

I see this the other way around.
Evolutionary creationists aren't at all interested in limiting God in any way. Every time we make a new discovery, whether it be a new evolutionary pathway or some breakthrough in predicting weather patterns, we praise God for the knowledge He has revealed to us concerning His actions in history. And we are free to do so because we do not subscribe to a strict scientific concordance of the Bible. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said (see gluadys' signature), "We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know."
I see special creationists as the ones who want to limit God. They subconciously want to limit God's actions to miracles and signs because they feel that if we are able to explain particular phenomena via natural means, that this somehow negates the need for God. They want to seek God in what we don't know, rather than in what we do know. I think it is important to recognize that God is capable of acting both naturally and miraculously, and that we can learn about the world using both God's written word and God's works.
(Incidentally, if you still think evolutionary creationists are uninterested in giving glory to God, I suggest you check out publications like Perspectives on an Evolving Creation or the journal of the ASA.

You apply a literal interpretation to your inspection of nature and yet you deny GOD the very same with regard to what HE reveals historically in HIS WORD.

 

[LittleNipper]

I have to agree with Mallon. Literal genesis interpretations have limited God and have denied His creation.

TE's, scientists, etc. recognize the inerrancy of the word, recognize Christ and understand the methodology of creation.

It is my contention that creationists are blinded by their own literal interpretation.

You believe the FLOOD was either worldwide nor historic and that has entirely clouded any interpretation of nature you may derive.

 

[LittleNipper]

Surprise, I agree with Mallon and Molal.

To accept that Genesis is purely literal is to suggest that God's methods are simple because that is all we're capable of understanding. It also blinds itself to many of the incredible glories of God's creation because it cannot comprehend a creation different than what it can perceive.

Men of science who attempt to rationalize the Bible to fit human research are the ones seeking to make GOD simple.

 

[theFijian]

Men of science who attempt to rationalize the Bible to fit human research are the ones seeking to make GOD simple.

One wonders then why Creationists bother to formulate any kind of scientific ideas, since fundamentally they are always piggy-backing on the work of these 'Men of science'.

 

[LittleNipper]

Even as a young earth creationist I have also to agree with Mallon.

God speaks to us through Scripture as well as through the laws of nature, and gave us the ability to understand him through reason. It does not make sense to accept only a little part of God's words and acts and to ignore all the rest.

For understanding God's work you need scripture, you need science, and you need to use your brains. Even then you can end up wrong, but you tried at least.

Romans 3:11

There is no one who understands, no one seeks GOD.

 

[Molal]

Men of science who attempt to rationalize the Bible to fit human research are the ones seeking to make GOD simple.

You rationalize the bible with your interpretation. What's the difference?

 

[LittleNipper]

One wonders then why Creationists bother to formulate any kind of scientific ideas, since fundamentally they are always piggy-backing on the work of these 'Men of science'.

They do it shine forth GOD's TRUTH as revealed by GOD HIMSELF through HIS WORD to a darkening world.

 

[LittleNipper]

You rationalize the bible with your interpretation. What's the difference?

I endeavor to fit my understanding to GOD's revelation. GOD's WORD is my standard. I do not strive to discover on my own "truth" and develope my own standard.

 

[Mallon]

You apply a literal interpretation to your inspection of nature and yet you deny GOD the very same with regard to what HE reveals historically in HIS WORD.

This doesn't even make sense. Are you suggesting we should interpret science metaphorically instead?
In fact, I interpret the Bible very literally. I just keep in mind the cultural and linguistic context of the people who wrote the Scriptures. As such, I don't go to the Bible expecting it to speak of 21st century science.
What is your reason for holding so strongly to scientific concordism?

 

[Molal]

I endeavor to fit my understanding to GOD's revelation. GOD's WORD is my standard. I do not strive to discover on my own "truth" and develope my own standard.

By definition, you interpret the bible - that is what comprehension entails, reading and understanding.

 

[Quantos]

Romans 3:11

There is no one who understands, no one seeks GOD.

Are you saying you don't understand or seek God ?

 

[crawfish]

Men of science who attempt to rationalize the Bible to fit human research are the ones seeking to make GOD simple.

Now, of course, would be the time to start probing which parts of the bible that you are rationalizing away.

 

[LittleNipper]

This doesn't even make sense. Are you suggesting we should interpret science metaphorically instead?
In fact, I interpret the Bible very literally. I just keep in mind the cultural and linguistic context of the people who wrote the Scriptures. As such, I don't go to the Bible expecting it to speak of 21st century science.
What is your reason for holding so strongly to scientific concordism?

I'm saying science is but a tool. How one applies it is strickly a matter of choice. I choose to understand the biblical account and if science can be applied toward those ends, I feel it should be applied. I have no desire to disprove the biblical account nor ignore it and so such reseach is limited in scope.

 

[LittleNipper]

Now, of course, would be the time to start probing which parts of the bible that you are rationalizing away.

I do not rationalize the Bible. I allow the Bible to interpret the Bible. The Bible is my standard and not interpretions of scientific research. The evening and morning are the parameters of a day, and wherever it's used in the Bible it means a day. No interpertation necessary on my part.