How hard would it be to just say this . . .

herev · Apr 14, 2005

SBG said:
Really? Hm, I have often enjoyed learning something new. I just don't follow the belief system in place for the interpretation of scientists. I tend to lean on the side where the Bible is the Authority in all manners, and if I am not quite sure what the Bible is saying, I don't look to scientists, but how the early Church - Fathers and Apostles - taught it.

amazing, what does scripture and what do the early church fathers teach you about dealing with epilepsy (sorry if it's not spelled right)? What does the Bible and what do early church fathers teach you about dealing with being sick?

Let's just take the last one...From James Ch 5:

14Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up.

I assume from your post that when your child is sick you do NOT go to the doctor. Scripture says pray in faith and they will be made well, so obviously there is no need for the doctor. Do you trust those scientists who are in the medical profession? or do you simply rely on scripture and church fathers?

SBG · Apr 14, 2005

Vance said:
Who is the real enemy here? Atheism, the failure to believe that God created everything. That is what we should be fighting against. I think TE does a MUCH better job of battling atheistic naturalism that YEC has done.

The greater enemy is the one who comes in sheeps clothing but is really a wolf. He comes to devour the church from within by created a chasm where people dispute what the Bible is really saying. Thus they conclude that science is an excellent source to use in interpreting the Bible and when science changes so does the meaning of God's word.

Atheism is easier to combat, than those who claim the Christian title and then dispute the Bible.

Some te's do a much better job at destroying the credibility of the Bible.

Vance said:
Again, SBG, you are insisting on misrepresenting TE's and ignoring identical issues with your fellow YEC's. TE's say God can't be a liar, and base what they believe to be the most likely reading of Genesis on that belief. Plain and simple. God CAN'T LIE. Your statements twisting their words around are not worthy of you.

Te's say God cannot be liar so the earth is young. A logical deduction, which I know you are capable of, says if the earth is young, God is then a liar.

In no circumstance should an insignificant human being, you or me, call God into question as possible being a liar if A is true.

You can continue to come in here and claim innocense, that you have never done such a thing, but God knows.

You fail to realize that I am unaffected by your words, or anyone elses on this forum. You can tell me or someone else I have done such and such, when I have not, so that you look much better, I don't care. I will hold to the truth.

Vance said:
And you seem to ignore the statements by your fellow YEC's that if God created a different way than they believe, via evolution, then Scripture is false (ie, God is a liar), and they would toss it out. What is your response to that argument? You seem silent in your condemnation of this argument.

Because Scripture clearly says evolution is not the way God created. Why should I condemn them for seeing the Bible for what it says, and believe what has been taught since Jesus Christ? I have no shy'd away from correcting yec's on this forum, just ask some of them.

And now you are twisting their words. They did not call God a liar. This is shameless, you will stop at nothing and resort to bold face lies to make a case.

And you have the gull to question me why I don't correct them when they don't need correction, when you never have done this to fellow te's.

This is a sad display of an argument Vance.

herev · Apr 14, 2005

SBG said:
Some te's do a much better job at destroying the credibility of the Bible.

are you questioning someone's Christianity? I think that's against the rules--(not CF rules, either)

Vance · Apr 14, 2005

No, SBG, you are being hypocritical in the extreme. Those YEC's have said that if God did not create a certain way, then God's Scripture is false, which is saying God is a liar. This is EXACTLY the same thing you are condemning other Christians for. The fact that you happen to agree with their conclusion about how God created is irrelevant, the statement is STILL that God can possibly be a liar, according to your analysis of the TE statements.

SBG · Apr 14, 2005

herev said:
amazing, what does scripture and what do the early church fathers teach you about dealing with epilepsy (sorry if it's not spelled right)? What does the Bible and what do early church fathers teach you about dealing with being sick?

Let's just take the last one...From James Ch 5:

I assume from your post that when your child is sick you do NOT go to the doctor. Scripture says pray in faith and they will be made well, so obviously there is no need for the doctor. Do you trust those scientists who are in the medical profession? or do you simply rely on scripture and church fathers?

Jesus doesn't seem to be in opposition with Doctors. Matthew 9:12 says "On hearing this, Jesus said, It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." So I don't see any reason why doctors would be a bad thing.

SBG · Apr 14, 2005

Vance said:
No, SBG, you are being hypocritical in the extreme. Those YEC's have said that if God did not create a certain way, then God's Scripture is false, which is saying God is a liar. This is EXACTLY the same thing you are condemning other Christians for. The fact that you happen to agree with their conclusion about how God created is irrelevant, the statement is STILL that God can possibly be a liar, according to your analysis of the TE statements.

No. They said they couldn't believe what is written, there is difference, even if you don't want to see it. And why don't you ask them again...

I have not condemned you, I haven't said you are going to hell. I have said you have very bad theology.

SBG · Apr 14, 2005

herev said:
are you questioning someone's Christianity? I think that's against the rules--(not CF rules, either)

You sure do like to make something out of nothing, don't you? I am not questioning his 'Christianity' I am however questioning his theology. Very much so.

herev · Apr 14, 2005

SBG said:
You sure do like to make something out of nothing, don't you? I am not questioning his 'Christianity' I am however questioning his theology. Very much so.

and so when you said:

Atheism is easier to combat, than those who claim the Christian title and then dispute the Bible.

you weren't questioning his faith? why do you feel the need to use the word "claim." I believe I got called on the carpet for using the word, "story," so, why would you say he is only "claiming" to be a Christian?

Vance · Apr 14, 2005

BTW, yes, I do indeed CLAIM to be a Christian! I not only CLAIM Jesus, I PROCLAIM Him every chance I get!

herev · Apr 14, 2005

SBG said:
Jesus doesn't seem to be in opposition with Doctors. Matthew 9:12 says "On hearing this, Jesus said, It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." So I don't see any reason why doctors would be a bad thing.

so you think that James and Jesus disagree? James said pray and you will get better (if you pray in faith), so why discount James?

herev · Apr 14, 2005

Vance said:
BTW, yes, I do indeed CLAIM to be a Christian! I not only CLAIM Jesus, I PROCLAIM Him every chance I get!

amazing how us poor heathen TE's can proclaim Jesus and Him crucified and people still hear the word of God...

mhess13 · Apr 14, 2005

herev said:
amazing, what does scripture and what do the early church fathers teach you about dealing with epilepsy (sorry if it's not spelled right)? What does the Bible and what do early church fathers teach you about dealing with being sick?

Let's just take the last one...From James Ch 5:

I assume from your post that when your child is sick you do NOT go to the doctor. Scripture says pray in faith and they will be made well, so obviously there is no need for the doctor. Do you trust those scientists who are in the medical profession? or do you simply rely on scripture and church fathers?

That's pretty lame, Herev. Especially since Luke was a physician.

mhess13 · Apr 14, 2005

herev said:
so you think that James and Jesus disagree? James said pray and you will get better (if you pray in faith), so why discount James?

It's called RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH

Vance · Apr 14, 2005

mhess13 said:
It's called RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH

Exactly, and TE's think that YEC's are WRONGLY dividing the Word of Truth, and vice-versa. So, that is not a useful point.

mhess13 · Apr 14, 2005

Vance said:
Exactly, and TE's think that YEC's are WRONGLY dividing the Word of Truth, and vice-versa. So, that is not a useful point.

We weren't talking about YEC or TE. He was making a snide comment about James and Jesus contradicting one another. My point is if he will rightly divide the word of truth there is no contradiction. But how can he when he can't get through the first chapter of the Bible????????

herev · Apr 14, 2005

mhess13 said:
That's pretty lame, Herev. Especially since Luke was a physician.

Don't misunderstand. I have no problem with doctors, but I would be interested in seeing how someone handles such a verse as James.

herev · Apr 14, 2005

mhess13 said:
It's called RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH

again, just wondering how he handles it

herev · Apr 14, 2005

mhess13 said:
We weren't talking about YEC or TE. He was making a snide comment about James and Jesus contradicting one another. My point is if he will rightly divide the word of truth there is no contradiction.

I assure you it wasn't snide. I apologize if it seemed that way. It was intended to get an answer as to how someone actually deals with it, rather than simply saying well, you need to rightly divide it and then there's no problem.

But how can he when he can't get through the first chapter of the Bible????????

wow, mhess, speaking of snide

gluadys · Apr 14, 2005

SBG said:
From what I have read, you are open minded to think about the argument objectively. I haven't seen you fly off the handle and argue something that is not there.

Unfortunately, no one from a te side will answer your last question honestly in regards to calling Genesis in error, if read as literal history.

The problem exists that we are not fighting against evolution here. We are fighting for the integrity of the Bible that is being disputed by some te's here. The Bible is in error if.... God is a liar if.... And we are the closed minded ones......

I will answer honestly.

IF ( and please notice this is a big IF) Genesis is to be read as literal history, God is deceiving us either in scripture or in his work of creation.

How do we know this? One example. Genesis 1 sets the time of the creation of the sun, moon and stars all on the same day, well after the creation of the earth. But we know from scientific investigation that trillions of stars existed, and even went through their whole development cycle and burned out/super-novaed before the sun, earth or moon came into existence.

Both statements cannot----simply cannot---be literally true.

Now you can choose if you wish that God is not lying to us in scripture, but it follows then that you must assert that God is lying to us in his work of creation.

Or a person may decide God is not lying to us in his work of creation and therefore the lie must be in Genesis.

The point is that the question of God's credibility simply cannot be evaded IF Genesis is to be read literally, no matter which option you choose.

What TEs do is reject the IF.
We know that God does not lie. God does not lie in Genesis. God does not lie in his work of creation. Hence creation and scripture must both be understood in such as way as to let God be proved true, though every man be a liar. And that means rejecting that Genesis is literal, historic fact in this instance.

Note that we do not come to this conclusion in order to undermine the bible. If that was what we wanted to do, we could choose the second option above: science is right, the bible is wrong, chuck the bible.

No, the TE position is chosen precisely so that we can continue to hold up the integrity of scripture as a true witness, and the character of God as one who does not deceive.

SBG · Apr 14, 2005

gluadys said:
I will answer honestly.

IF ( and please notice this is a big IF) Genesis is to be read as literal history, God is deceiving us either in scripture or in his work of creation.

How do we know this? One example. Genesis 1 sets the time of the creation of the sun, moon and stars all on the same day, well after the creation of the earth. But we know from scientific investigation that trillions of stars existed, and even went through their whole development cycle and burned out/super-novaed before the sun, earth or moon came into existence.

Both statements cannot----simply cannot---be literally true.

First off, I must commend you that you atleast answered this honestly. I disagree with the fact that both cannot be true. What we have are scientists telling us what they believe. Evidence alone never speaks therefore scientists tell us what they believe it says. I say they can very much all be wrong.

gluadys said:
Now you can choose if you wish that God is not lying to us in scripture, but it follows then that you must assert that God is lying to us in his work of creation.

In either case God is not lying. If it is a six day creation, all scientist are wrong on their interpretation. If it is not a six day creation, all people who interpreted it as six days are wrong. Never does God come into question of being a liar. Never.

gluadys said:
Or a person may decide God is not lying to us in his work of creation and therefore the lie must be in Genesis.

The point is that the question of God's credibility simply cannot be evaded IF Genesis is to be read literally, no matter which option you choose.

What TEs do is reject the IF.
We know that God does not lie. God does not lie in Genesis. God does not lie in his work of creation. Hence creation and scripture must both be understood in such as way as to let God be proved true, though every man be a liar. And that means rejecting that Genesis is literal, historic fact in this instance.

Note that we do not come to this conclusion in order to undermine the bible. If that was what we wanted to do, we could choose the second option above: science is right, the bible is wrong, chuck the bible.

No, the TE position is chosen precisely so that we can continue to hold up the integrity of scripture as a true witness, and the character of God as one who does not deceive.

Honestly, gluady's I have never thought you have tried to undermine Scripture. You have never asked me to agree that we can all interpret God's word differently and all be right. That is to undermine God's word. Instead you say my interpretation is wrong.

Where I think you have gone wrong is to even consider in a hypothetical situation, such as an IF, that God could be a liar if Genesis is literaly history. It is never God who is wrong, it is always us. Always. If it is a six day creation, God didn't lie in Scripture or in creation. Man was wrong, not God.

Not all people would chuck the Bible if they wanted to undermine it. Rome was not destroyed from outside civilizations. Rome was destroyed from within.

How hard would it be to just say this . . .

CL--you are missed!

Well-Known Member

CL--you are missed!

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CL--you are missed!

Contributor

CL--you are missed!

CL--you are missed!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

CL--you are missed!

CL--you are missed!

CL--you are missed!

Legend

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency