Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
science 'discovers' the earth rotates...thatis like saying columbus 'discovered' america. it was always there. God put it there and science , along with columbus, only found what God had done.
but when they give credit to alternatives, evolution theistiv evolution, progessive creation and so on, then science errs and is wrong.
Though sadly this is par for the course with quotes on YEC websites.i didn't cut and pasted it, i took the whole quote that was originally sent to me. i thought it was quite poignant. but then again, just because it appears ona YEC website does it mean it is invalidated or useless.
We can discuss you views on these texts if you tell me what they are, but don't expect me to have to guess what you views are in the first place.so you want me to do your research and thinking for you? i would think that that would be anethma to you.
So you just post chunks of text with no suggestion that they support your argument? Why should I believe the scripture verses you supplied are supposed to support you case either?all i did was post the context of the quote quoted to me. didn't make any assertions that it backed me up.
No he has provided evidence, but we believe by faith, not by sight.right there is your reason to shun secular science. God is about truth, answers andproof or he would not say in Romans that His creative work leaves man without an excuse. He provided proof of His actions.
Look up any good science website for the evidence. Science goes from conjecture to finding evidence that will either support or disprove the conjecture. As scripture says, test all things hold on to what is good. Science has been building on that principle for the last few centuries.the former-- no it isn't. it is conjecture at best as there is no proof that that is the way it took place. please provide proof, or links.
Why should scripture have to say God used evolution? It does not say God uses gravity, a rotating earth, heliocentric orbits, or nuclear fusion. They don't contradict scripture either, at least they don't contradict a proper interpretation of scripture. Neither does evolution. Evolution happened over millions of years and any interpretation that says evolution did not happen and the earth is only a few thousand years old is a bad interpretation because it has got it wrong.the latter-- yes it does. no where does God say that he used an evolutionary process and i will wait for you to provide scripture to contradict me.
You linked to a list of verses, some of which you claimed supported you without saying which verses or why. What is there to address? You have not said anything.i will agree with you on this yet scripture itself backs henry up better than Augustine. i provided the verses which you all ignored and did not address. you all do that quite often, i might add.
It just trumped people's interpretation when they believed sincerely that the bible taught a flat earth and geocentrism. Just like some people today think the bible teaches the world is 6000 years. They could quote verses they thought backed their view but their interpretation was wrong and it was science that showed this.yet the Bible never taught either thought so where did science trump God's word or act of creation?
Was it wrong about the earth being round and going around the sun? Has science proved this or simply provided more and more evidence to show that it is so? When these scientific theories contradicted people's interpretation of scripture should the science have been rejected as the wiles of the devil?except science can be wrong as well since you admited it doesn't deal in proof. so how can science be the final word? it is subject to the fall of man, heir to all the corruption that entered into the world at the time of adam's sin,it is NOT immune to the wiles of the evil one AND you think it has the right to determine what the infallible, incorruptible God did or said?
We can still have faith in God when our favourite interpretation has been shown to be wrong. In fact it takes more faith, and humility which God likes too. And actually, the better way to turn people against God is to insist the bible teaches something that has been shown to be wrong. It works just as well whether people claim the bible teaches a flat earth, geocentrism or YEC.think about it. what better way to deceive God's people and turn people away from God than to use a field or fields, that people can see, touch, examine, theorize and so on, that provides alternatives to an account which simply requires faith, the one element that pleases God.
That does not tell us anything about what he made or how it works, just the timetable you think he made it in.actually,yes. God made it all in 6 days.
But did not tell us in the bible, he left it for us to find out about the universe he created through science.science 'discovers' the earth rotates...thatis like saying columbus 'discovered' america. it was always there. God put it there and science , along with columbus, only found what God had done.
How is evolution different from gravitation, nuclear fusion, or the moons albedo? They all show us the way what God created works. It is not 'giving credit' it is describing how the process works, processes God created and sustains, which we understand by faith.but when they give credit to alternatives, evolution theistiv evolution, progessive creation and so on, then science errs and is wrong.
Hi shernren
Isn't this what this thread is about? This thread was opened with the concept that creation was beyond the scope of science, and so I would conclude the idea being Genesis can NOT be interpreted as scientific in spite of the fact many try to explain HOW God created all things.
But on the other hand, it need not be allegorical. Those early people had no problem understanding the fact that God made the heavens and earth. There is no allegory intended. If he wanted to explain the complex structure and mechanics of a cell, yeah, he may have required some really good illustrations.
where was God when all this happened? He did not tell them they got it wrong? kind of makes God a sadist doesn't it? He doesn't provide the truth but forces people t go to secular sources to understand what he is saying. kind of contradicts what God says, don't you think?
kind of contradicts those verses i posted earlier concerning the reliability, credibility and the infallibility, don't you think?
so if God allowed His writers to lie, misrepresent then why should we believe the rest of the Bible?
what you are proposing is that even God's writers were not supposed to follow God's morality, be righteous but can be hypocritical, untruthful and serve a God who lies, is hypocritical and misrepresents what He did.
If there is a problem with this, it should be taken up in an appropriate board, if not then there is no problem. It's the whole circumcision argument again
Since you showed up, most of the posts in this thread have been by yourself, archaeologist, and I'm not about to wade through the flood of out-of-context quotes you posted earlier. I will address the issue of origins science, though. Before I do, though, I think we should lay some groundwork: What do you think of forensic science? Should we send murderers to jail on the basis of forensics only (i.e., DNA evidence, finger prints, etc.)?i would love to hear credible reasons why people think otherwise and while i am waiting, i will address the other posts which has addressed some of the things i have raised.
I think you have it exactly. The early writer's weren't writing allegory; they were writing what they knew, a story to illustrate certain points, wrapped around creation as they perceived it. It wasn't "allegory" to them, but neither was it "facts" as we know them. The story was very literal to them, for the purposes for which it was written.
Though sadly this is par for the course with quotes on YEC websites
We can discuss you views on these texts if you tell me what they are, but don't expect me to have to guess what you views are in the first place
Look up any good science website for the evidence
because God does not lie and deceive. jesus said while talking about preparing a place for His followers, 'if it were not so, i would have told you'. the same applies for all of scripture. if anything inthe Bible were not so, God would have told us.Why should scripture have to say God used evolution
i think you need to go through all the other scriptures which talk about what God did and see what is really saidIt does not say God uses gravity, a rotating earth, heliocentric orbits, or nuclear fusion
Neither does evolution. Evolution happened over millions of years and any interpretation that says evolution did not happen and the earth is only a few thousand years old is a bad interpretation because it has got it wrong.
It just trumped people's interpretation
And actually, the better way to turn people against God is to insist the bible teaches something that has been shown to be wrong.
That does not tell us anything about what he made or how it works
But did not tell us in the bible, he left it for us to find out about the universe he created through science
How is evolution different from gravitation, nuclear fusion, or the moons albedo?
Does your church tell women to cover their heads or shave bald, archie
If you don't trust Paul when he tells you about gender-specific hair arrangement
why should you trust Paul when he tells you that he received from the Lord the words He used to commemorate His passion?
Now isn't Christian living about nothing but glorifying God
why is it when those who believe alternatives get sshown that something isimpossible,. they get stupid and go to extremes to hold onto their way of thinking.
even in criminal cases, there is correct evidence and wrong evidence yet all those who believe in alternatives blindly accept the evidence produced BY THE SECULAR world and think that is the only way it coul dhave happened, without even the hint of thought that they are wrong.
WHO is God here? science ? that those who say they are 'christian' would accept its word over God's? science is nothing but a fallible field deceived and being deceived yet 'christians' look to it as if all it says is perfect. yet God says there is nothing perfect except HIm.
19 Then He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men [mat.4:19]
Since you showed up, most of the posts in this thread have been by yourself, archaeologist,
[I'm not about to wade through the flood of out-of-context quotes you posted earlier./QUOTE]
that is a typical response from someone who who does not have an answer and labelling them out of context is another excuse to avoid the point being made; that even secular scientists see that creation is beyond science's scope.
I will address the issue of origins science
how can you address this when you refuse to rebut quotes made about how science cannot examine the origin of the universe? quotes, made from secular science's own scientist? so how can you discuss origins when you refuse to discuss origins?
I think we should lay some groundwork
sorry, this is about origin science,not forensics. besides, forensics is like any scientific field, its limited.
You may assume that it was extreme, but I summed up your error in a sentence
You take science to be true in matters of the earth revolving around the sun, and not as scripture's discription of an immovable earth
But more importantly you're not telling me to take the Bible over science, you're telling me take literalism over science
I find the obsession of those who do to be quite disgusting. You talk about science comprimising God, but there is no better proof of this then the dozens of creationist websites, books, lectures, sunday school songs, etc..
This whole obsession of trying to find remnants of the ark, the brimstone from Sodom and Gommora,
It is the creationist who calls to the aid of science to find meaning in their faith, and asks that I join in their worship of science, but for me it is worthless.
They have presented a Genesis void of meaning and empty.
I am a Gospel literalist more so than perhaps anyone else here. I believe in a literal reading of the Sermon on the Mount
Unless you can say you believe in the Gospels as serously as I do, implying that I am not following Christ is worthless.
I don't know why this whole head-covering thing has become so prominent all of a sudden. It's like someone just discovered it. If there is a problem with this, it should be taken up in an appropriate board, if not then there is no problem. It's the whole circumcision argument again.
Digit
Out of interest, how do you take it metaphorically?I'm making it prominent in my posts for a number of reasons.
1. A general creationist argument is that taking Genesis 1 "seriously" is necessary for taking the rest of the Bible "seriously". In other words, if you take Genesis 1 literally, you are likely to be more conservative in terms of what the Bible preaches: you will be a more Biblical Christian who will condemn the liberals who are promoting homosexuality, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia, because you will "take the Biblical pronouncements on such matters seriously" - that is to say, literally. Well, here is a Biblical pronouncement which isn't taken "seriously" - oops, I meant literally - by most creationists. It isn't even a particularly strenuous or demeaning requirement. But it is quite sexist, and - "heaven forbid that we look sexist in this modern, all-knowing age, no matter how much we deny evolution!"
2. Also, Paul makes this command directly from the creation account: it is because woman is created from man, not vice versa, that women should cover their heads. Note that this is functionally very different from circumcision. Circumcision is a sign of the old covenant; but Paul here is explicitly addressing Christians and Gentiles at that. Moreover, circumcision harks back to the covenant with Abraham, which was specifically Jewish (even if meant to benefit the whole world); but creation is a universal truth (and so is creationism, according to the creationists) so that the consequences of creation should also be universal.
It's part of my way of showing how creationism can't solve the problems it claims to solve. Even the creationists have to interpret inconvenient passages figuratively. Who are they then to tell us that their literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is better than ours?
I thought it was great when you posted some of the context from Augustine. But then I thought you were actually basing some sort of argument on it to support your view, rather than just posting it for show.assyrian:
yet i see the same thing from those whoadhere to alternatives. augustine for an example. but then you were not happy when i posted a quote from barr, then you were not happy when i quoted the whole context of augustine--let me know which way you would like it.
YECs post this extract again and again in discussions, I thought for once it would be great if you actually went to the trouble of digging up the actual context. Apparently not.you could have quoted the whole text from barr since you thought there was a problem and saved us several pages of go-arounds.
The YEC quote is in square brackets, but note the part in red.http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/barrlett.html
Dear Mr Watson,
Thank you for your letter. I have thought about your question, and would say that [probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the `days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.] The only thing I would say to qualify this is that most professors may avoid much involvement in that sort of argument and so may not say much explicitly about it one way or the other. But I think what I say would represent their position correctly. However, you might find one or two people who would take the contrary point of view and are competent in the languages, in Assyriology, and so on: it's really not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as of appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is.
Perhaps I might mention that I have another book coming out soon, Escaping from Fundamentalism, SCM Press London, which has some discussion of these questions. Westminster Press in Philadelphia are doing the American edition, perhaps with a different title, I don't know. It comes out in this country on 1st June.
Thanks again for your letter and all good wishes,
Yours sincerely
James Barr [signed]
What is there to disagree with? You haven't said anything other than claim without any basis or argument that your list of verses refer to Adam as literal. How many of the verses even mention Adam? The name only comes up once back when you list Gen 5:1, hardly evidence Jesus and Paul took him literally.i already stated my view--Jesus and Paul were refering to adam as literal. then i posted the link to the verses, what mopre would you like? do you disagree that they are refering to them in a literal sense? why?
Lets see why you think these verse support Jesus and Paul taking Adam literally first, you made the claim, you back it up.after all since adam is listed in the geneaologies, one would conclude he was literal from that alone. or do you make everything allegorical just to make your theory work?
If you are still talking about proof you have probably misunderstood what they are saying. Proof is for mathematics philosophy and alcohol. Science deals in evidence supporting or contradicting a theory. I asked you for support for a single claim, Barr's letter. You want me to provide all the evidence supporting the age of the earth and common descent.ha ha ha. you want me to post links for statements, then provide commentary but when i question you on your position you tell me--- go lookit up. what a joke. ihave been through many debates with evolutionists, atheists, militant athiests and progressive creationists and they all say the same thing--we have proof BUT they can never provide it.
your up.
What has that got to do with evolution?because God does not lie and deceive. jesus said while talking about preparing a place for His followers, 'if it were not so, i would have told you'. the same applies for all of scripture. if anything inthe Bible were not so, God would have told us.
Such as?i think you need to go through all the other scriptures which talk about what God did and see what is really saidIt does not say God uses gravity, a rotating earth, heliocentric orbits, or nuclear fusion
Apart from you jaundiced view of your brothers and sisters in Christ, scripture does not 'side' with with non evolutionary thought. There are many way to interpret Genesis, there always have been.the difference between the two here is that 1. scriptures sides with a non-evolutionary thought, 2. evolution doesn't exist. never happened and is totally a construct taken from the imagination of a man. scripture doesn't back it up and those believers who adopt evolution basically have stated they do not believe God, and would rather believe a non-believer.
And interpretations have been wrong too. Lets stick with new science that has been tested and got rid of old misunderstandings, and get rid of old interpretations that have been shown to be wrong too.it trumped mistaken thinking but that does not grant science special powers nor guarantee that it is right in all matters. science has beenwrong more times than it has been right.
Science does not deal in proof, just in evidence. The evidence we have for evolution is much stronger than the evidence available for a round earth and heliocentrism when the church accepted them.BUT an important point, it only showed what God had done and it could be proven, whereas with evolution, it cannot be proven nor can the process or natural selection be shown to exist or responsible for what we see today.
Astronomers observe events in stars that happend millions of years ago and geological layers can be dated again and again. The radioactive decay used to measure the rocks can be observed in supernova explosion from millions of years ago. It hasn't changedtalking about something that happened millions of years ago is both convenient and easy as one does not have to observe what is being proclaimed, nor deminstrate it in action so others can observe it either.
THOUGH, we can see the results of creation in action, we can both observe and bring skeptics in to demonstrate how it continues. we do not have to wait millions of years or till long after we are dead to see it take place.
this is something that evolution cannot overcome and the results of creation beats it by using science's own rules.
Not my logic. You have just said science hasn't shown the Bible to be wrong, how can it say Jesus never existed.yet science hasn't shown the Bible to be wrong. science cannot even prove Jesus existed nor provide any evidence to the fact that He was born of a virgin so by your logic, Jesus never existed and we have no salvation.
Science does not say anything about whether Jesus existed or not. It does tell us the universe is billions of years old. As the bible is about the truth, I don't think any interpretation which is contradicted by the truth can be the correct interpretation. Besides We have multiple witness in the bible testifying to Jesus existence, to his death and resurrection. Remember every issue is established by the testimony of two or three witnesses 2Cor 13:1. But with a six day creation, we only have Moses. No one else in the entire bible mentions the world being created in six days, and if you read Psalm 90 Moses himself did not take God's days literallyso, do you cherry pick when you use faith and when you don't? doesn't work that way. if you take by faith that Jesus existed, then you must take by faith that God created the universe in 6 days. any other way is purely hypocritical.
Copernicus and Newton were not diving authors, but they still told us how God's creation works. How is that any different from evolution?the former-- doesn't matter how, if it was important we would have been told
the latter-- we are allowed to find out how things work for by doing so we see what God has done and we learn more about Him.
But to subscribe to a theory that has no divine authorship is just wrong and sin. there was no evolutionary process used, it does not exist.
There is a good summary here. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/and before you jump me on it, provide the evidence that shows there is such a thing as evolution and natural selection. none exist, it is all inferrence and conjecture.
No we just learn about the universe through science. It is very good at that, but it cannot tell us about the God who created the universe. The bible tells us that, though it often does so through metaphor symbols parables and allegory.you hold science up to be the only field that provides answers, guess what it isn't. we do not need science to tells us anything and we would still be able to find out about God, science is not extra-special nor is it better than anything else.
So the problem is you think evolution doesn't exist, not that it explains processes (gives credit as you put it) the same way as gravitation, nuclear fusion, or the moons albedo?it doesn't exist.
Out of interest, how do you take it metaphorically?
Digit
"that is a typical response from someone who who does not have an answer"sorry, this is about origin science,not forensics. besides, forensics is like any scientific field, its limited.
I thought it was great when you posted some of the context from Augustine. But then I thought you were actually basing some sort of argument on it to support your view, rather than just posting it for show
The YEC quote is in square brackets, but note the part in red.
Science deals in evidence supporting or contradicting a theory
What has that got to do with evolution
Apart from you jaundiced view of your brothers and sisters in Christ, scripture does not 'side' with with non evolutionary thought. There are many way to interpret Genesis, there always have been
Scientific evidence has shown that these interpretations were wrong.
The radioactive decay used to measure the rocks can be observed in supernova explosion from millions of years ago. It hasn't changed
It does tell us the universe is billions of years old
So the problem is you think evolution doesn't exist,
No we just learn about the universe through science
For example, when I observe the sun, I am actually seeing the sun as it was 7 minutes ago
Can you please provide a link to that post? If you can't find it, I'm afraid I won't be able to either.in an article i posted in the other thread, this idea of time frame has been challenged . read it and get back to me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?