is creation outside of science's scope?

Tinker Grey · Jun 21, 2007

archaeologist said:
making scriptures allegorical when they are not is one such device and it calls God a liar and undermines the message of the Bible, its call to salvation, salvation itself and the final judgement among other things.

Making scriptures literal when they are not calls God a liar.

when one has to change the word of God to fit their theory then they are the ones in error not those who believe God's word.

Denying the physical evidence is to deny God and is an error.

laptoppop · Jun 21, 2007

Tinker Grey said:
Making scriptures literal when they are not calls God a liar.

And what signs has God left that we should not accept Genesis as history? Where is the line of history versus made-up-tale? Seth? Noah? Babel? Jacob? Abraham? Joseph? The exodus? The Scriptures present all of it as history, with specific details such as the age of the people at births, how long they lived, on and on. The New Testament refers to Jesus as the second Adam and refers to the first as a person.

God made the Scriptures to communicate Truth -- to everyone - to common people, not just scholars or priests.

Denying the physical evidence is to deny God and is an error.

Confusing conclusions and theories with evidence is a grave scientific error.

The more I learn about geologic formations and the wonders of each and every cell, the more I glory in the Designer and rejoice in the way that the actual evidence confirms the history as recorded in the Scriptures.

Tinker Grey · Jun 21, 2007

laptoppop said:
And what signs has God left that we should not accept Genesis as history? Where is the line of history versus made-up-tale? Seth? Noah? Babel? Jacob? Abraham? Joseph? The exodus? The Scriptures present all of it as history, with specific details such as the age of the people at births, how long they lived, on and on. The New Testament refers to Jesus as the second Adam and refers to the first as a person.

And that precisely is the question. I think you and I and others have agreed to disagree to a point. Our new friend has forced us to recover old ground -- that good Christians can agree on this subject.

Given that that is my point, I'm going decline going over this old ground.

God made the Scriptures to communicate Truth -- to everyone - to common people, not just scholars or priests.

And the debate has been what kind of Truth. That's been in several threads. I'm not gonna debate that here. But, I think you'll acknowledge that good Christians can honestly disagree on this point. Our new friend doesn't seem to agree.

The more I learn about geologic formations and the wonders of each and every cell, the more I glory in the Designer and rejoice in the way that the actual evidence confirms the history as recorded in the Scriptures.

As do all your TE brothers and sisters in Christ.

archaeologist · Jun 21, 2007

Making scriptures literal when they are not calls God a liar

there is a famous quote found on a web site andi have it at home, which addresses this issue and gen. 1 is literal as to make it any other way destroys the purpose of the passage.

it cancels out God working with His power, removes God as creator, undermines the rest of the Bible, and destroys the hope we have in salvation.

it would also make God to be a hypocrite when He said '6 days shalt thou labor but on the 7th ye shall rest...' God could not say that if he had not done it HImself.

there are larger pictures to be considered than just fitting gen 1 into some sort of evolutionary model.

archaeologist · Jun 21, 2007

Denying the physical evidence is to deny God and is an error

what physical evidence? the fossil record? an invention of man.

the geological record? an invention of man.

a common ancestor? an invention of man.

all based upon assumptions, inferrences, and declatory statements and not hard evidence. not one of these items can counter Gen. 1 nor can it be proven that evolution or the big bang were responsible or even in existence.

there is no evidence for anything but the biblical creation account. mostly what we are dealing with and what people are believing is the interpretation of someone who cannot bring themselves to humbly bow before God and accept His way of things.

theIdi0t · Jun 22, 2007

laptoppop said:
And what signs has God left that we should not accept Genesis as history?

--The Tree of Life is seen as allegorical in all other parts of scripture from Proverbs to Revelation. Apparently the other writers wrote of it as allegorical, so if they do not see a literal tree why should I, when only men outside the Bible tell me to take it as literal? There goes your biggest sign.

--Let's look at the names.

Adam: "the word implies that it was originally not a proper name; for names of persons. A closer examination of the narrative will show that the word is primarily used in a generic sense, and not as the name of an individual." ~wikipedia

"While the generic character that the name of Adam has in the older parts of Scripture, where it appears with the article ("the man"), was gradually lost sight of, his typical character as the representative of the unity of mankind was constantly emphasized" (compare Sanh. iv. 5; the correct reading in Tosef., Sanh. viii. 4-9): ~Jewish Encyclopedia

"Adam means 'mankind' and Eve is '(she who gives) life." ~earlyjewishwritings.com

--Adam and Eve had to have knowledge of Good and Bad, to do Bad by eating the fruit, but then the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, is made to be decieving, because it does not provide the Knowledge of Good and Bad.

--God creates a forbidden tree in the middle of the Garden, and his first creation bites into it, not his later creations but his first creation.

Either it is the most deceptive historical account ever written or it is allegorical, which would you have me believe?

Digit · Jun 22, 2007

theIdi0t said:
Either it is the most deceptive historical account ever written or it is allegorical, which would you have me believe?

The problem is that you need to reconcile these things with how the NT describes them, and they are there used in a literal sense. Adam and Eve were literal, real people.

Matthew 19:44
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
Mark 10:6
6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Do you think they are literal people or symbolic people they are talking about?

Luke 3:38
38 the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Here?

Real people descended from a real Adam and Eve, they have geneologies and they are correct. Their geneologies would be odd if the first man was symbolic:

Romans 5:14
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22,45,47
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

1 Timothy 2:13,14
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

We've already been over the whole "day" issue, and I've said you cannot take it symbolically as it's the first use of day in the account, and we've already seen there are two meanings for day, that of daylight and also a normal 24 hour day. If it's millions of years, then that begs the question, what is night?

If the day is metaphorical, everything goes out of line, if Adam and Eve were not just literal people, but the first literal people created directly by God, as the Bible says, it all goes out of line. It just doesn't add up at all when you try to show it to be symbolic.

Sure, it's easy enough to take one thing out of context and say it's not literal, but it's a real problem when other's reference them in a literal way.

Digit.

archaeologist · Jun 22, 2007

.the idiot

Either it is the most deceptive historical account ever written or it is allegorical, which would you have me believe

?

why would it be deceptive? you make a comment that the nameisn't normally used as a name but here in the modern world we have people named like 'moon unit', 'river', 'apple' and so on.

so naming someone 'adam' is not out of the question.

God knows what you are going to say, does that make your life a deception?

Digit · Jun 22, 2007

Haha, you know this entire thread was meant to be about if creation is out of sciences scope, and here we are waaaaaaay off topic.

I think the actual details of how God created, are indeed not within our grasp, as God is spiritual (which science cannot touch) and if He indeed is outside of time, that royally messes things up for us in the first place, as science is very much grounded within time.

I think we place too much importance on science, and believe it to be too infallable, and I worry that we get far too uncomfortable if science turns up a blank for something.

Digit

archaeologist · Jun 22, 2007

more food for thought:

The following is an extract from a letter written in 1984 by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Please note that Professor Barr does not claim to believe that Genesis is literally true, he is just telling us, openly and honestly, what the language means.
Professor Barr said,
"Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 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."

**this is the quote i mentioned earlier.

archaeologist · Jun 22, 2007

Haha, you know this entire thread was meant to be about if creation is out of sciences scope, and here we are waaaaaaay off topic

maybe the following will bring home what i have been saying and bring this back to the topic. taken from the book, Origins: 14 Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution by neil DeGrasse Tyson & Donald Goldsmith,

pg.129-30-- "Since astrophysicists have no way to see back to the universe's first 0.0000000000000000000000000001 of a second, the do the next best thing, and use scientific logic to connect this early epoch to times they can observe..."
(yet what they observe is the present and not the past and do not base their conclusions on fact but scientific logic--no truth there)

pg.183-- "In our attempts to uncover the history of the cosmos, we have continually discovered that the segments most deeply shrouded in mystery are those that deal with origins."
(certainly looks like creation is out of reach of science)

pg. 183-4-- "This in turn implies that we must rely, to an uneasily largeextent, on our theories of how matter ought to behave, with relatively few points at which we can check these theories against observational data."
(not resorting to facts, but theories)

pg. 184-- "When we turn to the origin of planets, the mystery deepen. We lack not only observations of the crucial, initial stages of planetary formation but also successful theories of how the planets began to form."
(again, creation is shown to be out of reach of science)

pg. 184-- "Astrophysicists may now have more data, but they have no better answers than before. Indeed, the discovery of exosolar planets many of which move in orbits far different from those of the sun's planets, has in many ways confused the issue,leaving the story of the planet formation no closer to closure."
(science again proven to be limited and not able toanswer any questions)

pg. 185-- "and the second that 'the most secure prediction about planet formation is that it can't happen' " (science says it can't happen yet the Bible says it did, proved by the fact that we and they are here)

pg. 189-- "becasue astronomers have noway to prove that the instabilities needed for the model to work actually did occur.
(another example of the limitedness of science and that creation is outside of its scope)

pg. 235-- "the origin of life on earth remains locked inmurky uncertainty. Our ignorance about life's beginnings stems in large part from the fact that whatever events made inanimate matter come alive occurred billions of years ago and left no traces behind"
(quite convenient way to get out of saying they can't prove evolution true.)

pg. 235-- "Their conclusion reies on a reasonable supposition about primitive organisms."
(not fact, not evidence, not truth but 'reasonable suppositions...not enough to stake one's soul on)

pg. 240-1-- "wqe do not know whether life already existed 4 billion years ago, having survived the early impact storm or whether life arose on earth only after relative tranquility began."
(in other words science fails again to pinpoint/find an alternative to gen. 1)

pg. 241-- In either case, the crucial question of how life actually began on earth, either once or many times over, has no good answer though speculation on the subject has acquired a long and intriguing history."
(science can't provide the answer and can only resort to speculation and not fact. speculation is not truth, fact or evidence. in short creation is outside the scope of science)

pg. 245-- "The key question still remains: How does a collection of molecules, evenone primed for life to appear, ever generate itself."
(they are looking in the wrong places, they need to look to Gen.1)

pg. 249-- "What a hopeful, even prescient fairy tale this may prove to be. Life, far from being rare and precious, may be almost as common as planets themselves. All that remains is for us to go find it"
(science again shows it has no answers,no facts, no proof. all they have to do is turn to Gen. 1 and believe and they will get their answers---God created in the beginning, in 6 days)

this could go on but i think this presents a fine case for what i have talked about, secular science cannot find the answers and needs to be shunned by all those who say they believe in God.

it also shows that creation is well out of the scope/reach of science.

crawfish · Jun 22, 2007

theIdi0t said:
--Let's look at the names.

Adam: "the word implies that it was originally not a proper name; for names of persons. A closer examination of the narrative will show that the word is primarily used in a generic sense, and not as the name of an individual." ~wikipedia

"While the generic character that the name of Adam has in the older parts of Scripture, where it appears with the article ("the man"), was gradually lost sight of, his typical character as the representative of the unity of mankind was constantly emphasized" (compare Sanh. iv. 5; the correct reading in Tosef., Sanh. viii. 4-9): ~Jewish Encyclopedia

"Adam means 'mankind' and Eve is '(she who gives) life." ~earlyjewishwritings.com

I recently read the book "Snow Crash" by Neil Stephenson. The main character's name was "Hiro Protagonist". An extreme example, but oftentimes when stories are wrote for a purpose the names given illustrate the point of the story. In essence, the names mean "the man" and "the mother of all".

digit said:
The problem is that you need to reconcile these things with how the NT describes them, and they are there used in a literal sense. Adam and Eve were literal, real people.

Matthew 19:44
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
Mark 10:6
6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Do you think they are literal people or symbolic people they are talking about?

Real people. It is still true that we are all "male and female". This point doesn't change whether the story is symbolic or not.

digit said:
Luke 3:38
38 the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Here?

Real people descended from a real Adam and Eve, they have geneologies and they are correct. Their geneologies would be odd if the first man was symbolic:

Considering Luke was written for gentiles, it was the purpose of the author to track the genealogy back to the beginning. Tracking back to David makes Jesus a Jew; tracking back to the beginning connects him to everybody.

It is an easy thing to trace the lineage from David to Adam. They're obviously using the same scripture we are. The genealogy is making a theological point, based on the knowledge of the author; it doesn't make the characters literally true. The idea remains the same regardless.

digit said:
Romans 5:14
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22,45,47
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

1 Timothy 2:13,14
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Again, theological points that lean on understanding of the scripture and not the literalness of scripture. Their meanings don't change if the scriptures were symbolic.

We've already been over the whole "day" issue, and I've said you cannot take it symbolically as it's the first use of day in the account, and we've already seen there are two meanings for day, that of daylight and also a normal 24 hour day. If it's millions of years, then that begs the question, what is night?

If the day is metaphorical, everything goes out of line, if Adam and Eve were not just literal people, but the first literal people created directly by God, as the Bible says, it all goes out of line. It just doesn't add up at all when you try to show it to be symbolic.

Sure, it's easy enough to take one thing out of context and say it's not literal, but it's a real problem when other's reference them in a literal way.

You're missing the point. If the story is metaphorical, it doesn't matter if the day means a literal day or not. TE's are not OEC's - we're not trying to extrapolate a day, or the order of the days, or the occurrences in the stories, into matching scientific theories. Night follows logically from this; day and night are beginning and ending in a Hebrew day.

Here is a challenge: find one reference to the creation story in the bible where the theological point being made fails if the story is symbolic, not literal. I'm not talking about the assumption that they were talking about it as if it were true; I'm talking about the point they were trying to make by referencing the scripture. I've read the verses posted here and I haven't found one yet.

crawfish · Jun 22, 2007

archaeologist said:
pg.183-- "In our attempts to uncover the history of the cosmos, we have continually discovered that the segments most deeply shrouded in mystery are those that deal with origins."
(certainly looks like creation is out of reach of science)

This is absolutely true. But one does not have to go back to the instant of creation to disprove the literal Genesis view; they only need go back more than 6,000 years.

Since we can, with reliability, go back farther than that, it doesn't matter that we have to theorize about the absolute origin of the universe or life itself. We are free to assume that God worked creation in a different way.

Following that, since we can let go of the literal view of Genesis, then is it truly wrong to theorize about the true origins? Since God is still in the mix, and our bible is still valid for our lives, then anything we come up with simply adds to the glory of God.

crawfish · Jun 22, 2007

archaeologist said:
more food for thought:

The following is an extract from a letter written in 1984 by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Please note that Professor Barr does not claim to believe that Genesis is literally true, he is just telling us, openly and honestly, what the language means.
Professor Barr said,
"Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 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."

**this is the quote i mentioned earlier.

The modern notion of "history" was not invented until Herodotus in the fifth century B.C. We hold historical accounts to a standard, in other words, that was not done in the years before.

I have no doubt the original author felt the story was true. However, I also feel that the author was only writing "truth" as he knew it; which didn't include actual, historical accuracy. It was taken from oral traditions long held and written down to give the Hebrews a point of origin.

The OEC view is perhaps being attacked here; but the TE viewpoint is not. We aren't trying to match science with scripture; we are trying to separate the two, taking the story for the purpose it was told, and extracting the implications of its literalness.

archaeologist · Jun 22, 2007

I have no doubt the original author felt the story was true. However, I also feel that the author was only writing "truth" as he knew it; which didn't include actual, historical accuracy

so by this and in light of what Paul said in 2 Ti. 3:16, {all scripture is God-breathed..."},that the author was:

1). not listening to God when he wrote it

2). allowed to edit God's words

3). deceived by God

4). incompetant, which makes one wonder why God chose or allowed him to write the book inthe first place

or

5). Paul was lying

6) God was lying

7) that God was incompetant and wrote one thing when He did another

8) only science can tell us the truth, which makes science God and God nothing.

This is the problemwith those who adher to theistic evolution, progressive creation, evolution and allthe other alternatives to the Biblical account.

they raise science above God,try to interpret His words through that field and then call God a liar.

sorry but as proven in the quotes mentioned in a previous post, science is not above God, nor is it capable of interpretating God's word. that is beyond its scope, its purpose and grants to science an authority that GOD never gave it.

and doing that is sin. again i direct you to 1 John to read as it still applies here. and specifically:

"Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray, he who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning..." (3:7,8)

sure we can use science, but when we use it to lead away from God, His word, to present something that God did not say then one is using science wrong and leading people astray.

now i did not say that the Bible says it is a young earth, we do not know the age because it is not important to the christan life BUT it is not one that follows secular science, conclusions, theories, nor points to an OEC model either.

if one wants to be with God thenthey must believe God. i am reminded of of the story in the gospels about the roman centurian and his sick slave.

He went to Jesus to seek healing for his servant and when Jesus was ready to go with,the centurianstopped Him and said, i am a man of authority ...wheni speak my men act...i know you are a man of authority and all you need to do is speak and my servant will be healed...(paraphrase) jesus healed the slave by speaking.

If the roman centurion can recognize that Jesus/God only needed to speak and it was done, why can't those who claim to follow Him do the same?

archaeologist · Jun 22, 2007

Since we can, with reliability, go back farther than that, it doesn't matter that we have to theorize about the absolute origin of the universe or life itself. We are free to assume that God worked creation in a different way.

i asked someone to provide examples of scientists going back in time and it has not been done yet. so i will ask you to do that now please.

knowing that going back in time is an impossibility, one can only conclude that the scientists are looking at the present and assuming that is what it was like in the past.

assuming is not looking back in time. so i have great interest to see how scientists have broken this barrier and can travel back in time.

NO you are not free to change what God has said, nor assume he acted differently than what He siad for then you are saying science trumps God and you are saying you know better than God and that you call Him a liar and a deceiver, which he is neither.

secular science changes the time frame so they can say they are looking beyond the biblical account and you as a believer are believing them over God's word???

no wonder i challenge you because you are saying you do not believe God but secular man. how do you expect sinners to convert and believe God when you don't?

crawfish · Jun 22, 2007

archaeologist said:
so by this and in light of what Paul said in 2 Ti. 3:16, {all scripture is God-breathed..."},that the author was:

1). not listening to God when he wrote it

2). allowed to edit God's words

3). deceived by God

4). incompetant, which makes one wonder why God chose or allowed him to write the book inthe first place

or

5). Paul was lying

6) God was lying

7) that God was incompetant and wrote one thing when He did another

8) only science can tell us the truth, which makes science God and God nothing.

OR: Scripture is "inspired" by God and not "dictated" by God.

The first sees God using a man by giving him life experiences, talents, etc., so that the man feels compelled to write on a certain subject. The ideas are God's, but the words are the author's, writing with his biases, knowledge and cultural context.

Dictating means God is moving the pen and the author is only a conduit.

Note that in both cases, God is getting exactly what He wants down in writing. The former, however, could not possibly contain information the author could not know. I think this is very much supported by the fact that the books of the bible VERY CLOSELY follow the structures, grammar and imagery of the times in which they were written. We have apocalyptic literature from other cultures dating from slightly before it became popular among the Hebrews. We have wisdom literature looking much like that of Solomon, dating from before Solomon's reign. Paul and the writers of the NT were highly influenced by ideas from the Greeks in terms of how the books are written.

Again, saying I don't believe God is presumptuous.

crawfish · Jun 22, 2007

archaeologist said:
i asked someone to provide examples of scientists going back in time and it has not been done yet. so i will ask you to do that now please.

knowing that going back in time is an impossibility, one can only conclude that the scientists are looking at the present and assuming that is what it was like in the past.

assuming is not looking back in time. so i have great interest to see how scientists have broken this barrier and can travel back in time.

We CAN look back in time. So can you. Simply look up at the stars at night; you're not seeing the star as it is, but as it was, thousands or more years ago. This isn't even a question anymore.

archaeologist said:
NO you are not free to change what God has said, nor assume he acted differently than what He siad for then you are saying science trumps God and you are saying you know better than God and that you call Him a liar and a deceiver, which he is neither.

secular science changes the time frame so they can say they are looking beyond the biblical account and you as a believer are believing them over God's word???

no wonder i challenge you because you are saying you do not believe God but secular man. how do you expect sinners to convert and believe God when you don't?

For the record, I have led family and friends to Christ. I am currently working on my mother-in-law, who didn't really open up to the idea of becoming a Christian until we spoke to her about how you don't have to buy into creationism to obey God. I have spoken with many, many Christians who believe as I do and who still have strong faith and are powerful members of the Lord's army.

You are obviously stuck on this point and are not going to ever understand our way of thinking, even if you choose not to agree with it. I'm a bit tired of having to defend my faith to you, only to see you insult me over and over again. I see scant reason to continue with this conversation. "Insanity is doing things over and over again, and expecting a different result." I need to remember those words.

archaeologist · Jun 22, 2007

OR: Scripture is "inspired" by God and not "dictated" by God.

not if you are using it to give you justification to change what God's word says. here is what matthew henry has to say:

(1.)

What is the excellency of the scripture. It is given by inspiration of
God (v. 16), and therefore is his word. It is a divine revelation, which we
may depend upon as infallibly true. The same Spirit that breathed reason
into us breathes revelation among us: For the prophecy came not in old
time by the will of man, but holy men spoke as they were moved or carried
forth by the Holy Ghost, <610121>2 Peter 1:21. The prophets and apostles did not
speak from themselves, but what they received of the Lord that they
delivered unto us. That the scripture was given by inspiration of God
appears from the majesty of its style, from the truth, purity, and
sublimity, of the doctrines contained in it, from the harmony of its
several parts, from its power and efficacy on the minds of multitudes
that converse with it, from the accomplishment of many prophecies
relating to things beyond all human foresight, and from the
uncontrollable miracles that were wrought in proof of its divine original:

God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with
divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will,
<580204>Hebrews 2:4.

The first sees God using a man by giving him life experiences, talents, etc., so that the man feels compelled to write on a certain subject. The ideas are God's, but the words are the author's, writing with his biases, knowledge and cultural context

completely heretical and against God's word. see 2 peter 1;21 quoted in that passage.

Paul and the writers of the NT were highly influenced by ideas from the Greeks in terms of how the books are written.

No you are ignoring what God said in scripture and saying that God allowed for his words to be compromised, badly written and filled with secular influences.

why don't you come right out and say that God allowed sin to influence, alter his holy words and allowed us to be deceived by the very words meant to guide us to Him. and if your version is correct, how can we trust the words in john 3:16?

God does not lie thus either He lied about giving us the truth or you are wrong. which is it?

archaeologist · Jun 22, 2007

For the record, I have led family and friends to Christ

the mormons and the jehovah's witness say the same thing. remember jesus said, 'not everyone who comes to me saying lord, lord...will enter into heaven' just because you lead people to Christ does it guarantee you are preaching the truth.

We CAN look back in time. So can you. Simply look up at the stars at night; you're not seeing the star as it is, but as it was, thousands or more years ago.

thats what secular science says yet that article i posted states it isn't that slow. so ho w do you know for a fact that is the past? from our vantage point, that is the present not the past.

sorry but you got to do better than that because that is not proof scientists can see back in time and go beyond th epoint of biblical creation.

You are obviously stuck on this point and are not going to ever understand our way of thinking

i understand your thinking but you are wrong and you misrepresent what the Bible says, changing its words to fit what you want to believe and not changing yourself to believe what it is saying.

is creation outside of science's scope?

Wanderer

Servant of the living God

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency