i just did one. is that enough notice?
You posted it but you didn't say in the post whether you though it was an argument supporting you case or one of your public service broadcasts. That is the problem when you post cut and pastes and then disown them when they fall apart.
again, i still don't see how that sentences changes the fact. anybody can be deceptive. i believe you were when you posted a small portion of augustine's discourse, which is why i put the context in a post.
The bit of Augustine you posted supported what Deamiter had already posted as I showed when I highlighted key points in the passage you posted. Instead of discussing it you accused me of cherry picking, then denied you post was anything but a 'public service'.
On the other hand AiG presented their extract of Barr's letter as an expert view of Hebrew linguistics, when the bit they cut denied it was based on linguistic competence but was based on a view of the text AiG reject. That is dishonest. I am afraid you were fooled because you want to believe anything that seems to argue against evolution.
again, you are assuming that science is always right and that is wrong. for one thing if God says he took 6 days and science says it took millions of years, who are you going to believe?
I would check out if God was speaking to us in metaphors as he so often does. Apparently Genesis uses the word day in three or four different ways in the first two chapters of Genesis, which doesnt even say the world was made in six days, and where it does say that, in Exodus, it is in the middle of a great big metaphor describing God in the same term it describes weary labourers being refreshed after a days rest.
On the other hand science is very accurate. Once theories as subject to rigorous testing they are rarely ever overturned, just modified and refined. Newtons laws are still used even though relativity has superseded them. Copernicus's ideas have been refined and added to, not proved wrong and replaced. Atomic theory still holds even though more and more detailed versions have come along. We still say atoms are made up of protons electrons and neutrons.
Now remember, science has dating systems built on assumptions, as fallible as humans are, subject to error and corruption so why would you accept science's faulty conclusions over the One and Only God?
why would you say that God erred in letting His writer say something He didn't do?
The dating systems are tested and confirmed with many different methods and approaches.
Why shouldn't I accept that the scientific analysis of the age of the earth is accurate and that God was speaking metaphorically as he so often does?
YET God did not have His writers say the world was flat, now did He? or that the sun revolved around the earth? whereas you, TE's, claim, and i read this the other day, that the Gen. author wrote it as HE UNDERSTOOD it.
where was God in all this? sleeping while the author wrote what he wanted? How can we trust the whole Bible if God let that happen in the first chapter?
your thinking makes no sense and opens up God and the Bible to be fiulled with errors, when they are not. that is dangerous ground you are on.
You claimed evolution was unbiblical because God did not mention it. Yet we see that God did not mention gravitation theory or heliocentrism. Are you dropping that claim?
All I know about geocentism and flat earth in the bible is that there were people in the past, and even today, who believed this was the plain literal meaning of the texts. These views have been disproved by science as has six day creationism and the church has reinterpreted the passages away from the traditional literal interpretation for geocentrism and never accepted the literalist argument for flat earth Pagan science had already worked out the shape of the earth by the time of the early church.
The difference with the age of the earth is that there is a much stronger biblical basis for a non literal interpretation than there is for the geocentric passages. Even Moses interpreted God's days non literally in Pslam 90.
He didn't do it with everything or shall we say that daniel in the lion's den is allegorical as well and we should not count on God to protect us when we follow Him.
No, not everything is allegorical, but when science shows us the literal interpretation is wrong, then the bible can't really be teaching us that.
Gen chapters 1-11 are NOT allegorical, they serve a purpose for God and provide answers of origin, what happens when we sin and so on. if those are not real then the rest of the Bible is false as well and we have nothing to fear when we die for all will go to heaven contrary to what Rev. teaches among other passages.
Why not say that if Revelation is allegorical then the rest of the bible false? We still get answers about origins and about sin if the creation accounts are figurative. They are still describing God as creator and man as sinner when they say it in parable and metaphor.
the act of measuring does not ensure that the measuring stick is accurate, right or credibly deduced. this is pure circular reasoning. they can come up with a date because they can measure, they are correct because they can come up with a date.
Calibrating the measuring sticks and using completely different rulers and still coming up with the same dates is a pretty good indication.
this is the whole problem with science and christianity. people assume science is immune to the evil one and his corruption factor and assume that science knows best.
that is wrong and leads people astray.
You assume theology and bible interpretation is immune to the evil one. Has the history of the church taught you nothing?
But I would trust people who show that they are willing to test their ideas and abandon the ones that are shown to be wrong like science does, rather than those who stick rigidly to their traditions and reject any evidence that contradicts them as being 'of the evil one'.
depends upon what understanding you have of the word 'seed.'
You don't think the seed was Jesus?
is it bigotry or identifying those who preach heresies? remember Jesus spoke about those who were false teachers, so i guess we are allowed to identify them and claim they are not christian.
Don't forget the accuser of the brethren speaks out against them too. So, what counts as heresy? Anything your church does not agree with? Anything you don't agree with? Or do we recognise our brothers in Christ across the denominations and with many different theologies. That is why this forum uses the Nicene Creed as the basis for posting in Christian only boards. Heresy is denying the
those fundamentals. But the Nicene creed says nothing about six day creationism, nor was it preached in the New Testament. If YEC was not given as part of the message we were commissioned to preach to the nations, how can you claim that denying YEC is heresy?
cicular and not worth a comment.
Unsubstantiated assertion.
right. since science doesn't teach faith or religion then they must have proof. if they don't have proof, they have nothing. we can prove creation but they can't prove 'millions of years' or the evolutionary process.
You can't prove young earth creationism because it is based on one of different interpretations of a bible you believe by faith in the first place. On the other hand, you do not understand how science works, as is clear by your insistence it switch to a proof if the only possible way it could work. If you do not understand how science works, you are not in a position to say that if it doesn't work by proof it has nothing, especially as you sit there typing on your keyboard.
Ussher...yeah right...what a joke. one of the biggest mistakes christians have made was to adopt his work as factual. i have his book and in it he admits to leaving out certain data and does not seem to know about how the geneologies were written in ancient times.
for me, i go back about 10,000 years which fits well within c-14's accuracy if we could trust c-14. beyond 11,ooo years c-14 is out the window.
You reject Ussher, that's good. So then, you think you can observe and test creation using C14?
that is where you are wrong. if God let it sit for millins of years, He would have told us for God would not lie or allow Himself to be represented by a lie. but again you are assuming that science is the only source for the right answer and fail to take into account, the corruption within its processes.
As I said before God did not tell us about heliocentrism or gravitational theory, that does not mean he lied, it just means he did not tell us about it.
as for DNA, that doesn't prove the process of evolution nor does it demonstrate evolution at work. that is a simple inferrence backed up by conjecture.
all it shows is that God made all species similar to man and if you notice all land animals came from the dust of the ground as well as man so what you have is a common creator using common building materials.
Yup. We all came from that primordial mud long long ago and God used the same DNA building block to make us as he used to make chimps. We even have the same endogenous retroviral insertions in the same places in our chromosomes and the same broken Vitamin C gene the other Great Apes have. Very definitely the same building material.
and that would be what they would describe as heresy. and you wonder why i have a low opinion of people who call themselves 'christians'.
they do not believe God but science.
No reason we cannot believe both. A true understanding of God's word does not contradict a proper understanding of the natural world.
But Luther called Copernicus a fool for denying the clear teaching scripture that the sun goes round the earth. So I suppose your intolerance is in good company.
