Madagascar and Australia, a question for creationists.

[Allandavid]

Glad you got the point so soon.

That chapter alone has 176 verses, and I would quote every one of them if I have to.

Every verse is about the word of God.

So it is claimed...

 

[Allandavid]

Hi allandavid,

Well, as I say, we have a different world view and different understanding of 'who' the author of the Scriptures is. It's ok, and I certainly have no delusions that my efforts here will change the set heart, but it is something that you need to understand about born again believers. They don't use the same source of truth as you do and they do have access to the Holy Spirit for discernment of truth. Now, I fully understand that you're not going to accept that so I just put it out there as the truth of one who is born again. Unless you are, you won't understand or agree.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

It's not about a "set heart". It's about a critically thinking brain. You wouldn't buy a bridge from another human, without a ton of research and evidence being provided to you. What we are being asked to 'buy' here is something far more unbelievable than a bridge sale!

 

[HitchSlap]

Hi HS,

That's going to depend on who you believe.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

I believe those who are best qualified to make that determination. I understand and expect that they would apply those same historical critical analyses to all ancient texts, and not show partiality solely because it's in the bible. I think it's important that you understand why it's considered pseudonymous.

 

[HitchSlap]

I see you edited out the rest of the statement. You qualify as the mental and emotional equal to a YEC supporter.

I won't even pretend that this makes sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

All human trail I'm afraid...

So you wouldn't know it if God did write it down, would you?

 

[HitchSlap]

So you wouldn't know it if God did write it down, would you?

I'm sure you'd tell us though, right?

 

[Allandavid]

So you wouldn't know it if God did write it down, would you?

And nor would I know if Beeblebrox had written it. A claim based upon an absence of any evidence makes how much sense?

 

[miamited]

It's not about a "set heart". It's about a critically thinking brain. You wouldn't buy a bridge from another human, without a ton of research and evidence being provided to you. What we are being asked to 'buy' here is something far more unbelievable than a bridge sale!

Hi allandavid,

Yes, I agree that man thinks that to be the truth. It's all about what we can figure out. The 'critically thinking brain' as you say. Faith in God is more simple than that. However, the truth is that many 'christians' lose their faith when they go off to college. They are challenged by this 'critically thinking brain' approach and, unfortunately, that isn't what faith is about.

God has given us evidence by which a 'critically thinking brain' can come to understand that He is and His word is the truth, but it isn't for everybody. Jesus spoke of two roads off of this spinning ball of dirt and rock. One he described as a broad road and said that there are many who are on it. The other he described as a narrow path that only a few find. So the choice is: be one of many or one of a few.

You can know God and you can take advantage of what He has to offer, but as the Scriptures say, that person must believe that God exists. It's a choice that any person can make, but the Scriptures are clear that most won't. You may have settled the issue in your heart and so it will be, but for the 'critically thinking brain' that reads the Scriptures with a seeking heart, God promises that He will be found by those who diligently do so.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

I believe those who are best qualified to make that determination. I understand and expect that they would apply those same historical critical analyses to all ancient texts, and not show partiality solely because it's in the bible. I think it's important that you understand why it's considered pseudonymous.

Hi HS,

Oh, I've read some of the evidence. Needless to say I don't agree. I've read the book of Daniel and it's a first person narrative and comes across to me as written by the man himself. Perhaps, if you haven't read it, you might take 30 minutes and read it. See what you think from the narrative itself, rather than from what others have told you.

Friend, look, there are a lot of people who deny that the Scriptures are what they claim to be. I get that. For me, after having read through them a few times, and always seeking, through prayer, the guidance and wisdom and discernment that only comes through the Holy Spirit, I have been thoroughly convinced that they are exactly what they claim of themselves to be and that the words contained within are the truth of the 'why', 'how' and 'when' of my existence.'

The story that is told over those 1500 years or so of writing by some 40 different writers is cohesive and complete. God created and God will bring to a close this realm in which we now live. There will come a day when every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Speedwell]

Hi allandavid,

However, the truth is that many 'christians' lose their faith when they go off to college.

It could be worse. Instead of losing their faith they could become Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, or even (God forbid!) Roman Catholics--and many do. If they just became atheists you might be able to lead them back to the true path, but once those evil apostates get their hands on them they'll never be back.

 

[Allandavid]

Hi allandavid,

Yes, I agree that man thinks that to be the truth. It's all about what we can figure out. The 'critically thinking brain' as you say.

Yes, we have yet to find any way of gaining knowledge that doesn't involve an interaction with the real world.

Faith in God is more simple than that.

In that we would agree!

However, the truth is that many 'christians' lose their faith when they go off to college. They are challenged by this 'critically thinking brain' approach and, unfortunately, that isn't what faith is about.

Why do you think it is that people lose such beliefs when they increase their education?

God has given us evidence

Please show this 'evidence'...

 

[AV1611VET]

And nor would I know if Beeblebrox had written it.

Science is myopic.

 

[Allandavid]

Friend, look, there are a lot of people who deny that the Scriptures are what they claim to be. I get that. For me, after having read through them a few times, and always seeking, through prayer, the guidance and wisdom and discernment that only comes through the Holy Spirit, I have been thoroughly convinced that they are exactly what they claim of themselves to be and that the words contained within are the truth of the 'why', 'how' and 'when' of my existence.'

And yet, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Buddhist, a Mormon, a Scientologist will all make the same assertion about each of their holy books.

Can they all be right? Or are we programmed to find what we want to find sometimes?

 

[Allandavid]

Science is myopic.

Music is delicious.........??

 

[miamited]

And yet, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Buddhist, a Mormon, a Scientologist will all make the same assertion about each of their holy books.

Can they all be right? Or are we programmed to find what we want to find sometimes?

Hi allandavid,

Yes, they will and no they can't. The real difference is that none of them have Jesus. Jesus lived, was crucified and lived again. According to the Scriptures, over 500 people saw him alive after his death. None of your other books offer such a claim. There are even extrabiblical references to this issue. Do you have any other religious books claiming to see Muhammed after he died? Any mormon tell you that he's seen Mr. Smith after he died? There are actually quite a few solid differences that set the facts presented in the Scriptures apart from a lot of the other 'religious' writings. Prophecy, for me, is the biggest one.

In the book of Daniel that I mentioned before, Daniel regularly writes, "I Daniel...". One of the greatest reasons that people have to believe that it wasn't written by Daniel is the fact that the prophesies given could only have been given by someone after the fact or someone who knows the end from the beginning. It is written that Jesus told Peter to go down and take two coins out of the mouth of a fish. Who could have known that there would even be such a fish? People want to say that it just couldn't have happened and so they cast dispersion over the account. The flood is another such example. It couldn't have happened according to all the knowledge of man, but God's word says that it did. So, because we know in our own knowledge that it couldn't have happened, then we are forced to explain away the account. It was just a local flood or it was just a moralistic parable of some kind. The Scriptures, however, go into quite a lot of detail about the flood for it to just be some moralistic parable.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi allandavid,

You asked:

Why do you think it is that people lose such beliefs when they increase their education?

Because that's where they are taught to only believe that which they can physically prove. God cannot be physically proven. It is a matter of faith. I certainly don't deny that and as I said to someone earlier, I understand where you are coming from because I was once just like you in my thinking.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[HitchSlap]

Hi HS,

Oh, I've read some of the evidence. Needless to say I don't agree. I've read the book of Daniel and it's a first person narrative and comes across to me as written by the man himself. Perhaps, if you haven't read it, you might take 30 minutes and read it. See what you think from the narrative itself, rather than from what others have told you.

Friend, look, there are a lot of people who deny that the Scriptures are what they claim to be. I get that. For me, after having read through them a few times, and always seeking, through prayer, the guidance and wisdom and discernment that only comes through the Holy Spirit, I have been thoroughly convinced that they are exactly what they claim of themselves to be and that the words contained within are the truth of the 'why', 'how' and 'when' of my existence.'

The story that is told over those 1500 years or so of writing by some 40 different writers is cohesive and complete. God created and God will bring to a close this realm in which we now live. There will come a day when every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

I understand, it all makes sense because you want it too.

As for cohesive, have you read all four gospels?

 

[Speedwell]

Hi HS,

Oh, I've read some of the evidence. Needless to say I don't agree. I've read the book of Daniel and it's a first person narrative and comes across to me as written by the man himself.

Only about half of it. And it was originally written in two different languages.

 

[The Stamp]

Because that's where they are taught to only believe that which they can physically prove.

Which is exactly what you do in every other part of your life.

God cannot be physically proven.

Then why on earth would you even think about believing it? do you also believe in all the other Gods?

It is a matter of faith.

And we all know what faith is don't we?
Faith is what people use when they don't have evidence for something, if they had evidence they would not need faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi TM,

Let me be clear on my understanding of science. For science to be able to 'prove' that it has found the answer to an event or cause, it must be able to reproduce said event or cause.

Science isn't in the business of "proving" anything.
There's always a degree of uncertainty. Even when your experiment or whatever is succesfull a gazillion times in a row.

In the here and now, investigating a fire and using DNA for its evidentiary value, I have no problem with science.

When you investigate a fire or a crime scene, you are not investigating the "here and now".

What you are doing then, is using evidence in the present to determine the flow of events of the past.

I don't deny all science

Just the parts that disagree with your a priori religious beliefs?

What I deny is science that is extrapolative in its nature.

Which is...pretty much all of science.
Any model of explanation is usually an abstraction of the underlying physical processes, a theoretical frame of reference. ie: an extra-polation.

It may or may not be giving us the right answers. We don't know.

That is why theoretical models in science need to be testable and falsifiable. So you can double, tripple, quadrupple check if they work.

As I've always said, when science can bring to me a woman giving birth to a baby who has never had human sperm introduced into one of her eggs, I'll give it more consideration

huh? give what consideration?
The idea that a woman can get pregnant without sperm?

Yes, if science would be able to observer such a thing, that would make a pretty good case for accepting that such a thing is possible.

But somehow, I don't think that was your point.

And, since we're dealing with a time some 2,000 years ago, however they present this woman, she would have had to have been made pregnant through some method that would have been available to men 2,000 years ago.

There is no reason to assume that sexual reproduction worked somehow differently in the past.

But, I fully and completely understand the lack of agreement between us. We each have and operate under a different world view.

Yes. I go by the evidence, and you go by an ancient book written by people who didn't even know that the earth orbits the sun.