Romans 14

[California Tim]

The point is that it would entirely wrong of that Christian historian to refuse to consider those facts, or to reject them simply because someone else, whose philosophy he abhors, also reaches those same conclusions. Even when the atheistic historian writes his book using those conclusions to argue against the Church, it would be wrong of our Christian historian to reject the facts supported by the evidence just to distance himself from the incorrect teachings of the atheist or to avoid slipping down the slope himself.

We have no debate on the issue as presented. The acceptance of a particular conclusion cannot be ruled out solely on the basis of it's acceptance by an enemy of the Gospel. However, when the conclusion contradicts what the Bible appears to plainly teach, it is an entirely different matter. I think rather than go point by point on the evidences presented for and against (all of which are PRATTS) I will summarize my position one last time.

When the natural explanation for a supernatural event appears to contradict the Biblical account, I favor the Biblical account over the natural explanation. For example, I find Adam was created as a mature adult. Science says it is not possible. I say the Bible is right. I find sufficient evidence of a worldwide flood, science says it is foolishness and violates all known natural laws. I say the Bible is right. I find that the Jonah account was a literal account. Science says there is no way a man can live in the gastric juices of a fish for three days. I say the Bible is right nonetheless. I find Christ fed 5000 to satisfaction from a handful of food and had leftovers by the bushel. Science says it's a nice fairy tale but impossible. I say the Bible is right. I find that Christ rose from the dead and reappeared in His physical body before witnesses. Science says they were delusional and that it was impossible. I say the Bible is right.

Are you getting the gist of what I'm saying? I happen to be one of those "pig-headed" "stubborn" fundies that says even when the so-called evidence says the Bible was wrong, inaccurate or requires a different interpretation, I cling to it nonetheless and claim science is the servant of scripture - not the other way around.

 

[versastyle]

I cling to it nonetheless and claim science is the servant of scripture - not the other way around.

......and people wonder why creation "science" isn't in school.

Your beliefs are quite noble, however, there is nothing scientific or verifiable about anything you are saying.

Do you also believe that meteors actually did not hit the moon, but that God just made the meteor craters in full form? That sedimentation layers were made in full form? That fossils of animals exist that were never even alive?

Why even try to disprove scientific theories at all, if even by your own admission, scientific study and observation isn't making a difference on your point of view anyways?

 

[California Tim]

Do you also believe that meteors actually did not hit the moon, but that God just made the meteor craters in full form?

They hit the moon alright - between the time the earth was created and now. In accordance with the Biblical creation account.

That sedimentation layers were made in full form? That fossils of animals exist that were never even alive?

No.. I say that sedimentation layers were placed by the flood and living animals were caught up in the catastrophic event (some even in the act of eating) and fossilized far more rapidly than secular science accepts. All in accordance with the Biblical accounts of creation and the flood.

Why even try to disprove scientific theories at all, if even by your own admission, scientific study and observation isn't making a difference on your point of view anyways?

I do not need to disprove "science", science needs to recalibrate based on the immutable truths of the Bible. Using that basis, the correct time-tables would reveal a young earth using the very same fossil and geological evidence. All consistent with the Biblical accounts of creation and the flood.

 

[versastyle]

They hit the moon alright - between the time the earth was created and now. In accordance with the Biblical creation account.

LOL. Me thinks you have no idea how many craters are on the moon.

No.. that sedimentation layers were placed by the flood and living animals were caught up in the catastrophic event (some even in the act of eating) and fossilized far more rapidly than secular science accepts. All in accordance with the Biblical accounts of creation and the flood.

I do not need to disprove "science", science needs to recalibrate based on the immutable truths of the Bible. Using that basis, the correct time-tables would reveal a young earth using the very same fossil and geological evidence.

This is really getting old. Talk about pseudo-science.

 

[YahwehLove]

Not true. It doesn't take a single scientific mind to recognize the implications of varves, starlights and moon meteors on a young earth/universe pov.

nor the implications of polystrate trees on the Old earth/universe pov.

 

[versastyle]

nor the implications of polystrate trees on the Old earth/universe pov.

Exactly why I don't take one view over the other.

They both have serious problems.

 

[YahwehLove]

Without invoking the supernatural, starlight observation falsifies a young earth/universe theory.

Without invoking the supernatural, no man-god come down from the sky either. But you believe that, I presume.

Whats it based on?
Evidence?

 

[versastyle]

Whats it based on?

Hope.

 

[YahwehLove]

Hope.

now wait.
earlier somewhere you siad it was based on contemporary witnesses or something along those lines?

Is there evidence or not?

 

[versastyle]

now wait.
earlier somewhere you siad it was based on contemporary witnesses or something along those lines?

No I didn't. I said I'm more likely to believe a contemporary written source over a non-contemporary source. Hope is the underlying factor.

My hope speaks of Christ and that is my evidence.

 

[YahwehLove]

This is ridiculous. The problem is the natural explanation is adequate. You are invoking the supernatural when it is not needed.

Is the supernatural needed to explain a 6 day creation?
Global flood?
Parting of the Rea Sea?
Walking on water?

God needed never break the natural laws He put in place. But He did.

It doesnt matter if a natural explaination would foot your bill.
Did He use supernatural means or not?
THAT is the issue

 

[versastyle]

It doesnt matter if a natural explaination would foot your bill.
Did He use supernatural means or not?
THAT is the issue

The bible specifically states these events occurred. The bible does not state God changed the natural laws of physics so that we can see the stars. This is what YOU are adding to the text. I cannot do this. I prefer the "who knows?" stance.

 

[YahwehLove]

......and people wonder why creation "science" isn't in school.

Your beliefs are quite noble, however, there is nothing scientific or verifiable about anything you are saying.

Do you also believe that meteors actually did not hit the moon, but that God just made the meteor craters in full form? That sedimentation layers were made in full form? That fossils of animals exist that were never even alive?

Why even try to disprove scientific theories at all, if even by your own admission, scientific study and observation isn't making a difference on your point of view anyways?

We dont need to disprove much of anything.
Common decent is NOT proven, it is thoery catered to fit some mans understanding of evidence, not a thing more.

We only need to see how things fit into the bible.
like it or not, YOUR evidence is OUR evidence.
We just refuse to accept that scienctists have it all right.

 

[YahwehLove]

The bible specifically states these events occurred. The bible does not state God changed the natural laws of physics so that we can see the stars. This is what YOU are adding to the text. I cannot do this. I prefer the "who knows?" stance.

The bible also doesnt say that Adam was created either mortal or immortal at first.
We look to the details and try to see what fits.
NO one is adding anything to the text friend, except the TE.
My faith says it was 6 days.
And in case you havent read Genesis 1 lately, it SAYS 6 days

 

[versastyle]

The bible also doesnt say that Adam was created either mortal or immortal at first.
We look to the details and try to see what fits.
NO one is adding anything to the text friend, except the TE.

Did God bend the laws of physics so that we could see stars that are millions of light years away?

My faith says it was 6 days.
And in case you havent read Genesis 1 lately, it SAYS 6 days

I had no idea.

 

[Vance]

Yes, it uses the words making up six days. You say this as if no one knows this fact. Since everyone does know this fact, there is no need to point it out. What you need to do is explain why it must be read as literal history. This you have not done yet, you just keep parroting something that we already know: that those words are there.

Just like the word "tree" is in my poet's poem. It being there, it "saying" tree, is not the issue. The issue is how the author expected it to be read. Or, with Scripture, how God expected it to be read. You are not adding anything to the discussion by simply saying what the words of the text are. We have all read our Bibles thoroughly. Many times through. With the Spirit's guidance.

 

[YahwehLove]

Did God bend the laws of physics so that we could see stars that are millions of light years away?

just like you, I dont have every shred of evidence figured in.
BUT
I beleive in an all powerful God who MADE time itself and could very well have distorted time in some manner to bring the light to us faster.

He can bend any other law. Why do people who use HIs name presume to assert that He didnt or couldnt bend ANY law He created for His purpose?

 

[Vance]

This gets to the question of God creating a universe, and an earth, in a way that would be deceiving. I don't see any reason to interpret the evidence in a way that would mean God did create in such a deceiving way, just to support a particular interpretation of Scripture (which I find unconvincing to begin with).

 

[versastyle]

just like you, I dont have every shred of evidence figured in.
BUT
I beleive in an all powerful God who MADE time itself and could very well have distorted time in some manner to bring the light to us faster.

This is not what God's word says. It says He created the stars for us to see. So you have two valid choices:

Natural law was bent so we could see stars that are too far away to see.

or

It took millions of years for this light to reach us.

Either way, the bible is mute on this question, yet again, throwing one more iron into the fire of uncertainty.

Something must be added to/changed in the bible to find out the answer.

He can bend any other law. Why do people who use HIs name presume to assert that He didnt or couldnt bend ANY law He created for His purpose?

I don't presume it because the bible doesn't say He did it.

I merely do not know.

 

[YahwehLove]

Yes, it uses the words making up six days. You say this as if no one knows this fact. Since everyone does know this fact, there is no need to point it out. What you need to do is explain why it must be read as literal history. This you have not done yet, you just keep parroting something that we already know: that those words are there.

have you offered anything for me that doesnt require the standard answer?
I keep hearing you speak of things that pretend like the text doesnt spell out literal days, then seemingly asserting that Im ''interpreting'' it my own way.
I have to keep repeating that it SAYS 6 days because it seems that you think *I* am the one who stated that fact.

Just like the word "tree" is in my poet's poem. It being there, it "saying" tree, is not the issue. The issue is how the author expected it to be read. Or, with Scripture, how God expected it to be read. You are not adding anything to the discussion by simply saying what the words of the text are. We have all read our Bibles thoroughly. Many times through. With the Spirit's guidance.

aaaaaaannnnnndddddddd
If the text had merely said 'yom' then I would agree with you 110% that it could have meant billions of years.

So youve read your bibles and then keep tellin me that IM the one whos adding, deleting, editting the words, it seems.

And how God expected it to be read is the heart of the issue here.
YOu say figuratively I assume.
I say literally.

You realise this conversation has nowhere left to go