Supremacy challenge part 2

[rjs330]

I can't imagine what else θεόπνευστος can mean when used by someone like Paul.



If it is portrayed as a historical account, and it is not such, then it seems rather clear that there is untruth deliberately communicated—i.e., a lie. Now, if you can demonstrate beyond doubt that such accounts are not meant to portray history, then I will reconsider. But, otherwise, I am not sure.



Pardon me, but I do not think you read my post very well. If you have not noticed, I am the one here defending the historicity of Scriptural claims. I never said any of the things you said I claimed. I am making the point that, typically, Scripture is treated as if it is a 20th Century history textbook by atheistic/secular-type people—frankly, the way it is being treated here.

Please make sure you are sure of what people are saying before you respond to them, especially since, like me, they just may be on your side.

Ah, I apologize. I've heard too often from others that people like me are reading it as a 20th century history book. So I may have jumped the gun on you. My apologies.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

 

[Speedwell]

Oh interesting, I guess I missed the part of the asteroid belt. I would call that a theory, because the Bible certainly doesn't claim that. You see as a literalist I believe what the Bible says. I'm consistent. If someone stated to me that the Bible says the asteroid belt was created by the explosion of tectonic plates I would ask for a biblical reference. I don't recall that passage. It's an interesting theory, but a theory none the less.

Take a look at In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood by Walter T. Brown. Its authority with Creationists stems from the general principle that the Bible is accurate in all that it affirms or that which can be logically deduced from those affirmations. It doesn't have to say so in the Bible for it to "say so in the Bible."

And as far as the whole Jesus died for nothing routine, I'm not sure what you mean about that. I think you should know me by now to know that I do not believe that. Let me state it again in case you or anyone else might have missed it. Jesus death and resurrection and salvation of your soul is NOT dependent on whether you believe the flood happened or God created as is written. It is only predicated on you believing on the Lord Jesus Christ and living for him.

What an old softy you are.

 

[rjs330]

Take a look at In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood by Walter T. Brown. Its authority with Creationists stems from the general principle that the Bible is accurate in all that it affirms or that which can be logically deduced from those affirmations. It doesn't have to say so in the Bible for it to "say so in the Bible."

What an old softy you are.

Well I do believe that the Bible is accurate in all that it affirms. The rest is interesting speculation. God created the universe and this solar system. Exactly how he aligned the planets or why he made Jupiter's atmosphere is how it is or why there are rings around Saturn is speculation and very fun and interesting. But the Bible doesn't say anything about that. It does say however how long it took him to create and how exactly he creates man and the animals. No speculation needed.

I don't know what that book says, but it sounds like they are deducing things that are not specified in Scripture. Cool exercise but doesn't verify anything. When it comes to Scripture we only know what it says. What happened after the flood with all of nature is not specifically spelled out. God apparently didn't think it important to tell us. But given what we know of God it certainly was not out of his wheelhouse to assure that his creation continued without the need of a DNA bottleneck.

If the God of the universe can create with his voice then he is indeed powerful.enough to work it all out.



Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

 

[TaylorSexton]

Ah, I apologize. I've heard too often from others that people like me are reading it as a 20th century history book. So I may have jumped the gun on you. My apologies.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

You're good, brother!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Umm.. not sure what you're saying here. I'm not relying on science when it comes to what the Bible says.

Science is a great thing. The various sciences have done a lot for humanity. It has also do a lot to hurt humanity. It has been right and it has been wrong. But when science completely goes against what the Bible says then Science is wrong. Precisely because science deals with the physical world only. Whereas God deals in the impossible. With man everything is not possible. With God all things are possible.

Nope, for example if you believe in a global flood then you have to believe in a lying God. All of the evidence out there tells us that there was no flood. That evidence would have had to come from the God that flooded the Earth. In other words he would have had to cover up his activities and make it look like the Earth is billions of years old. Most Christians do not believe in a lying God.

Man's understanding is limited. God is not limited. Man's understanding is foolishness to God and Gods foolishness is wiser than man's wisdom.

Again, if you want to make that claim the burden of proof is upon you.

God gave man a brain and man has used that intelligence to do marvelous things. Aspirin, going to the moon, penicillin, the atomic bomb have all come from scientific discoveries. So there is nothing "wrong" with science. However the interpretation of scientific discoveries, particularly when it comes to the past is deeply flawed. When it contradicts what God says then it's flat wrong.

Or perhaps your interpretation of what the Bible is trying to tell you is wrong. Let's try to look at it sensibly. The science that you depend upon every day says that the book of Genesis is wrong. Why use science that says that your beliefs are wrong if you really believe what you say that you do?

There are many Christians out there that do not deny science. They can drive their cars without feeling hypocritical. They can use plastic, eat food that is dependent upon the science that you deny. Use medicines that are based upon the theory of evolution. The list goes on and on. If you rally want to put your money where your mouth is you would almost have to live in a cave.

 

[AV1611VET]

That evidence would have had to come from the God that flooded the Earth. In other words he would have had to cover up his activities and make it look like the Earth is billions of years old. Most Christians do not believe in a lying God.

And you would probably be saying the same thing back in the time of Copernicus, claiming that God would have been deceptive if He wrote in the Bible that the earth circled the sun.

Good Sunday school material here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you would probably be saying the same thing back in the time of Copernicus, claiming that God would have been deceptive if He wrote in the Bible that the earth circled the sun.

Good Sunday school material here.

But the Bible says that the Sun goes aroud the Earth. That is why Copernicaus was afraid to publish in his time. It was why Galileo got in trouble. Demanding that the Sun goes around the Earth is an example of a deceptive God. Hardly anyone believes that the Sun orbits the Earth today. The argument is not needed for that. Soon creationists will be rightfully grouped with Flat Earthers and Geocentrists as those that abuse the Bible to support their beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

But the Bible says that the Sun goes aroud the Earth.

And you would probably be one of the first ones to accuse God of being deceptive if He wrote that the earth circles the sun, wouldn't you?

(If you lived back in Copernicus' time.)

 

[TaylorSexton]

But the Bible says that the Sun goes aroud the Earth.

Where?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where?

I am on a tablet right now. Google is your friend.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where?

The same place it says a child in the womb is a "fetus."

They use a different bible: the AV2016 King James McGraw Bible.

You know?

The James McGraw of McGraw-Hill science textbooks?

 

[[serious]]

Nope, for example if you believe in a global flood then you have to believe in a lying God. All of the evidence out there tells us that there was no flood. That evidence would have had to come from the God that flooded the Earth. In other words he would have had to cover up his activities and make it look like the Earth is billions of years old. Most Christians do not believe in a lying God.



Again, if you want to make that claim the burden of proof is upon you.



Or perhaps your interpretation of what the Bible is trying to tell you is wrong. Let's try to look at it sensibly. The science that you depend upon every day says that the book of Genesis is wrong. Why use science that says that your beliefs are wrong if you really believe what you say that you do?

There are many Christians out there that do not deny science. They can drive their cars without feeling hypocritical. They can use plastic, eat food that is dependent upon the science that you deny. Use medicines that are based upon the theory of evolution. The list goes on and on. If you rally want to put your money where your mouth is you would almost have to live in a cave.

Well, just to play devils advocate here, you could have an honest god flood the earth long enough ago that no obvious traces remain. I can't think of a good way to disprove a global 3 billion years ago for example

 

[Subduction Zone]

The same place it says a child in the womb is a "fetus."

They use a different bible: the AV2016 King James McGraw Bible.

You know?

The James McGraw of McGraw-Hill science textbooks?

No, it can be found in any Bible. You simply misinterpret it to protect your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, just to play devils advocate here, you could have an honest god flood the earth long enough ago that no obvious traces remain. I can't think of a good way to disprove a global 3 billion years ago for example

But then there would have been no humanity to irradicate.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I am on a tablet right now. Google is your friend.

No, I want you to tell me. You made the assertion, now defend it. Surely being on a tablet does not prevent you from jotting a Scripture reference; it didn't stop you from writing entire sentences.

Now, where does it say this?

 

[[serious]]

But then there would have been no humanity to irradicate.

Again, purely to play devil's advocate, a small population of divinely created humans may well have left no as of yet detectable trace over such a time frame. Or maybe they were all teleported forward in time post flood. Yes, we are solidly into the adding-random-stuff-that-isn't-in-the-bible-to-try-and-make-things-work zone, but but we can get to a global flood without a dishonest God if we are creative enough.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... we can get to a global flood without a dishonest God if we are creative enough.

When you posit a God that can do anything, you can be as creative as you like - from interpretive tweaks to keep the bible in line with scientific discoveries, to full 'Last-Thursdayism' (a version of the Omphalos hypothesis).

More disturbing are the claims that, regardless of apparent deceit, malevolence, or maliciousness, if God does it or endorses it, it is - by definition - good. This can be particularly dangerous when people claim to be acting 'according to God's will', 'under His guidance', or 'on His behalf'...

 

[TaylorSexton]

More disturbing are the claims that, regardless of apparent deceit, malevolence, or maliciousness, if God does it or endorses it, it is - by definition - good. This can be particularly dangerous when people claim to be acting 'according to God's will', 'under His guidance', or 'on His behalf'...

Unfortunately, according to orthodox Christian doctrine, God's will is set down only in Scripture. If anyone does anything outside of what is laid down in Scripture—no matter how much they say they do it "on God's behalf"—they are not within his will or under his guidance; they are heretics. So, for example, the Inquisition was a purely Satanic endeavor. Nowhere in Scripture is any Christian instructed to convert by torture, or to inflict pain on another under any circumstance.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Unfortunately, according to orthodox Christian doctrine, God's will is set down only in Scripture. If anyone does anything outside of what is laid down in Scripture—no matter how much they say they do it "on God's behalf"—they are not within his will or under his guidance; they are heretics. So, for example, the Inquisition was a purely Satanic endeavor. Nowhere in Scripture is any Christian instructed to convert by torture, or to inflict pain on another under any circumstance.

I didn't mention scripture, but as anyone who spends time on these forums will be aware, there are many different interpretations of scripture among Christians.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I didn't mention scripture, but as anyone who spends time on these forums will be aware, there are many different interpretations of scripture among Christians.

of course, because Christians are fallible, often very much so. But, this fallibility has many causes: sometimes ignorance; perhaps mostly malice. It does not detract from the fact that Scripture has one meaning, and that Scripture is very, very clear on many matters, such as the prohibition to do harm to one's neighbor in any fashion.