Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
IisJustMe said:If you're going to quote the Bible, know what it says!!
IisJustMe said:Someone??? It is JESUS!
Proselyte said:I think it's pretty arrogrant to say the Bible is fallible and we're just absorbing its general message. It worked well throughout the ages and now we are adapting it to meet our comfortable world views, in the face of record breaking moral backsliding.
Proselyte said:No one has proven the Bible is in error, so view things as you like, and I will do the same.
Mallon said:Ah, well in that case, the Bible is wrong. We know that there is no water in the expanse above the sky we call space. Space is a vaccuum; not the blue water the early Hebrews thought it was (see shernren's post for more).
Proselyte said:Wiltor, see above.
I see this time and time again on these forums.
The Bible is explained away when science, based on evolution, is introduced. Effectually the Bible is minimized, dismissed and allowed to be viewed as flawed by scientific claims.steen said:False. The Bible is not explained away by science.
I'm not one to make scientific claims so I can't comment onto the validity of scientific claims of creationists. However, what I can comment on is that those claims don't contradict the Bible like evolutionary claims do. See the foundation for the creationist beliefs is solely the bible not some scientific theory developed by man. It doesn't matter if there isn't any physical evidence for the claims of the Bible because as a Christian I accept God's Word as truth straight up, I don't need man's scientific measurements to confirm or deny biblical truth.steen said:Rather, the scientific claims that creationists make, based on the Bible as a science textbook are nowhere to be evidenced, while there is other evidence FOR the established science.
Here's the bottom line; creationist claims about science have their basis or origins straight from the Bible whereas evolutionist claims have their origins in man's scientific theories. If a creationists theories or ideas don't align with the Bible then they are not valid and are dismissed, whereas an evolutionist who is a Christian will manipulate God's Word to comply with the science he believes in.steen said:It is not about scientifically disproving the Bible, but rather that there is no scienctific evidence for creationist claims about science.
Not at all. Why do you say that? Science has absolutely nothing to say about God's existence or lack thereoff. Science in no way discredit God.vossler said:The Bible is explained away when science, based on evolution, is introduced.
Not at all. Creationist claims are, but that in no way is the same.Effectually the Bible is minimized, dismissed and allowed to be viewed as flawed by scientific claims.
Hmm, I do recall you making claims directly pertaining to science, so I don't feel I can agree with you here.I'm not one to make scientific claims so I can't comment onto the validity of scientific claims of creationists.
No "evolutionary" claims contradict the Bible. It only contradicts creationists attempt s at imposing the Bible, God's word, into the physical world.However, what I can comment on is that those claims don't contradict the Bible like evolutionary claims do.
Good. SO the creationist claims about science, or claims about the Bible as a scientific text those claims will cease? Great, then there is no more conflict. Then the Bible shows God's glory and relevance for man, and the science shows the physical function of the physical world. That's a great way for each to complement each other.See the foundation for the creationist beliefs is solely the bible not some scientific theory developed by man.
Absolutely. God's word is not based on evidence, it is based on faith. As long as nobody try to use Faith as evidence for science or use science as evidence for faith, then there is no problem.It doesn't matter if there isn't any physical evidence for the claims of the Bible because as a Christian I accept God's Word as truth straight up,
I agree 100%.I don't need man's scientific measurements to confirm or deny biblical truth.
Indeed. And THAT is the very problem. The Bible is not a science textbook. Trying to use the Bible to "prove" science seems as absolutely silly as trying to use Science to prove God's word. The problem, of course, is when these two spheres get mixed up, demeaning both of them.Here's the bottom line; creationist claims about science have their basis or origins straight from the Bible
And thus are saying absolutely nothing against God, nor against the Bible.whereas evolutionist claims have their origins in man's scientific theories.
Just like if a Scientist's ideas and hypotheses don't align with Scientific Evidence, then they are not valid and are dismissed. Exactly the same thing.If a creationists theories or ideas don't align with the Bible then they are not valid and are dismissed,
Nope, that accusation is not valid.whereas an evolutionist who is a Christian will manipulate God's Word to comply with the science he believes in.
Willtor said:The "water above" was the ocean at the feet of God. In the picture of the cosmos held by the ancient Hebrews, the Earth was literally the dry land. Beyond the land there was the ocean. Arching over both was a so-called firmament, a dome which enclosed space for the Sun, Moon, stars, etc. and the birds below them. Above the firmament was another ocean, and above that was the throne of God. Water was an image of chaos, and it the creation account shows God forming order out of chaos indicating that He is greater than the chaos.
Proselyte said:I believe there were waters above the firmament.
What they are specifically, I'm not sure, but the Bible speaks of it and I support it.
The Law was the "old wineskin" and the new covenant was not meant to be delivered within the framework of the Law. Both were given by God.
That is the most incredible leap to a conclusion I've ever seen in my life. It has got to be a record!!shernren said:But if the Law had in Jesus' time become an untrustworthy framework for delivering even spiritual truth, which was precisely what it was written to deliver, and which would not have changed over time,
why should you consider it a trustworthy framework for delivering scientific truth, which was something it was not written to deliver, and which has greatly expanded over time?
IisJustMe said:The Law was not spiritual, but fleshly. The law convicted and condemned, it did not justify, which is what a good spiritual truth should do. The Law did not even attempt to address the creation of the world, but the sinfulness of man.
Whatever the case may be, a patient, kind-hearted attitude does much more to convince me of a person's affiliation with Christianity than a condescending, self-righteous one. It's kind Christian sibblings like gluadys, shernren, choaschristian et al. who have convinced me thus far that it is possible to both subscribe to evolution AND lead a Christ-centered life. Questioning our capacity to read the Bible is akin to shooting yourself in the foot, as it displays a real hostile disposition that reflects poorly on both yourself and the party you're representing. If you're convinced that in your 13 years of reading the Bible you have come to understand it better than any one of us, I pray that you would please have patience with us and explain why this is so, rather than belittling us as you have.IisJustMe said:Do TE's actually read the Bible? Or do they just own one because their Christians? It certainly appears the vast majority of you aren't well enough acquainted with it to use it in defense of your position -- which probably explains why you've opted to squeeze your faith into a secular "wineskin" like evolution.
Mallon said:How can you base a scientific theory on non-scientific claims?
chaoschristian said:Two hundred years from now, when some archeologist uncovers your personal diary, do you expect there to be great grand theological and scientific arguments over whether or not you perceived the sky to be blue if you neglected to positively and absolutely state that you perceived the sky to be blue?
shernren said:Why "relegate"? What is taken away from Genesis 1 if it is treated as a symbolic story - especially if it was written as one?
Mallon said:What makes it so easy for you to distinguish between what the Hebrews meant literally and how they understood the world metaphorically?
chaoschristian said:If we are to be stewards, if we are to be a part of God's Creative process, then why propose that either Creation itself (and by implication, God) is deceptive in what it tells us about itself, or that it is ultimately unknowable or that God commands that we are to remain purposefully ignorant of Creation through the authority of scripture?
Why would God purposefully hamper and cripple our stewardship? Why would he create us to be a part of Creation and then retard us?
Mallon said:Which of the two passages quoted in my signature is the "inerrant" one? They can't both be right as they refer to the same disaster.
choaschristian said:If the divine can only exist where ignorance persists, then what does that say about the nature of the divine and the nature of God himself?
steen said:What would be the vapor pressure and surface temperature from that much water in the atmosphere?
jereth said:Can you please clarify:
You believe there were waters above the firmament. So you're saying that Genesis 1 describes the cosmos in a previous state, not its current state? When did the change occur?
Of course, the change must have happened some time after the Psalms were written, because Psalm 104 and Psalm 150 refer to the waters above the heavens. Yes?
Do you at least have an opinion about what these waters were?
I realize you're only one person, Proselyte, and that it may take some time for you to answer these. In the give-and-take of conversation, however, I feel we're owed some answers (you seem to have avoided many of these specific questions). I hope I can return the same courtesy if you want me to to elaborate at all on anything I've said thus far.Assyrian said:Why did the ancient Hebrews think there was water above them in the sky?
... didn't I just go to the trouble of making a post where I said "The Law was not spiritual, but fleshly." At least, I thought I did. Hmmm ... am I getting so old I can't remember things anymore?chaoschristian said:So, are you therefore saying that 'The Law' was bad spiritual truth?
The Law did not even attempt to address the creation of the world, but the sinfulness of man.
IisJustMe said:... didn't I just go to the trouble of making a post where I said "The Law was not spiritual, but fleshly." At least, I thought I did. Hmmm ... am I getting so old I can't remember things anymore?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?