The Flood

[Michali]

Wasp, there are many reasons why we should accept fact rather than what may be a misunderstanding of scripture. We know for certain that God made the universe, but we don't know for certain if he wanted the Bible to be taken literally. So which is a more reliable source of information about God's creation?

Plus, is it really that important that we must force unscientific theories down other people's throats in order for them to become Christians? If it is keeping them from being a Christian, then we need to stop lying. Because thats what we are doing, lying.

Genesis (and so forth) are written as parables (in my belief). When someone asked Jesus (God himself) why he spoke in parables, Jesus said that only the wise may enter the Kingdom. What does this tell you?

 

[ObbiQuiet]

Wow, how many pages ago did this thread turn from a debate to an insult contest?

It has?

Both are theories, the basis of one is observations accumulated by man, and the basis of the other is faith in God and in His Word that he gave to us!

God never told you the earth was 6,000 years old, nor does the bible.

I personally am a YEC and I'm confident in my beliefs, however I'm not going to waste the next month of my life arguing with people who haven't had it revealed to them. (No offense Josh, I agree with you and admire your courage for standing up against a barrage of insults -- not an argument of the world's formation)

So what was revealed to you, and what made you a YEC?

I find it amusing that 10 years from now evolution scientists will consider most of what they believe today regarding this issue to be false.

Ha. Hahaha.

And YEC will rework their theories b/c they humbly know that they don't have all the answers, the only reliable source of knowledge comes from God's unchanging Word.

No, their only source is their INTERPRITATION of God's unchanging word.

So as a closing comment, I don't accuse nonchristians for rejecting God's truth on the issue, but in regards to old earth/evolutionist christians: How do you not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible that says the world was created in 6 days and that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old (according to the lineage from Adam to Jesus recorded in scripture)?

In Genesis 1, God condemns snakes to eat dirt for the rest of eternity - I don't see snakes eating dirt. Do you? No. Snakes don't eat dirt. Now could a snake, who doesn't have free will, reject God's word? Or perhaps Genesis 1 was just meant as a figurative poem on God's relationship with man?

So, I pose this question to you: Do you believe snakes eat dirt? If not, why? Aren't you disregaurding what it said in the bible? If you say it was figurative - then I ask you, WHY do you think it's figurative?

You may come to the conclusion it must be figurative because evidence says differently. You know snakes don't eat dirt - so then it must be figurative.

But, the same logic also applies with using a literal interpritation of genesis - if evidence says different than a literal interpritation of the bible, then perhaps a literal interpritation is false?

If the Bible cannot be trusted as being foolproof, then surely Christ did not rise from the dead!!

You said it, not me.

There is no possible scientific explanation for someone being dead for three days and then coming back to life.

True. But did that actually happen?

If you deny the resurrection of Christ, then are you a christian?

No.

 

[troodon]

Wow, how many pages ago did this thread turn from a debate to an insult contest?

Hmm... I must have missed that. Got any examples of anyone insulting brave little Josh1?

I personally am a YEC and I'm confident in my beliefs, however I'm not going to waste the next month of my life arguing with people who haven't had it revealed to them.

Ah, that's too bad that you don't have the rest of your life failing to answer the many global flood falsifications.

I find it amusing that 10 years from now evolution scientists will consider most of what they believe today regarding this issue to be false. And YEC will rework their theories b/c they humbly know that they don't have all the answers, the only reliable source of knowledge comes from God's unchanging Word.

LOL, wait, in your scenario aren't 'evolution scientists' also "rework[ing] their theories b/c they humbly know that they don't have all the answers"?

So as a closing comment, I don't accuse nonchristians for rejecting God's truth on the issue, but in regards to old earth/evolutionist christians: How do you not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible that says the world was created in 6 days and that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old (according to the lineage from Adam to Jesus recorded in scripture)? If the Bible cannot be trusted as being foolproof, then surely Christ did not rise from the dead!! There is no possible scientific explanation for someone being dead for three days and then coming back to life. If you deny the resurrection of Christ, then are you a christian?

What does this put the total Forum Rule #1 break number at? Any takers?

For a response to your allegations see lucaspa's posts in this thread

Edit: I can never spell 'response' correctly

 

[Michali]

Another thing... Why should it take God time to make the universe? The fact that He created it periodically shows that he is working through a process. He is using his creation as a tool. Otherwise, he may as well have made it all instantly.

There is a good reason why he works nature with nature. He is omni-potent, yet not everything is chaotic. In other words, he limits his own actions because he is a being. By limiting himself, he creates stability for his creation. Example: His ability to allow you Free Will, and His ability to forget our sins at will. I believe he has complete self control and imposes these limits on the universe. His miracles (I believe) should also be able to be proven scientifically. He is in complete control of the universe as a kid is a toy. But he does not break the toy in order to manipulate it.

 

[Wasp]

Job 12:13 "To God belong wisdom and power; counsel and understanding are his"

2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God­breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

Or perhaps 2 Timothy isn't meant to be taken literally either?

 

[Wasp]

Who said I believe in free-will? I believe the Bible, so of course I agree with the points of Calvinism!

 

[troodon]

Job 12:13 "To God belong wisdom and power; counsel and understanding are his"

2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God­breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

Or perhaps 2 Timothy isn't meant to be taken literally either?

Does that mean I can use Leviticus to rebuke Christ's claims that marriage is for keeps?

No, it doesn't. That claim was superceded when Christ said, "no divorce". Just like Genesis' claim that the earth was specially created 6,000 years ago was superceded when we found out that creation said it wasn't so

 

[Wasp]

In regards to troodon, sorry if I offended you, but does the logic not make sense? Certainly we would need to make sure that every verse in the Bible adds up with our incomplete scientific understanding! If you don't want to answer me, please don't. But I would like to know at least how Christ raised himself from the dead after being dead for three days. A link to a scientific article or some "intellectual reasoning" would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Wasp]

Shame that Calculus homework, a need for sleep, and a 7:30 class prohibit me from continuing at the moment. I'll come back tomorrow!

 

[Arikay]

welcome to fallacy land.

The standard, "well if you take one thing non literally, why not take all of them"

You do realize, Anti christians LOVE you saying things like this. It makes it So easy to attack the bible, since anyone who seriously looks at the evidence, will see that the literal global flood is false.

So, they go, see, you either must close your eyes and remain ignorant, or you must drop the entire bible.

Congrats on giving anti christians ammo.


Luckily for you, its a major fallacy. Bassed on your views, God created the earth, correct? And so, evidence found in this earth would be created (in a round about way) by god, correct? Thus, if the evidence in gods creation, contradicts your personal interpretation of his writting, then you are probably the one who is wrong and should change your views.

Each claim the bible makes must be taken as a seperate claim, thus you should only change your views on the claims that gods evidence says are not what you think they are.

Unless of course you know of evidence disproving Jesus as the savior, its still a possibility, and the major part of christianity is alive and well. Not only alive and well, but it can keep from promoting ignorance and still be ok.

 

[Wasp]

Did creation say it wasn't so, or did (fallen) human scientists? Trace the lineage of Jesus to see that it is approximately 6,000 years.

Christ came to fulfill the Old Testament law, as we are well aware. However, God gave the law to show us that we will never be able to live up to His perfect standard for our lives. So to answer your question, Leviticus is inspired. God permitted divorce because of the hardened hearts of the Israelites, however he never approved of it. I believe that this is also addressed in Romans.

In addition, you are pitting scripture against scripture in one analogy, and scripture verse man in another. False analogy. Show me the verse where Christ, Paul, John, etc. say "Oh by the way, God was just joking when he revealed Genesis."

 

[Jet Black]

If the Bible cannot be trusted as being foolproof, then surely Christ did not rise from the dead!! There is no possible scientific explanation for someone being dead for three days and then coming back to life.

is god a liar?

 

[Wasp]

If I thought God was a liar, I would believe Evolution

 

[Wasp]

You make that decision yourself, Jet Black

 

[troodon]

In regards to troodon, sorry if I offended you

You haven't offended me yet; you're just another one of the truckloads of YECs that have come through these forums questioning the Christianity of theistic evolutionists.

But does the logic not make sense?

Your logic? no.

Certainly we would need to make sure that every verse in the Bible adds up with our incomplete scientific understanding!

Incomplete in what regard? That we don't know the exact evolutionary lineage of all life on the earth? or the fact that we have a complete and total understanding that there was no global flood, let alone 4,000 years ago.

But I would like to know at least how Christ raised himself from the dead after being dead for three days. A link to a scientific article or some "intellectual reasoning" would be greatly appreciated!

The resurrection was a miracle; that is how Christ rose from the dead. This is different from YEC because the evidence shows that God did not specially create the universe 6,000 years ago whereas there is no evidence showing that Christ did not resurrect.

 

[Wasp]

So if what scientists believe at a given date contradicts scripture, then Science trumps God? Hmm...

 

[Wasp]

How was creation not a miracle?

 

[Wasp]

This is different from YEC because the evidence shows that God did not specially create the universe 6,000 years ago whereas there is no evidence showing that Christ did not resurrect.

Conclusive evidence?

For you maybe.

 

[Jet Black]

Did creation say it wasn't so, or did (fallen) human scientists?

creation said it wasn't so.

 

[Arikay]

wasp, how do you explain all the evidence in gods creation that says a 6000 year old earth is false?