The Flood

[lucaspa]

Now I'm really confused.

What are you confused about? In order to help, I need a more specific description.

 

[lucaspa]

***Moved from OBOB***


They don't "lie" about it.

Scripture is useful for what? 2 Timothy 3:15-17. It says nothing about scientific or historical accuarcy.

Rather, it states it is God breathed for a purpose. Not that it is God-breathed period. Therefore, Scripture is authoritatve as far and only as far as the aforemetioned purpose allows it to be. Read the verses and you'll see its uses, to answer your question, are related to the attributes of righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ for our salvation. Not who said what when or when and if there was a literal flood: the message of Scripture stays the same.

Good answer.

If science (archeology, cosmic foundations and times) doesn't mesh with our interpretation of the Bible, then we can be sure that our interpretation is at fault - not the Bible itself.

See the first quote in my signature. I'm curious, did you know about the quote or did you arrive independently at the same conclusion?

Ark Guy: Think about it, if the bible is fulled with so many errors as the Theo-Evo crowd requires..then what good is it? How do you seperate the fact from fiction?

Ark Guy, this is the fear that creationists have created (pun intended) for themselves. If just one little thing is wrong, then all of the Bible is wrong. Silly logic. It's the logic atheists love because it allows them to falsely falsify the Bible.

Notice that science doesn't use the same logic on itself or the physical universe. 99.999% of all hypotheses and theories ever proposed have been shown to be wrong. Yet everyone agrees -- even you -- that science has much good in it.

Go back to Paul's description in 2 Timothy. The Bible is good for instruction in righteousness. Science makes no such claim for itself. Science deals with how the physical universe works; it has nothing to say about righteousness.

Now, science doesn't say there are errors in the Bible. It says there are errors in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Those aren't the same thing. How do we tell when a literal interpretation is inappropriate? Several ways, but when science contradicts a literal interpretation, that is one way to know that the literal interpretation is wrong. God gave us a brain. He meant for us to use it. So we use our brain to figure out what is fact and what is fiction.

 

[Spotty]

Hi Spotty! New to the CS&TE forum?

Nice to have you around.

Thanks for the welcome - I've been around here and there primarily at the Catholic forums as well as the (now extinct) Interdenominational debate forums and have only popped in here every now and again for the fun of it.

I suppose reading discussions, with slight participation in some, of creationist/evolutionist debates is a guilty pleasure of mine. You see, if you're an "evolutionist Christian" (understand I use "evolutionist" loosely) you have nothing to lose by being convinced or persuaded to the Creationist standpoint, therefore nothing to fear about "losing" your faith and no fear in the debate which is an all too common feeling resting in the back of the Creationists mind - the fear they will lose faith if Creation didn't happen as the literalists say it happened. I respect with full sincerety their commitment to God's word, though I believe they are in error.

God Bless!

-Spotty

 

[Spotty]

Good answer.

Hey, I do what I can.

See the first quote in my signature. I'm curious, did you know about the quote or did you arrive independently at the same conclusion?

While I first saw the quote itself on your signature some time back, I suppose you could say I arrived at the idea independently through common sense - but I loved how your signature relayed it so succinctly that I couldn't not use it.....ahh.....double negatives.

-Spotty