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.
If you knowingly misrepresent someone's views, then what would you call it?night2day said:One also expects a civil discussion where one can post freely without their words unfairly being called outright lies.
It would be, but no-one has said that.I was well aware there were anti-Creationist views here. The hostility that comes from some of the evolutionists said who say "if you don't accept our interpretation of what we see as evidence to back our views, you have no right stating the events in Genesis are historic events" speaks volumes. It's a rather arrogent stand to take.
I repeat, no-one has said that. And you have been told, repeatedly that that is not my position. Please stop lying.Disscussion is fine. Disagreement is fine. It crosses the line when one group tells another:
"It's fine to believe that if you want to...but just keep it at that...a mere belief. For goodness sakes never claim these events occured in human history. I don't want to hear it. And don't dare tell me I'm only sharing my own beliefs."
I was well aware there were anti-Creationist views here. The hostility that comes from some of the evolutionists said who say "if you don't accept our interpretation of what we see as evidence to back our views, you have no right stating the events in Genesis are historic events" speaks volumes. It's a rather arrogent stand to take.
You vail your statements well, but let's face it, the bottom line for TEs is:shernren said:I was not aware that we were so hostile towards your views. What we did say, however, at many points, is that "There is no scientific evidence for the flood, and therefore the flood is a scientifically impossible event." That is not to say that it didn't happen. But if it did happen, there must be very, very good reasons for God to tear up science and bring about a flood which has no scientfic cause and has left no detectable remains, especially when a local flood would have been enough to wipe out the human population, with the same theological effect as a global flood.
vossler said:If there is scientific proof of something occurring in Creation, then it happened, irregardless of what Scripture may say. It means we now need to take another look at Scripture and see if it wasn't mythological, figurative, legend, etc. We need something to make it fit with the scientific evidence.
Add whatever you'd like, it doesn't change the basic premise that science dictates interpretation of Scripture.notto said:You left out "or perhaps taken out of the context from which it was written" and "perhaps misinterpreted by those that interpret it in a way that conflicts with the creation itself".
Not "science dictates interpretation of Scripture" but "what we already know dictates the interpretation of any text". Which is true for anybody and any text.vossler said:Add whatever you'd like, it doesn't change the basic premise that science dictates interpretation of Scripture.
Saucy said:It's not that God has erased all evidence of the flood, but scientists have attributed proof to other things. An example would be the grand canyon. There was a canyon in Georgia or Alabama...somewhere in the south there that formed after one day of rain. It's 1/40th the size of the grand canyon and formed after one day. Add forty days of rain and you got the grand canyon, but scientists say it was carved out by a river. It's not possible though. There's part of the grand canyon where the river would have to flow uphill. That's not possible. There's evidence all over, but the credit is given to other forces.
Saucy said:
Again, the key is what we think we know, not what God has told us. And no, the Bible isn't just any text.ebia said:Not "science dictates interpretation of Scripture" but "what we already know dictates the interpretation of any text". Which is true for anybody and any text.
Saucy said:It's not that God has erased all evidence of the flood, but scientists have attributed proof to other things. An example would be the grand canyon. There was a canyon in Georgia or Alabama...somewhere in the south there that formed after one day of rain. It's 1/40th the size of the grand canyon and formed after one day.
Add forty days of rain and you got the grand canyon, but scientists say it was carved out by a river. It's not possible though. There's part of the grand canyon where the river would have to flow uphill.
Until we have understood the the bible, we don't know what God is telling us through it.vossler said:Again, the key is what we think we know, not what God has told us.
I didn't say that the bible is just any text. But it is a text, so anything that applies to all texts applies to the bible.And no, the Bible isn't just any text.
There are a lot of things that we learn that are not profitable. God doesn't tell us to learn about His Creation in order to understand His Word. We learn by reading and meditating Scripture, this allows His Holy Spirit to assist all believers in understanding His Word.ebia said:Until we have understood the the bible, we don't know what God is telling us through it.
Maybe not, but when you directly compare it to any text by association it too is guilty of the comparison. You said "what we already know dictates the interpretation of any text," this only applies to any other text except the Bible because the Bible is the only book that reveals to us what the Holy Spirit allows us to see.ebia said:I didn't say that the bible is just any text. But it is a text, so anything that applies to all texts applies to the bible.
ebia said:...no-one has said that. And you have been told, repeatedly that that is not my position. Please stop lying.
Disscussion is fine. Disagreement is fine. It crosses the line when one group tells another:
"It's fine to believe that if you want to...but just keep it at that...a mere belief. For goodness sakes never claim these events occured in human history. I don't want to hear it. And don't dare tell me I'm only sharing my own beliefs."
shernren said:I was not aware that we were so hostile towards your views. What we did say, however, at many points, is that "There is no scientific evidence for the flood, and therefore the flood is a scientifically impossible event"...
He certainly doesn't tell us not to, and would argue that there are plenty of strong hints in the bible that he intends us to do just that. Both the bible and creation are gifts from the Word of God, and both help us learn about the Word of God (Christ). In any case, you cannot help but bring your existing knowledge to the study of the bible, so you might as well acknowledge it.vossler said:There are a lot of things that we learn that are not profitable. God doesn't tell us to learn about His Creation in order to understand His Word.
That's a circular argument at best. The bible does not say that we should not bring to bear every resource that we bring to any other book in trying to understand it. The guidence of the Holy Spirit is an additional help, not a replacement for doing our own hard work.Maybe not, but when you directly compare it to any text by association it too is guilty of the comparison. You said "what we already know dictates the interpretation of any text," this only applies to any other text except the Bible because the Bible is the only book that reveals to us what the Holy Spirit allows us to see.
Who has said that? Names please.night2day said:Here's word for word what I wrote which what prompted your response:
The surest way to cease a civil discussion is not to discuss the issues being posted, but attack the poster(s) themselves as well as read whatever is taken as part of the discussion as personal attacks. Those here who are much more interested in parroting the mantra "saying the Genesis 6 day creation and the global flood as historical events are lying" is a very good example of that.
So who were you accusing? And why did you put that accusation in a reply to me, without specifiying who you are accusing of taking that stance?This is a simple question really. If you do not see yourself in one group or the other being spoken of in my previous quote above...then why claim its position abd that you are being lied about?
If you knew that there is no such evidence then you were lying. If you have such evidence, post it here and we can see if it stacks up.night2day said:I invite you to look over past posts when it was stated I was lying when I said the Genesis global flood took place and there was evidence for it.
notto said:...Long before evolution, it was found that the earth was old and biblical scolars and theologians dealt with the issues as to how their biblical interpretation could conflict with the age of the creation. Old Earth creationists as well (who do not accept evolution) interpret the scripture in light of what we know about the creation.
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?