what to believe

[archaeologist]

it has been stated many, many times by those who following alternatives that they do not have to believe in a literal genesis to receive salvation.

well yes and no. here are the reasons why.

1, it is correct that you do not have to believe in a literal genesis to be saved BUT this does not give license to believers to follow whatever they desire. scriptures lays out very clearly what a believer is supposed to do and warns them of returning to the corruption they were freed from. 2 peter 2:20-22 states:

20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit,"[a]and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud

so no, a believer is not free to believe whatever they like

2. when one becomes a believer, they become a member of the kingdom of God and they are required to follow God and His words for they are His servants. does God declare evolution--no. after repeated requests for scripture verses, the only answer i got was; "scriptures do not have to speak on evolution'

sorry but it does or it is not God's word and we cannot trust anything contained therein, including our salvation.

scriptures does speak on origins and it lays it out in Gen. 1 and other biblical passages thus the servant of God must speak those words not the words of secular science, who are not members of God's kingdom, or its 'evidences'. the believer is reminded that the 'just shall live by faith' though that does not exclude evidence but it does exclude the world's interpretation of said evidence.

Gen. 1:31 puts an end to evolutionary thought and tells the believer it is not possible.

3. believers are to preach the gospel of Jesus christ. well the word 'gospel' means good news and that is not limited to a salvation message but to origins as well. it is good news to be free from what the world says about how everything began. listen to what 2 Cor. 4:1-6 has to say:

1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"[a]made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

{bold mine} as servants of God we do not change the meanings of passages to fit the secular view point, nor do we dismiss books of the Bible because we cannot believe them as written or because science can't prove them true.

scripture does not tell us to follow secular science's methods, theories nor to look to secular science for our proof before we believe.

thus as servant's of God we preach God's word as it is written, with a little help from other areas of life for clarity and understanding. at no time is a believer or servant of God at liberty to make wholesale changes to the Bible or make God out to be a liar.

4. the final reason one has to believe a literal gensis account for their slavation, is the ramifications of the actions of those who turn to alternatives. you dismiss one part of the Bible thenyou dismiss our salvation for you such dismissal just destroys the message, credibility of all the words written in the book.

one cannot say they believe God, then change or omit verses to to fit their comfort zone. such acts say they then declare that they do not believe God and with such a declaration.

it does not matter if non-believers reject a creationist viewpoint, what matters is that believers are faithul and obedient to God and preach His words resisting the temptation to change the message to make it more attractive to the unbeliever.

but being true to God's word, then the unbeliever is without excuse but change the message then they are given an excuse for not believing and that excuse is create dby those who say they believe and follow God.

5. by turning to alternatives, the believer thenopens themselves up to all sorts of tricks and deception done by the devil, which will again entangle the believer into that which he/she was once freed. it is possible to lose one salvation.

so in the long run, yes your salvation depends upon believing a literal genesis, it is not a requirement for salvaton but when one says they believe the truth (Jesus) then they must stick to the truth. evolution or any form thereof is not the truth as jesus and His disciples spoke of a literal creation act as described in the first chapter of Genesis (along with many other writers of the books of the Bible)

 

[KerrMetric]

1, it is correct that you do not have to believe in a literal genesis to be saved

Contrast the above with ......

4. the final reason one has to believe a literal gensis account for their slavation

And below we get presented with the dichotomy in the same sentence.

so in the long run, yes your salvation depends upon believing a literal genesis, it is not a requirement for salvaton but when one says they believe the truth (Jesus) then they must stick to the truth

Er.....do you actually know what the heck you are doing here?

I'm not a literalist but I do literally think you are completely lost on here. You post contradictions of your own position within a few words of each other.

Embarrassing.

 

[crawfish]

That may be the friendliest, most well-thought out post I've read from you. Such effort deserves a reward, so I'll answer with no pretense.

Point 1: I 2 Corinthians, Paul doesn't mention the specific teachings of the false prophets. However, based on study of the time and location we can be pretty sure that Corinth was a hotbed for the beginnings of gnosticism. Essentially, what the false prophets were doing was a) denying the divinity of Jesus, and/or b) denying the concept of grace, adding their own rules and regulations.

TE's, in the vast majority, deny neither of these things. We are as pure as any creationist in the belief of the gospel. We believe in the virgin birth and the resurrection. We do not attempt to add or subtract laws to God's word. We are NOT false prophets.

Point 2: evolution has been observed in nature during our lifetimes. Evolution is as much as fact as gravity, the shape of the earth or the makeup of the solar system. It has so much factual support behind it that no one who understands can possibly deny it. The TOE is simply an extension of the FACT of evolution over billions of years. Sure, details are lacking, and some holes are fairly large; but we have enough to have a general sense of the entire picture; some of our thinking may be wrong, but it's HIGHLY unlikely that the big picture is.

There is also more than ample evidence that the earth is over 6,000, or 10,000, or even 100,000 years old. Ample is probably understating things; OVERWHELMING evidence. From every field of science. A conspiracy to trick us would have to be so vast and complicated that it would be unreasonable.

The bible doesn't have to mention evolution any more than it has to mention the fact that all things are made up of atoms or how the various chemical reactions inside our bodies work. The details are simply beyond the purpose of the text.


Point 3: The gospel most certainly does NOT include the creation story, nor any of the OT. Gentile believers in the first century were not given the Torah to study. They were told the gospel of Christ, they were told the prophecies that foretold him, and were told about the one God; any attempt to force a prior belief on us is patently opposed to the words of Paul.

Point 4 and 5: Conservative, literalist dogma hardly needs a non-literal view of creation to seed distention and disagreement. Just how many denominations are there? How many opinions on different subjects? On topics such as election, grace, works, need to obey OT laws, day of the week to worship, worship practices, communion, church hierarchy and hundreds of others we find ourselves at odds among literalistic groups! Every one of these creeds believes that it is the TRUE interpretation of scripture and others are mistaken. Has not Satan already taken hold?

We cannot depend on literal/legalistic ways to look at scripture to keep us pure. I have tried - perhaps you can stay consistent for a chapter, a book, but eventually you must use contradictory logic to make it all hold together; and how can God contradict Himself? The ONLY answer is to use the tools God has given us, through the sciences and learning, to pray for God's guidance, and to seek the answers knowing that He will answer. I feel God very clearly speaking to me when I ask Him. In short, God wants me to help lead the effort to move His people through a time of rapid change and difficult theological challenges.

 

[archaeologist]

Point 1: I 2 Corinthians, Paul doesn't mention the specific teachings of the false prophets. However, based on study of the time and location we can be pretty sure that Corinth was a hotbed for the beginnings of gnosticism. Essentially, what the false prophets were doing was a) denying the divinity of Jesus, and/or b) denying the concept of grace, adding their own rules and regulations.

okay, point one wasn't using corinthians but 2 peter and is making the point about being set free from the corruption of the world and then returning to it. and makes the point that the believer is not free to believe whtever they want but must adhere to what God says.

Point 2: evolution has been observed in nature during our lifetimes. Evolution is as much as fact as gravity, the shape of the earth or the makeup of the solar system. It has so much factual support behind it that no one who understands can possibly deny it. The TOE is simply an extension of the FACT of evolution over billions of years.

this is a hotly debated topic and i won't go into that here. point two is refering to the responsibility of a believer, whom they belong to and what they should be preaching. we see that God declares a 6 -24 hour days (evening & morning) and no natural processes, no billions of years.

thus the believer is restricted to following God and cannot follow what the world says for they no longer belong to the world but to God and His kingdom.

but it's HIGHLY unlikely that the big picture is.

this is why you consider the source and why i started a thread targeting the beliefs of those original evolutionary constructionists. it is very important to recognize the the foundations of the theory so one knows what is or isn't of God.

we are not to follow that which is not of God nor are we to follow secular science, blindly or otherwise, as it does not follow the leading of God; other reasons have been stated in other posts.

There is also more than ample evidence that the earth is over 6,000, or 10,000, or even 100,000 years old. Ample is probably understating things; OVERWHELMING evidence. From every field of science. A conspiracy to trick us would have to be so vast and complicated that it would be unreasonable.

the conspiracy doesn't have to come from humans. deception isn't coming just from non-believers but from the devil and his minions and humans do not have to be in cahoots just not be believers.

once one rejects the truth, then the door is open to lead people astray. i have never said secular scientists or archaeologists are in a conspiracy, but they are being led astray by the devil because they do not follow God.

plus one does not need a conspiracy when as the Bible says 'people are like sheep', all one needs is the snowball effect. it is not hard to get people to follow a false story, just have enough truth in it to to make it seem credible.

the evidence is based upon interpretation not actual fact and when secular people reject the truth, one cannot trust what they say for they are finding other alternatives to replace the truth.

Point 3: The gospel most certainly does NOT include the creation story, nor any of the OT. Gentile believers in the first century were not given the Torah to study. They were told the gospel of Christ, they were told the prophecies that foretold him, and were told about the one God; any attempt to force a prior belief on us is patently opposed to the words of Paul.

point 3 is where i used 2 corinthians and it focuses on what we do not do. believers are not to distort the word of God. notice it refers to all the word of God there and not just john 3:16

this does include creation, the flood, and other such events. notice the end of the bolded words: 'setting forth the truth plainly.' we can't get any plainer than genesis 1.

any attempt to force a prior belief on us is patently opposed to the words of Paul.

what prior belief? creation is part of the word of God, thus it comes with the salvation message.

4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers,

did you read this verse? this should clue you in on why we do not follow secular science, scientists, archaeologists and so on. it is a very clear statement as to the state of their minds. the believer must take this into account and cannot fully accept what unbelievers declare.

Point 4 and 5: Conservative, literalist dogma hardly needs a non-literal view of creation to seed distention and disagreement. Just how many denominations are there? How many opinions on different subjects

i am well aware of the variety of denominations and beliefs BUT that does not excuse a believer to participate in alternatives or to ignore God's word.

we are still obligated as servants of God to seek out the truth and proclaim that. turning to secular theories and evidences is not accomplishing that objective.

Every one of these creeds believes that it is the TRUE interpretation of scripture and others are mistaken. Has not Satan already taken hold?

in some ways yes, but Jesus said, 'ye shall know the truth...' so with God's help we learn what the truth is and go with that. accepting secular theories, or adapting them is not finding the truth.

We cannot depend on literal/legalistic

i would not equate literal with legalist. the two are vastly different. a legalist is someone who stops at every red light even when there is no traffic within miles of the intersection. a literalist says, a red light means stop.

ONLY answer is to use the tools God has given us, through the sciences

but there you go, He does say to get knowledge, wisdom etc., but He never gives permission to follow the secular world and their thinking, He says the opposite. so yes we are to learn but believers are to do it His way.

we cannot follow a form of science which leads us away from God. evidence is evidence and how one interprets it determines what the evidence is saying.

the fossil record is a prime example of this.

I feel God very clearly speaking to me when I ask Him. In short, God wants me to help lead the effort to move His people through a time of rapid change and difficult theological challenges.

maybe so, but if it is telling you to do it following worldy thinking then i would question the source. God will not tell you to go against His word, He would be telling you to sin then

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

Archeologist, I had discussions about salvation in the past with some of my older cousins in college with me. We talked about one losing his/her salvation by leaving God and giving up on him totally, or the person may be struggling with a particular or more sins in his/her life that they are asking God to help them with after they received Christ into their life. I understand about someone going back to their vomit such as sin. Which one of these are u considering, Archeologist? I'm not shouting u down. I just want clarification because when I got saved about 6 yrs ago I still had some sins that I was still dealing with such as lustful thoughts, writing sex stories to please my friends, lying sometimes, and was addicted to pornagraphy.

 

[archaeologist]

the verse or verses is not talking about struggling with sin, that is normal and to be expected.

what your situation seems to be saying is that evil has a strong hold on you in certain areas and you need to do some spiritual warfare to be finally free of it all. also check your desires to see if you left any footholds for evil to keep a grip on you.

what those verses are saying is, that it would be better for a person to never have been set free from the world and evil than to be set free and to return to it again and stop following what set you free.

basically, you are spitting on the work of Christ when you do that, to be blunt/

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

Well I got delivered from most of that stuff when I was a senior in high school and got closer to God. But I finally got over the porno with the help of some of my christian friends and cousins in college. I quit the sex writing a long time ago and when I was a senior I wrote sermons and christian poetry. I got 2 poems copyrighted on poetry.com. Thanks for the info, Archeologist.

 

[philadiddle]

pick one, just one

1, it is correct that you do not have to believe in a literal genesis to be saved ...

4. the final reason one has to believe a literal gensis account for their slavation...

You seem to be saying 2 things. So, without muddying up your answer with long drawn out explanation, just pick one of the 2 quotes listed above so that I know which statement it is that you believe.

 

[archaeologist]

You seem to be saying 2 things

no, i am not i am just connecting the dots for you . read it again, slower focusing on points 4 & 5 as it illustrates a process.

consider charles templeton as a prime example.

 

[Assyrian]

it has been stated many, many times by those who following alternatives that they do not have to believe in a literal genesis to receive salvation.

well yes and no. here are the reasons why.

1, it is correct that you do not have to believe in a literal genesis to be saved BUT this does not give license to believers to follow whatever they desire. scriptures lays out very clearly what a believer is supposed to do and warns them of returning to the corruption they were freed from. 2 peter 2:20-22 states:

20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit,"[a]and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud

so no, a believer is not free to believe whatever they like

Here is the problem. You are assuming the evolution qualifies a 'the corruption of the world', but not apparently a round earth, heliocentrism or double helix DNA or computers and the internet.

Let's have a look at what Peter is actually talking about.
2Pet 2:18 For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.

Peter wasn't talking about the pagan science of the time like Eratostenes showing the earth was a sphere. He was talking about the lust and debauchery rampant in the Pagan world.

2. when one becomes a believer, they become a member of the kingdom of God and they are required to follow God and His words for they are His servants. does God declare evolution--no. after repeated requests for scripture verses, the only answer i got was; "scriptures do not have to speak on evolution'

The same as they don't tell us the earth is a ball, or that it orbits the sun. The bible does not say DNA is a double helix or tells us the inverse square law of gravitation. Yet there is no contradiction between following God and understanding the science of the universe God created.

sorry but it does or it is not God's word and we cannot trust anything contained therein, including our salvation.

No mention of the DNA double helix and we can't trust the bible for salvation? No mention of heliocentrism so the bible is untrustworthy? This does not make sense, it simply does not follow.

scriptures does speak on origins and it lays it out in Gen. 1 and other biblical passages thus the servant of God must speak those words not the words of secular science, who are not members of God's kingdom, or its 'evidences'. the believer is reminded that the 'just shall live by faith' though that does not exclude evidence but it does exclude the world's interpretation of said evidence.

There is no contradiction between the word of God and evolution, just as there is not contradiction between the word of God and heliocentrism or a spherical earth. If it is right to take the world's interpretation of the evidence for heliocentrism or a round earth, and dismiss the literal meaning of passages that say the earth does not move and the sun rushes around the earth, then there should be no problem taking the same approach with the evidence for evolution and certain literalist interpretations of Genesis

Gen. 1:31 puts an end to evolutionary thought and tells the believer it is not possible.

See: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37504426&postcount=203

3. believers are to preach the gospel of Jesus christ. well the word 'gospel' means good news and that is not limited to a salvation message but to origins as well. it is good news to be free from what the world says about how everything began.

We were never commissioned to preach six day creationism.

listen to what 2 Cor. 4:1-6 has to say:

1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"[a]made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

{bold mine} as servants of God we do not change the meanings of passages to fit the secular view point, nor do we dismiss books of the Bible because we cannot believe them as written or because science can't prove them true.

That is exactly what you do with a round earth and heliocentrism. You ignore the plain meaning because you believe science. And that is what we should do. But coming to a correct interpretation of passages is not dismissing these verses.

scripture does not tell us to follow secular science's methods, theories nor to look to secular science for our proof before we believe.

Nor does it tell us to ignore science. It does tell us to love the truth.

thus as servant's of God we preach God's word as it is written, with a little help from other areas of life for clarity and understanding. at no time is a believer or servant of God at liberty to make wholesale changes to the Bible or make God out to be a liar.

I thought searching the scripture and trying to find the meaning was recommended in the bible? Certainly interpreting allegories allegorically and figurative passages is figuratively is the best way to understand them. Interpreting 'this is my body' figuratively isn't make changes or calling Jesus a liar is it?

4. the final reason one has to believe a literal gensis account for their slavation, is the ramifications of the actions of those who turn to alternatives. you dismiss one part of the Bible thenyou dismiss our salvation for you such dismissal just destroys the message, credibility of all the words written in the book.

This might make sense if the bible wasn't so full of metaphor and allegory already.

one cannot say they believe God, then change or omit verses to to fit their comfort zone. such acts say they then declare that they do not believe God and with such a declaration.

Ad Hom. You are assuming we interpret Genesis allegorically for our own comfort.

it does not matter if non-believers reject a creationist viewpoint, what matters is that believers are faithul and obedient to God and preach His words resisting the temptation to change the message to make it more attractive to the unbeliever.

And yet you don't preach a flat earth and geocentrism...

but being true to God's word, then the unbeliever is without excuse but change the message then they are given an excuse for not believing and that excuse is create dby those who say they believe and follow God.

Actually the best excuse non believer have is when people claim the bible teaches things they know are not true.

5. by turning to alternatives, the believer thenopens themselves up to all sorts of tricks and deception done by the devil, which will again entangle the believer into that which he/she was once freed. it is possible to lose one salvation.

The big concern of the NT writers was that Satan was quite capable of operating in the church and deceiving people. He is also quite good at quoting scripture too. The big problem with YEC is that in the name of defending the word of God people start to twist the truth and deny the plain meaning of evidence. Your attempts to twist out of the clear meaning of what Beet wrote, or the church fathers, is really dangerous. If anything open us up to the snare of the devil it is being dishonest to ourselves and others.

so in the long run, yes your salvation depends upon believing a literal genesis, it is not a requirement for salvaton but when one says they believe the truth (Jesus) then they must stick to the truth. evolution or any form thereof is not the truth as jesus and His disciples spoke of a literal creation act as described in the first chapter of Genesis (along with many other writers of the books of the Bible)

Does anyone outside of Moses' Penteteuch refer to a six day creation? And as we have seen, Moses himself didn't take God's day literally (Psalm 90:4), he even used the word day figuratively in Gen 2:4, and gave two completely different orders of creation in the accounts in Gen 1&2. That does not sound like someone who who is trying to give us a literal chronology of creation.

 

[Nachtjager]

Contrast the above with ......



And below we get presented with the dichotomy in the same sentence.




Er.....do you actually know what the heck you are doing here?

I'm not a literalist but I do literally think you are completely lost on here. You post contradictions of your own position within a few words of each other.

Embarrassing.

Perhaps he's trying to mimic or draw parallels to the many contradictions in Genesis itself? Does Genesis not often state the same thing twice with two differing accounts?

Maybe Archie's merely trying to be consistent with Genesis?

Again, for what it's worth, I don't worry about creation - it's here, it's been here a long time, that's about it.

Take care and God bless.

 

[crawfish]

okay, point one wasn't using corinthians but 2 peter and is making the point about being set free from the corruption of the world and then returning to it. and makes the point that the believer is not free to believe whtever they want but must adhere to what God says.

Sorry for the error, but same difference. Those verses would not apply to most TE's, and certainly not to anyone who believes as I do. I follow Christ in all I do...even if it leads me down the nontraditional path. Many have done so before, gone down paths that marked them as heretics, but they only said things that mainline Christians agree with today.

We cannot believe whatever we want, but we MUST allow ourselves to be led by God. That does not always take us down comfortable paths.

this is a hotly debated topic and i won't go into that here. point two is refering to the responsibility of a believer, whom they belong to and what they should be preaching. we see that God declares a 6 -24 hour days (evening & morning) and no natural processes, no billions of years.

TOE is a hotly debated topic. You cannot deny the general process of evolution. Even most YEC's accept this. Accepting that the creation account doesn't say what LITERALLY happened is not a scientific stand but a theological one; a problem of interpretation. You can completely rule scientific/evolutionary theory out and I'd come to the same conclusion.

thus the believer is restricted to following God and cannot follow what the world says for they no longer belong to the world but to God and His kingdom.

Even you admit that there is a difference between following God and the path we take in the world. I'm a software engineer, and it's not wrong for me to have that career because CS isn't a product of biblical Christianity. Being a scientist is the same thing.

this is why you consider the source and why i started a thread targeting the beliefs of those original evolutionary constructionists. it is very important to recognize the the foundations of the theory so one knows what is or isn't of God.

If I have a puzzle with 25% of its pieces in the proper order randomly distributed on a table, I can make assumptions about what it's going to be. The more pieces I have in place, the better my assumptions will be. Each correct piece narrows the possibilities of what the final picture will be; I can come up with a list of what it might be, and what it definitely is not.

We have enough pieces to know that a literal Genesis is out of the question. It doesn't mean we have all the pieces in place, but it does mean that we should find other answers.

we are not to follow that which is not of God nor are we to follow secular science, blindly or otherwise, as it does not follow the leading of God; other reasons have been stated in other posts.

We all follow "that which is not God" every day. We use the internet, watch TV, drive cars, etc. It's not what we follow, but what we dedicate ourselves to.

Anyway, science isn't secular. God is the ultimate creator; science is the language He used to create everything. Studying His creation only leads us to Him.

the conspiracy doesn't have to come from humans. deception isn't coming just from non-believers but from the devil and his minions and humans do not have to be in cahoots just not be believers.

once one rejects the truth, then the door is open to lead people astray. i have never said secular scientists or archaeologists are in a conspiracy, but they are being led astray by the devil because they do not follow God.

Satan's power is over the individual, NOT over dissemination of information. I've known too many scientists of great faith to accept that they're under satan's control. God is guiding their careers and their discoveries, and is pleased when they give Him the credit.

plus one does not need a conspiracy when as the Bible says 'people are like sheep', all one needs is the snowball effect. it is not hard to get people to follow a false story, just have enough truth in it to to make it seem credible.

You're fooling yourself if you don't think the worst offenders are behind pulpits on Sunday morning. Where is Satan going to hurt the Church more than on the inside?

the evidence is based upon interpretation not actual fact and when secular people reject the truth, one cannot trust what they say for they are finding other alternatives to replace the truth.

Like I said - a more allegorical interpretation is ALSO just an interpretation issue. No different than the contradictory interpretations of election vs. arminianism.

point 3 is where i used 2 corinthians and it focuses on what we do not do. believers are not to distort the word of God. notice it refers to all the word of God there and not just john 3:16

this does include creation, the flood, and other such events. notice the end of the bolded words: 'setting forth the truth plainly.' we can't get any plainer than genesis 1.

Disagree. There was no "Holy Bible" when 2 Corinthians was written. Most of Paul's other letters - and the gospels - had not yet been committed to paper or were not in wide distribution.

Paul was addressing the proto-Gnostics that were taking a foothold in Corinth at the time. They were preaching a different gospel, not one of grace but one of knowledge; they also denied the divinity of Jesus.

what prior belief? creation is part of the word of God, thus it comes with the salvation message.

The Gentile Christians didn't necessarily know the Jewish creation story. They probably heard about it eventually - at least most did - but it would have been long after they'd received the holy spirit and been baptized.

did you read this verse? this should clue you in on why we do not follow secular science, scientists, archaeologists and so on. it is a very clear statement as to the state of their minds. the believer must take this into account and cannot fully accept what unbelievers declare.

Again, leave the term "secular science" behind. There are many believers who are part of the general scientific community. Some scientists may be secular, but science itself is not. It is an exploration of the methods of God.

i am well aware of the variety of denominations and beliefs BUT that does not excuse a believer to participate in alternatives or to ignore God's word.

we are still obligated as servants of God to seek out the truth and proclaim that. turning to secular theories and evidences is not accomplishing that objective.

You don't seem to accept that "seeking the truth" could lead to an allegorical interpretation of Genesis. If we know, then we hardly need to seek, do we?

in some ways yes, but Jesus said, 'ye shall know the truth...' so with God's help we learn what the truth is and go with that. accepting secular theories, or adapting them is not finding the truth.

"The truth" today is vastly different than "the truth" 2000 years ago. The gospel is the same - meaning, the gospel of God's grace and the cross - but how we view the universe around us is VASTLY different. We would all be radical heretics if we went back to the first century and spoke of what we know. In 2000 more years, that difference will be even more pronounced.

Which is the brilliance of God's word - that it can stay valid against such massive change.

i would not equate literal with legalist. the two are vastly different. a legalist is someone who stops at every red light even when there is no traffic within miles of the intersection. a literalist says, a red light means stop.

I did that for inclusion more than comparison. Not all literalists are legalists; not all legalists are literalists. Both together tend to hold more traditional views of the scripture, though.

but there you go, He does say to get knowledge, wisdom etc., but He never gives permission to follow the secular world and their thinking, He says the opposite. so yes we are to learn but believers are to do it His way.

If "His way" means I pray for guidance daily, read His word and go where He leads, then I should be find on that account.

we cannot follow a form of science which leads us away from God. evidence is evidence and how one interprets it determines what the evidence is saying.

Agreed, but evolution/TE is NOT leading away from God. It is leading us closer to Him.

the fossil record is a prime example of this.

Fossil record. Speed of light. Limestone formations in caves. Over and over and over again, we find things that point us to a very old earth, a very old universe. The combination of all of these evidences is staggering.

maybe so, but if it is telling you to do it following worldy thinking then i would question the source. God will not tell you to go against His word, He would be telling you to sin then.

You don't need to accept evolution. You don't need to accept science. What you do need to accept is that people can come up with vastly different views over bible interpretation; but as long as we're all seeking God's will, all will be cleared up in the end.

God is a complicated God. I have no doubt that He can have two seemingly contradictory purposes for two people - one, he has hold strongly to the traditional belief, the other, he has challenge it - but for His purposes both are necessary. You are in no position to judge my heart, nor I yours; I suggest we both hold to our views but let God do the judging.

 

[archaeologist]

verses would not apply to most TE's, and certainly not to anyone who believes as I do

use them as a warning then and i will disagree with the rest.

We cannot believe whatever we want, but we MUST allow ourselves to be led by God. That does not always take us down comfortable paths

it also doesn't go against God's word, or leads one to sin.

You cannot deny the general process of evolution

i can and do. evolution doesn't exist and you confuse many things with the result of the fall of man.

Accepting that the creation account doesn't say what LITERALLY happened

sorry but it does. God spoke,it appeared. we know what literally happened.

Even you admit that there is a difference between following God and the path we take in the world. I'm a software engineer, and it's not wrong for me to have that career because CS isn't a product of biblical Christianity. Being a scientist is the same thing.

no you have it confused. the Bible says 'a man does not work, neither shall he eat'. every man needs a job doesn't matter who you are, christian or non. but if you use that job to deny what God did and His word then you have a problem.

We have enough pieces to know that a literal Genesis is out of the question

then you have it wrong for God says in isaiah 55:8-9 that His ways are different than man's and they are higher. God didn't go according to secular science's assumptions.

We all follow "that which is not God" every day. We use the internet, watch TV, drive cars, etc. It's not what we follow, but what we dedicate ourselves to.

then you misunderstand what the term 'follow' means. i use the internet but i do not follow it. i drive my car but i do not follow it. i follow God not that which is not of God. those items are not what i pray to.

Anyway, science isn't secular. God is the ultimate creator; science is the language He used to create everything. Studying His creation only leads us to Him

but it is as it is affected by the fall of man as well and is fallible, corruptible, and so on. please quote the verse which staes that God used science as the language to create everything. i do not recall ever seeing one.

the last sentence is wrong, the Holy Spirit leads us to Him and teaches us all things: john 14:26

Satan's power is over the individual, NOT over dissemination of information

not true as the bible says the 'devil comes disguised as an angel of light...' also look at:eph 4:27, 6:11, among other passages. what do you think deception and deceiving are, it is manipulating information.

I've known too many scientists of great faith to accept that they're under satan's control

never said they were under his control, he has more ways to manipulate than just controlling someone.

God is guiding their careers and their discoveries, and is pleased when they give Him the credit.

is he pleased when they proclaim what is not of God? like evolution?

You're fooling yourself if you don't think the worst offenders are behind pulpits on Sunday morning. Where is Satan going to hurt the Church more than on the inside

i have been behind the pulpit, i know more than you do concerning this, it is wise you do not go there. do what peter says, 'make your own calling and electionsure...'

Like I said - a more allegorical interpretation is ALSO just an interpretation issue. No different than the contradictory interpretations of election vs. arminianism

i will disagree though i understand what you are saying.

Disagree. There was no "Holy Bible" when 2 Corinthians was written. Most of Paul's other letters - and the gospels - had not yet been committed to paper or were not in wide distribution

i believe 2 peter says differently, or it could be 1st not sure. the letters may not have been bound like they are today but they were already considered scriptures.
as for your take on corinthians, thatis a first.

The Gentile Christians didn't necessarily know the Jewish creation story. They probably heard about it eventually - at least most did - but it would have been long after they'd received the holy spirit and been baptized.

that is wrong. do you know how many non-believers know about the creation story ? in fact many of them know the bible better than christians do. believe me they would know, it wasn't a government secret.

Again, leave the term "secular science" behind. There are many believers who are part of the general scientific community. Some scientists may be secular, but science itself is not. It is an exploration of the methods of God

no i won't as there is a difference and your last sentence is wrong. science is looking only at the natural way not god's. they are not exploring the methods of God because as they all say, 'they can't put God or the supernatural in a test tube'.

God's ways are higher than man's so they aren't even close.

You don't seem to accept that "seeking the truth" could lead to an allegorical interpretation of Genesis. If we know, then we hardly need to seek, do we

because it isn't allegorical and no we donot need to seek how God did it because he told us--He spoke and it was. how are you going to examine that method?
it would be wiser to use scientific knowledge to make people's lives better. how many poor people are there who still need cleanwater? decent housing? farmable land?
don't you think solving those problems are a better useof time than pursuing secular science's theories about the origin of the world?

The truth" today is vastly different than "the truth" 2000 years ago.

no. God says He never changes, so the truth never changes. just because technology changes, does it mean the truth does. 2000 years from now, if we live that long, the truth will be the same as it is today.

this would be a longer answer but i am getting tired.

Agreed, but evolution/TE is NOT leading away from God. It is leading us closer to Him.

sorry but that is false. it isn't, as it proclaims something different than God's word. you are just fooling yourself .

we find things that point us to a very old earth, a very old universe. The combination of all of these evidences is staggering.

it is all based upon interpretation and the fossil record cannot tell you how many years passed since it was found and when it was living.

this interpretation depends upon too many outrageous stories to keep it going. it is funny that dinosaur bones are dug up near the surface, while Woolley dug down over 100 feet approx. to find flood evidence.

evolutionist's explanation: plate movement bringing up the bones andfossils. problem with the explanation: this movement is not evident in any archaeological dig and has not affected one ancient city, and they have dug the world over.

What you do need to accept is that people can come up with vastly different views over bible interpretation; but as long as we're all seeking God's will, all will be cleared up in the end.

no, too many souls will be lost with this kind of thinking. we preach the truth because Jesus said He is the Truth and we get the truth now not at the end.

one, he has hold strongly to the traditional belief,

no, that is not what scriptures says, 'ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.' there is not a myriad of beliefs, just one--john 3:16

 

[Jase]

I honestly don't know why any of us bother arguing with archie anymore. You can't beat the sin of pride. You can't argue with someone who believes they are never wrong.

 

[crawfish]

Well, I thought I'd give it one last try before giving up. I'm done now.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

Well I admit I'm wrong sometimes, but I like to be right a lot. I try to use Romans 12:1-2 as a helper for that. I'm not correct on everything I say on christianforums but also in my personal life. I try to stay around people who are wise and credible in what they're doing.

Another thing. Some people on here can write so much. How do u find the time to do all of this?

 

[Assyrian]

reps for honesty integrity and openheartedness

 

[archaeologist]

Another thing. Some people on here can write so much. How do u find the time to do all of this?

it is summer vacation for me so i have limited teaching hours.

[QUOTEI honestly don't know why any of us bother arguing with archie anymore. You can't beat the sin of pride. You can't argue with someone who believes they are never wrong.][/QUOTE]

how is it sin of pride when i point to the Bible? How is the Bible wrong?

all you have shown is that regardless of what the Bible says, you will do it the world's way because it is more attractive than God's.

i make no claims tobeing right 100% of the time but God does, humans do not have the right or authority to say He is wrong or that His word is wrong.

God has given people the choice---follow the world (including secular science) or Him (and use faith).