I think you should back up of your claims that the apostles taught irrelevant subjects and claimed them to be the word of God.California Tim said:
Upvote
0
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.
I think you should back up of your claims that the apostles taught irrelevant subjects and claimed them to be the word of God.California Tim said:Oh boy .. It's time for me to bow out of this particular exchange. It's heading the wrong way.
I'll give you a hint. I already provided one example a few posts ago - concerning Paul's position on how to treat the days of the week.versastyle said:I think you should back up of your claims that the apostles taught irrelevant subjects, and thus claim them to be the word of God.
I do not see how Paul says to actively push your opinion of irrelevant issues onto others.California Tim said:I'll give you a hint. I already provided one example a few posts ago - concerning Paul's position on how to treat the days of the week.
Like I said, it seems apparent we've started off on the wrong foot. I am not here not to present to you an essential doctrine in the creation account, but to simply engage in the debate of two opposing points of view within the faith. I personally find the process enjoyable, the fellowship exciting and the motivation to study the Word even more rewarding. If you feel this is too divisive, I must apologize since that is not my intent, and I've tried my best to convey that numerous times here. A quick review of my post history will hopefully demonstrate a sincere effort to remain on topic and off the personal attacks. If you see otherwise, I deserve rebuke.versastyle said:I do not see how Paul says to actively push your opinion of irrelevant issues onto others.
In fact it seems Paul is making the same point as I. He's saying let God guide you in these matters, but he does not assume that this knowledge is important to spread to others or judge people with.
It seems you have a captured and misused a verse out of contexr.
This is how I have read into what you have said on this forum. I have seen you questioning the motives of others, and you have doubted their abilities in following God's word because they do not follow your line of thinking. This is where I see the problem.California Tim said:Like I said, it seems apparent we've started off on the wrong foot. I am not here not to present to you an essential doctrine in the creation account, but to simply engage in the debate of two opposing points of view within the faith. I personally find the process enjoyable, the fellowship exciting and the motivation to study the Word even more rewarding. If you feel this is too divisive, I must apologize since that is not my intent, and I've tried my best to convey that numerous times here. A quick review of my post history will hopefully demonstrate a sincere effort to remain on topic and off the personal attacks. If you see otherwise, I deserve rebuke.
I agree that developing a doctrine around the issue of origins is where the problem lies. And this is exactly what most Creationists do and what TE's do not do. Creationists tend to develop a doctrine that if their literal/historical interpretation is not correct, then other Scriptures must be unreliable or untrustworthy. Thus, they elevate their interpretation of historic literalism to a doctrine that would effect the validity of rest of Scripture. This is very dangerous since people raised in this environment will approach the issue of origins in an "either/or" mindset. I do not need to tell you how dangerous this can be. More importantly, it is an unecessary danger.California Tim said:Sure, I agree a person can hold the wrong view on a non-essential and still be right about salvation. One person can be a vegetarian, another an omnivore and both can be saved. But if either the vegetarian or the omnivore builds a doctrine around the one issue, it could very well indicate a potential problem with the person's relationship with Christ and acceptance of scripture as authoritative and reliable.
Well, first of all, I think your bias is showing through if you think that someone with a different view regarding Scripture might be more likely to not really be saved. But there are a couple of misconceptions that you are continuing to hang on to. Even if you don't accept TE, you should at least by now understand what we are saying. First, we don't in any way limit God's participation. God created all of it, everything. Would you say that God was less involved because He used dirt to create Adam and accomplished His Creation over six days than if He had just popped it all into existence instantaneously? We both believe God used a process and that He did it over a period of time, we just have different ideas about the process and the amount of time. Would you say that God is less in control of His creation because photosynthesis happens as a natural process rather than direct Divine intervention in every cellular event?California Tim said:I won't go into exact comparisons, but I suspect a large number of self-professed Christians who might not actually be saved would also adopt a creation account that limits God's participation. I do not insinuate that such belief in and of itself precludes salvation, but if it is based on the rejection of the innerancy of the Bible, then we may have a problem.
No, I was not referring to you. But there are many Creationists who use this as a primary argument. "if you don't accept the literal reading of Genesis 1, then how can you accept the Bible for anything?! How can you accept the resurrection?" They believe that a different interpretation than theirs will necessarily lead to disbelief in other areas of Scripture. This has been proven a false dichotomy, as I said.California Tim said:In your case, and mine, we differ on the interpretation, but neither denies the authority of what is written - so it's a different animal altogether from that which is referred to in your quote. I am not questioning your salvation, just your basis for interpretation of the creation account.
Whenever a passage is altered, whether it be a literal account misrepresented as a figurative one or figurative as literal, there is a very real danger of becoming susceptible to following false doctrines. Indeed you demonstrate the very same concern that those who disagree with your interpretation are setting a dangerous precedent. I think it is obvious that we can agree that we disagree on the creation account. We can also clearly declare our concern for those who disagree with us since each of us feels the opposing view represents error. Naturally such a conclusion would call into question the opponents bias in scriptural interpetation on other issues and clearly this is NOT a trait the only YEC'ists have cornered the market on. Let me quote you as an example:Vance said:TE's don't face this problem because they can fully accept the authority and validity of Scripture whether literal or not. So, in reality, there is less of a danger of failing to accept Scriptural teaching.
So we both feel the opposing view carries inherrent dangers when elevated to the status of doctrine when in fact it is not. Furthermore, one cannot even begin to question the opposing view unless convinced themselves of holding the "true interpretation". Personally I would like to stick to the issues and get past this particular quagmire of circular argument of worrying whether one or the other of us is questioning motive. We both question the other insofar as correct interpretation is concerned. Like it or or love it, it's the basis for all debate. "Test the spirits" is not a suggestion but an exhortation for all Christians. I expect you to question my bias, and would love just once to let this issue float to the surface and accept it as fact that everyone does to one extent or another when debating. I take no offense when there is implication I am in error or unsound doctrinally - even though I disagree, it is to be expected. I say let's accept that fact, and present our opinions.Creationists tend to develop a doctrine that if their literal/historical interpretation is not correct, then other Scriptures must be unreliable or untrustworthy. Thus, they elevate their interpretation of historic literalism to a doctrine that would effect the validity of rest of Scripture.
No, you don't have to give up miracles. We call them miracles and that then places them outside of scientific verification. Your argument is highly flawed and ignores this basic point.California Tim said:I addressed this issue in my thread titled "When secular science and the Bible disagree..." where I asked this very question - "which takes precedence?" If the Bible is to be reevaluated by the "evidence" secular science presents regarding evolution and age of the Earth, then it is ALL open to interpretation by the same standard. In that case one may as well dismiss the account of Christ feeding the 5000 as physically impossible - a fairy tale with nice morals. The plagues of Egypt can now all be explained by natural phenomenon- no need for Moses to claim God's power. Manna from heaven, parting the Red Sea, Sun standing still, walls of Jerhico falling down by trumpets, the Virgin Birth, resurrection of the dead, restoration of lost sight, walking on water, and of course the ever popular discounted miracles of the flood and Jonah - all may be dismissed by the authority of natural law. Personally, I feel when the two disagree, it's the evidence that must be scrutinized in light of Biblical truth.
Oh, reaaaallllly? CAn you cite the author and paper where this prediction was made? I would be really curious. I know who first noted the gaps. Do you?The YEC account correctly predicted the gaps in the fossil record,
No it doesn't. This is from my web page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/erosion.htmthe Mississippi river delta also attests to a young earth.
California Tim said:That was the gist of my point and I appreciate you having agreed with it. That also happens to be my take on the literal 6 days of creation - in spite of the so-called evidence that suggests it was physically impossible.
I couldnt have said it better myself. God blessIf a person believes in YEC, fine. I would not try to convince them otherwise. But consider the damage caused if that message is preached as dogmatic doctrine and it is wrong. Immense. If TE turns out to be wrong, on the other hand, little or no harm done. All we are doing is showing people how they can believe in both without any problems. "Something to consider, another viewpoint, what I happen to believe, check it out for yourself, it is not a salvation issue, the Bible is still reliable and trustworthy regardless." This can only add people to the Kingdom and can not push any away.
It just seems like YEC'ism is simply too dangerous a position to teach as dogmatic doctrine, when the downside is so huge. And there really is very little upside since you can reach people with the Gospel and grow them as Christians without YEC'ism ever being mentioned.
Now, I would never advocate teaching something you don't believe just because it will win souls, that would be the worst witness imaginable. But if you happend to be YEC, all I ask is that you don't preach it dogmatically, as an 'either/or' proposition, in which the Scripture is completely inconsistent with what they believe about origins (or may come to believe later). All I ask is that it be taught as a non-esential, non-salvation issue, and something that honest, Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians differ on.
That is not asking too much, is it?
I have no doubt that using the tabulation methods of secular science that ALL the evidence supports an old earth. It could not help but do that since the earth is presupposed old and the dating methods calibrated accordingly. I know we could go round and round on one example after another, but let me use this one for now.Vance said:You know, if the evidence in favor of a young earth was 50/50, that would be different. But honestly, my review of the evidence in some detail has convinced me that the likelihood that the earth could really be less than 10,000 years old is less than 1%. It really is that dramatic.
How are the different strata layer dated?Vance said:Really. They don't say, "ah, the earth is old, so this must be what happened
They take a multitude of samples of rocks then date them. They throw out the dates that are incosistent with the rest of the dates.California Tim said:How are the different strata layer dated?
California Tim said:I have no doubt that using the tabulation methods of secular science that ALL the evidence supports an old earth. It could not help but do that since the earth is presupposed old and the dating methods calibrated accordingly. I know we could go round and round on one example after another, but let me use this one for now.
Take the Grand Canyon for example: Most scientists will contend it was formed over a very long period of time, steadily and consistently (at a constant rate). To anyone who accepts this notion, it makes sense in light of the theory that the age of the earth is supposedly billions of years. On the other hand, I've personally seen, and we have all been privy (thanks to the weather channel) to witnessing incredible erosion in desert areas from a single cloudburst. So to a young earther, the Grand Canyon represents proof of the scarring resulting from the receeding Biblical flood. Frankly, in that light, it makes perfect sense.
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?