YEC's Unite Continued

[notto]

Why do you state as fact what you can't possibly know? Pride comes before a fall,a haughty spirit before destruction. I would suggest to you as a brother in Christ to not believe everything you here. And in evolution theory i would ask you to remember this. Interpretations are many for lots of facts, but only one truth for each of those facts. May the Lord open us up to them. Satan is a counterfeiter, Christ is the Truth.

Name 3 'leading scientists' who are for YEC.

List their publications and where they were peer reviewed.

List their credentials in the area of geology or biology and how those credentials and what they study makes them an authority on the matter.

Show us where anybody considers them leading scientists and why.

 

[GodSaves]

What I see here is YEC put all their faith in God and what His Written Word says. TE, OEC, but their faith in God only if science can prove it happened.

2 Timothy 4:3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

 

[GodSaves]

Name 3 'leading scientists' who are for YEC.

List their publications and where they were peer reviewed.

List their credentials in the area of geology or biology and how those credentials and what they study makes them an authority on the matter.

Show us where anybody considers them leading scientists and why.

Not a YEC, but...

Francis Crick, biologist, nobel prize winner, founder of DNA, states that 4.6 billion years is not enough time for life to evolve. He also states that the cell is so complex that it could not have come out of the primordial soup. He suggests that aliens planted seeds in our oceans, and that is where we came from.
Francis Crick is a brilliant biologist, influencial in his field. Wonder how many will be influenced by his new theory. We will soon have the big bang theory, evolution, and the alien life theory. And will TE's and OEC follow in this belief as well? Even if science comes out and says this is the new 'fact?'

I find it funny that science has claimed things to be facts and then found later they are false. And in light of this, I find it funny that people who claim to be of God, believe science which has been wrong countless times. Not what I call "sound doctrine."

 

[Freedom777]

Name 3 'leading scientists' who are for YEC.

List their publications and where they were peer reviewed.

List their credentials in the area of geology or biology and how those credentials and what they study makes them an authority on the matter.

Show us where anybody considers them leading scientists and why.

Here are some.http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

and more http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html

and more http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html

Let me guess, ummm oooh them scientists are all loony toons. NOT!

 

[notto]

Here are some.http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

and more http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html

and more http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html

Let me guess, ummm oooh them scientists are all loony toons. NOT!

You didn't answer the questions, please be specific.

List their publications and where they were peer reviewed.

List their credentials in the area of geology or biology and how those credentials and what they study makes them an authority on the matter.

Show us where anybody considers them leading scientists and why.

The few I looked at were either non-practicing, work for ICR (hardly were 'leading scientists' end up), or have most of their exerience in the 1950-60's and converted to Christ BEFORE they stopped accepting evolution.

Not a lot of 'leading scientists' turning to YEC today. Can you name any that are contemporary, that are considered 'leading' within the scientific community, and have published any relevent work in the area? Name 3 that have abandon evolution in the last 10 years.

I can outnumber that list with contemporary scientists who accept evolution who are named Steve alone.

You still have some work to do to back up your statement:
"

Then why is there a movment with many of todays leading scientists FOR YEC?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

What I see here is YEC put all their faith in God and what His Written Word says. TE, OEC, but their faith in God only if science can prove it happened.

2 Timothy 4:3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

And I see people refusing to look at what God is telling them through this vast Creation that He made.

Let's start with these premises:

A. God inspired Scripture.
B. God created the Universe.
C. God is Truth.
D. Humans are fallable.

From A and C, we know that the message of Scripture is true.
From B and C, we know that Creation does not contain disception.
Combing these with D tells us that if one sees a conflict between Scripture and Creation, it must be an err on the one's part. Since humans can err in their understanding of both Scripture and Creation, it is wrong to assume that the err lies with one or the other until one has eliminated most of the possibility of err in their interpretations of either Creation or Scripture.

 

[GodSaves]

And I see people refusing to look at what God is telling them through this vast Creation that He made.

Let's start with these premises:

A. God inspired Scripture.
B. God created the Universe.
C. God is Truth.
D. Humans are fallable.

From A and C, we know that the message of Scripture is true.
From B and C, we know that Creation does not contain disception.
Combing these with D tells us that if one sees a conflict between Scripture and Creation, it must be an err on the one's part. Since humans can err in their understanding of both Scripture and Creation, it is wrong to assume that the err lies with one or the other until one has eliminated most of the possibility of err in their interpretations of either Creation or Scripture.

Who says there is a conflict between scripture and creation? Scientists, right? And who created all the methods? Man, right? And look at your "D" statement, Humans are fallible.
So one must go to the Bible and look for how one is to interpret Genesis. The Bible is after all the Holy Word of God. You will find Paul talked about creation, saying God made it plain to us.(Romans 1:18-22) You will find Jesus talk about Genesis and the creation of man, saying as it is written. So there is no credibility issue with Genesis. Then look in Genesis it says that light was called day, and darkness was called night.(Genesis 1:3-5) After each day of creation the scriptures end with the phrase "And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day."(Genesis 1:5) And it continues with second day, third day, fourth day, and so on. Now the Hebrew word of day is 'yome' and yome means

Strong #3117
Yome
1. day (24 hour period)
a. defined by evening and morning

Now, many say that yome means ages, but yome is never used in the Bible to refer to ages. Yome is used rexclusively in Genesis when it says "the first day" and so on. Now look back at Romans 1:18-20, and look at the verse before Paul talks of creation, and it says God made it plain. And concludes with so man has no excuse. Now look at the definition given by God for a day, evening and morning - the first day, is this not plain? Didn't God right there describe what a day is, evening and morning?

Now look at Romans 1:22 it says "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." Don't evolutionists say we came from bacteria, and eventual some primitive type of ape? Sounds like exchanging the glory of God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Now look at 2 Timothy 4:3-4
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." Evolutionists have not turned to a sound doctrine. Science cannot be a sound doctrine because the so called facts change so often because of new evidence. The Bible is sound doctrine, and the Bible tells us how the universe was created, and God made sure that the Bible tells us how to interpret it. Science in a sense suits its own needs, because someone is always trying to "prove" something and because they are there is a bias. Look at the part where it says "gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." Scientists are teachers in a sense because they try to teach what they say they have learned. The last statement "away from the truth and turn aside to myths." The Bible has the truth, and the big bang theory, evolution in the sense of how man evolved are all myths. They have never been proven because science has no evidence.

Now once again, I challenge TE's to present Bible verses that back up their interpretation of Genesis to be allegorical. So far all TE's on here can say is "science says this or that" or "science shows no evidence of this or that" and I ask again who are the leaders of science? Are they not men? And what was the 'D' point again.... Humans are fallible! So either put your faith(as far as creation and the great miracles of the OT) in men or God. And remember, God made it plain so men are without excuse.

Mark 10:6 "But from the Beginning of creation God made them male and female."

Revelations 19:6 "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."

 

[Ron21647]

Ok, so am I correct then to believe that theistic evolutionists believe men evolved from apes? A few more questions:

Do theistic evolutionists believe there really is a God, or is God just an idea or philosophy?
Do theistic evolutionists believe that Jesus lived and was the Son of God?

I know I can go look this up on google to see what theistic evolutionists believe, but I am afraid I will learn and state what I read, then someone who is a theistic evolutionists will say I have it all wrong.

God Bless

I can only speak for myself, read my sig

After reading the next few posts after the one I replied to, I make the distinction that in the strict interpretation of the meaning of the words, we did not evolve from apes or monkeys, but rather share common ancestors with each of them. But in the common usage, those common ancestors would be considered apes or monkeys by most of us.

Ron

 

[Ron21647]

a) I doubt you can make such a statement leading us to believe you know the percentage of what scientists believe.
b) If you remove religion you can get all kinds of kooky ideas, I find it best to follow the Word of God rather than the fallible practices of fallible men.
c) The assumptions I refer to concern any radiometric dating method. Dating Methods go through the following to determine the age of a substance:
1) they observe the present state of the object
2) they observe the rate of change in the system
3) they make assumptions about the past
4) They calculate how long it for that process to produce the present state

The assumptions I mentioned in #3 are the following:
1) the decay rate has been steady and constant
2) no outside influences have tampered with the process
3) it was a certain state in the begining

Now if we look at these assumptions, we find they are so unreliable that the dating methods that use them are also ubnreliable:
1) Can we assume that the rate has been steady/constant? We can. Is it a good or safe assumption? Maybe, maybe not. This may be a safer assumtion than most so I will leave it alone.
2) Can we assume that no outside influences have tampered with the process? Not logically. How do we know nothing has extracted or added some of the parent or daughter sucstances? We don't, making this a hard one to swallow. Still, there are some areas where geologists are able to extract samples with assurity believing the sample was not tampered with.
3) Even if #'s 1-2 could be believable, we still must assume that we know the original concentration of the substances as they existed in the begining. This one requires a leap of faith. We are forced to assume (in this case, I would say guess) that we know how much of each substance there was in the beggining. We don't. Any figure given would be only a personal guess.

With these assumptions understood, we ought to be able to see the unreliablity of radiometric dating methods. :o

1) the decay rate is a constant

2) I'm not a geologist, but if we are talking about the inside of a non-porous volcanic rock, then yes, we can assume nothing has entered or left

3) with the isochron method, you do not need to assume the initial conditions, you calculate them along with the time. read up on it, there are plenty of articles

Ron

 

[Ron21647]

Actually, I have started a search in the Bible for such a thing.(evidence on how we should read Creation in Genesis) And I have so far in a few days search I have found many, that I believe to be very clear.
I will be continuing my research and after some TE's present such verses or conclude that man decided this was how they are going to interpret Creation, I will present my findings.
One thing I have learned in a recent study is that the Pharisees spent alot of time studying scriptures and analyzing them, but yet they missed the whole point.

So please if you can find some verses to back the TE belief I would love for you to share them.

Also, another question are TE believe in tolerance or intolerance?

God Bless

I don't think I have any specific verses leaning toward TE. I don't study the Bible that way anyhow. There are whole threads in this forum about "yom = day", or "baram = kind", and basing all sorts of deductions from that. This isn't a lawyer thing where you can base a whole system of beliefs on the meaning of a single word.

I prefer to read a whole chapter, or group of chapters, and decide what they mean. In the case of the first few chpaters of Genesis, they tell me that God is responsible for everything, and that he loves us. It also tells us that man is inherently evil, and that man has a conscience (tree of knowledge of good and evil). I don't know or care if Adam, the garden of eden, or the Fall are real specific events or not.

But I do know that I am a sinner (but forgiven), and that I need God.

----------
As far as the other couple of posts where somebody jumped on you because many literalist Christians think we are second class, I feel the same way. There are people posting in this very thread who have said as much to me in the past month that I have been using this forum. So we are kind of touchy about it.

And I am sure that goes both ways. Just today, I called someone "ignorant of science" up in the "for everyone" forum. But I was careful to make the distinction that the person himself was not ignorant or stupid. Some of us aren't that careful, all the time.

-------
If I wasn't convinced of common descent, the age of the earth, and the age of the universe, I have to admit that I would have an easier time with the literal reading of Genesis. But since I am convinced that the mainstream scientific explanations are correct, then I have no choice than to interpret Genesis as an important allegory, but not literal truth.

Ron

 

[Ron21647]

I asked because I wanted to know how the TE's view the teachings of the Bible.
I have some more questions

Do TE's believe Jesus actually raised Lazarus up from the dead?
Do TE's believe Jesus actually walked on water?
Do TE's believe that Jesus, by crucification, gave to us salvation, for those who believe? Personally, I think this is the greater miracle then creation.

Do TE's think that God could have created the universe in 6 days, parted the red sea, and cause the world wide flood? I am not asking for proof or evidence. I want to know if TE's think that God can do this if He wanted to.

Again, I am not trying to be rude or mean. I am trying to get an understanding of what a TE believes.

God Bless

the first 3 questions, concerning Jesus, yes, I certainly believe that.

I also believe God through Moses parted the Red Sea.

As for the other two, 6 day creation, and the global flood, if they happened literally, God would have left evidence of their occurring. None of the other things you list would have left evidence. And yes, I believe God certainly could have, but I also believe He didn't.


Keep in mind I am speaking for myself here, not everyone else on this forum who is TE believes these the same way I do. As far as I kow, there is no "national organization of theistic evolutionists" or anything. I myself have come to these beliefs through a lot of Bible study, discussions with my pastor, and so on. (BTW, none of these people agrees with me. maybe that should tell me something )

Ron

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Who says there is a conflict between scripture and creation? Scientists, right? And who created all the methods? Man, right? And look at your "D" statement, Humans are fallible.
So one must go to the Bible and look for how one is to interpret Genesis. The Bible is after all the Holy Word of God. You will find Paul talked about creation, saying God made it plain to us.(Romans 1:18-22) You will find Jesus talk about Genesis and the creation of man, saying as it is written. So there is no credibility issue with Genesis. Then look in Genesis it says that light was called day, and darkness was called night.(Genesis 1:3-5) After each day of creation the scriptures end with the phrase "And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day."(Genesis 1:5) And it continues with second day, third day, fourth day, and so on. Now the Hebrew word of day is 'yome' and yome means

Strong #3117
Yome
1. day (24 hour period)
a. defined by evening and morning

Now, many say that yome means ages, but yome is never used in the Bible to refer to ages. Yome is used rexclusively in Genesis when it says "the first day" and so on. Now look back at Romans 1:18-20, and look at the verse before Paul talks of creation, and it says God made it plain. And concludes with so man has no excuse. Now look at the definition given by God for a day, evening and morning - the first day, is this not plain? Didn't God right there describe what a day is, evening and morning?

Now look at Romans 1:22 it says "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." Don't evolutionists say we came from bacteria, and eventual some primitive type of ape? Sounds like exchanging the glory of God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Now look at 2 Timothy 4:3-4
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." Evolutionists have not turned to a sound doctrine. Science cannot be a sound doctrine because the so called facts change so often because of new evidence. The Bible is sound doctrine, and the Bible tells us how the universe was created, and God made sure that the Bible tells us how to interpret it. Science in a sense suits its own needs, because someone is always trying to "prove" something and because they are there is a bias. Look at the part where it says "gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." Scientists are teachers in a sense because they try to teach what they say they have learned. The last statement "away from the truth and turn aside to myths." The Bible has the truth, and the big bang theory, evolution in the sense of how man evolved are all myths. They have never been proven because science has no evidence.

Now once again, I challenge TE's to present Bible verses that back up their interpretation of Genesis to be allegorical. So far all TE's on here can say is "science says this or that" or "science shows no evidence of this or that" and I ask again who are the leaders of science? Are they not men? And what was the 'D' point again.... Humans are fallible! So either put your faith(as far as creation and the great miracles of the OT) in men or God. And remember, God made it plain so men are without excuse.

Mark 10:6 "But from the Beginning of creation God made them male and female."

Revelations 19:6 "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."

Some comments:

1. Science is fallable, but so is Biblical interpretation. Therefore, we should be looking for possible errors on both sides.

2. The Bible cannot be interpreted without outside sources. We need language to read it and historical and cultural references to understand what it would mean to those reading it originally. Science can also help to help us with our interpretation.

 

[GodSaves]

Agreed Biblical interpretation can be fallible because it is men who are translating it. That is why one must read and study the Bible looking for references to the scriptures that they are trying to understand. Like where Paul talks about creation, saying God made it plain. When you read Genesis, it says light was day, darkness was night. Evening and morning - the first day. Doesn't this last sentence give you any clue has to how to translate Genesis? How can one take it to be allegorical? Is evening suppose to mean 20 million years, and morning another 20 million?(just random numbers) Then you look and Paul said God made it plain, isn't evening and morning - 'first' day - plain?

If God said He created this world the way Genesis says He did and one says they don't believe that because science says differently, wouldn't that be a lack of faith in God and His Words and power? And weren't we suppose to have the faith of a child? And what is that faith of child. A child believes what his/her parents tell them, without any doubt. And if God made it plain to us telling us exactly what He did in Genesis, and one doesn't believe because science says so, that isn't faith like a child.

Fragmentsofadream, you said science can also help in our interpretation. So will your interpretation of the creation of man change with Francis Crick and other well known scientists new theory on how life came to be? Will the Bible now say to you that God created an alien in His own image so that this alien can plant his seed in the earths ocean that brought forth man? How could someone base their interpretation of the Bible on science, that which seems to keep changing because science never has all the evidence? Your interpretation of the Bible will continue to have errors. The real problem is that some are basing their interpretation on a science that is mostly looking to explain away a literal translation of creation and/or a supernatural being.

 

[GodSaves]

Ron I don't think any of you are second class Christians. I just find it strange and harmful for one to base their interpretations of the Bible on science rather then on other passages of the Bible. If one was to actually sit and study the Bible, you will find that the Bible answers everything.

I say what I have because I am afraid some will cause great harm to their faith by believing science over God's Word. I see this to be the work of the devil. I honestly think people do not give the devil enough credit when it comes to his intelligence and deceptive ability. He was a cherphin(sp?), which guard the throne of God and are very intelligent. His intelligence is way above ours, and his deceptive ability is beyond us.

When I see talk such as God has limits, and He is not all powerful, this makes me think that this is what Satan thought before his fall. That he could be above God, that just because God was here before him didn't mean that God was more powerful or more intelligent then he. The same person making these statements believes science over the Words of God, which he finds to be fallible. I suspect that this type of interpretation of the Bible has led him to think this way. This type of interpretation I believe takes away from the Glory of God. That is why I find it to be harmful.

 

[L'Anatra]

Ron I don't think any of you are second class Christians. I just find it strange and harmful for one to base their interpretations of the Bible on science rather then on other passages of the Bible. If one was to actually sit and study the Bible, you will find that the Bible answers everything.

If you base your interpretation of the Bible solely based on other passages of the Bible you are committing a logical fallacy. How can you be sure you are interpreting those "other passages" correctly?

The Bible does not answer everything. It is certainly lacking in useful scientific and technological wisdom. Don't pretend that it isn't.

Modern technology does not exist today because the Bible helped us develop it.

I say what I have because I am afraid some will cause great harm to their faith by believing science over God's Word. I see this to be the work of the devil. I honestly think people do not give the devil enough credit when it comes to his intelligence and deceptive ability. He was a cherphin(sp?), which guard the throne of God and are very intelligent. His intelligence is way above ours, and his deceptive ability is beyond us.

No one is believing science "over" God's Word. How many times must I repeat that?

When I see talk such as God has limits, and He is not all powerful, this makes me think that this is what Satan thought before his fall. That he could be above God, that just because God was here before him didn't mean that God was more powerful or more intelligent then he.

God may not be omnipotent or omniscient. That certainly does not mean that we could be above God. And it certainly does not mean that He isn't perfect.

The same person making these statements believes science over the Words of God, which he finds to be fallible. I suspect that this type of interpretation of the Bible has led him to think this way. This type of interpretation I believe takes away from the Glory of God. That is why I find it to be harmful.

I already mentioned that Christians do not "believe science over the Bible." The Bible contains errors in fact. If you believe otherwise, then you are twisting the Word of God. Its errors in fact do not diminish its theological truths. They simply do not! To try and force it to be up-to-date like literalists do does diminish its theological truths.

Literalism hinges the faith of thousands on a weak foundation of bad theology that can lead to Bible idolatry and intolerance toward "things unChristian" in addition to their false "evidence" against mainstream science that can be refuted as easily as candy can be taken from a baby, if you'll pardon the expression. This forces literalist Christians to either accept the slippery-slope argument and fall from Christ or become closed-minded and potentially hateful individuals with wild and potentially harmful notions about nature and society. Do you not see the terrifying possibilities?

 

[L'Anatra]

Let me iterate that the last paragraph in my prior post was simply a generalization and a tendency that I've noticed. It is not an attack on Biblical literalists or their Christianity.

Rather, I perceive it to be an intrinsic facet of religious fundamentalism in general.

 

[GodSaves]

Literalism hinges the faith of thousands on a weak foundation of bad theology that can lead to Bible idolatry and intolerance toward "things unChristian" in addition to their false "evidence" against mainstream science that can be refuted as easily as candy can be taken from a baby, if you'll pardon the expression. This forces literalist Christians to either accept the slippery-slope argument and fall from Christ or become closed-minded and potentially hateful individuals with wild and potentially harmful notions about nature and society. Do you not see the terrifying possibilities?

I actually don't need evidence, God's Word is enough. You can use your science and refute His Word. You can also refer to His Word as a slippery-slope argument. I am not closed minded, I just actually believe God's Word over mans. And I don't need other people to tell me there is or isn't evidence. Have you actually gone out on your own and viewed all the evidence or been in search of it all, of course not. So you are taking mans word for your belief. I am not actually hateful, I have been saying what I have because I care about yours and others faith. I don't care about who is right or wrong, it is about God and what He said in His Word. I just don't find God's Word in Genesis (being literal) to be wild and harmful, I just don't.

I think I have interpreted it right where it says "God made it plain." How else would you interpret it? Maybe it should be allegorical and it could mean that God is trying to confuse us so we never quite get it.

God may not be omnipotent or omniscient. That certainly does not mean that we could be above God. And it certainly does not mean that He isn't perfect.

Is it just me or is the first sentence seem to be quite harmful. Maybe you missed one of my quote in Revelations about God being omnipotent. Seems to me that Satan was thinking this too, 'God isn't all powerful or all knowing, and if He isn't why can't I be above HIm?' But hey then again in your view me believing God is all powerful and all knowing is harmful. And me believing that God can and did create the world in 6 days is harmful. And me believing whatever God says to be the truth above all other truths is harmful. I dunno, but I am starting to wonder. Will you get to the point that you will eventually believe science over anything that is said in the Bible, because of this evidence problem?
Do you really think all evidence has been found and accurately interpreted by man who is not biased in anyway?

I would love still to see any TE to bring forth scriptures to prove their belief. Can you prove that science is a sound doctrine?

 

[L'Anatra]

I actually don't need evidence, God's Word is enough. You can use your science and refute His Word. You can also refer to His Word as a slippery-slope argument. I am not closed minded, I just actually believe God's Word over mans. And I don't need other people to tell me there is or isn't evidence. Have you actually gone out on your own and viewed all the evidence or been in search of it all, of course not. So you are taking mans word for your belief. I am not actually hateful, I have been saying what I have because I care about yours and others faith. I don't care about who is right or wrong, it is about God and what He said in His Word. I just don't find God's Word in Genesis (being literal) to be wild and harmful, I just don't.

Like I said in my previous post... I was, in all honesty, not trying to be offensive. And I was not saying you were closed-minded or hateful. I was simply saying that it was a tendency I and others have noted.

I truly appreciate these discussions. Thank you for being here.

I think I have interpreted it right where it says "God made it plain." How else would you interpret it? Maybe it should be allegorical and it could mean that God is trying to confuse us so we never quite get it.

That's up to you to discern.

Is it just me or is the first sentence seem to be quite harmful. Maybe you missed one of my quote in Revelations about God being omnipotent.

I didn't miss your quote, and I have read from the Book of Revelation. I simply feel that the translation isn't correct. In fact, the word "omnipotent" only appears in the KJV New Testament once. It is in the verse you chose that it appears. In the Greek, the word is "pantokrator," which appears in the New Testament 10 times, translated in every other instance in the KJV as "the Almighty."

"Pantokrator" simply means the "ruler of all that is." This doesn't necessarily connote omnipotence, in my mind. Realistically, it doesn't matter. I am not placing myself above God, and never once did I imply that I do.

Seems to me that Satan was thinking this too, 'God isn't all powerful or all knowing, and if He isn't why can't I be above HIm?' But hey then again in your view me believing God is all powerful and all knowing is harmful.

No, it certainly is not.

And me believing that God can and did create the world in 6 days is harmful. And me believing whatever God says to be the truth above all other truths is harmful.

I said "potentially harmful." And no, your views and beliefs are not harmful unless you make them harmful.

I dunno, but I am starting to wonder. Will you get to the point that you will eventually believe science over anything that is said in the Bible, because of this evidence problem?

No. Science does not deal with the supernatural or the theological or the philosophical. I, unlike literalists, do not need evidence to corroborate my beliefs. That's what faith is.

Do you really think all evidence has been found and accurately interpreted by man who is not biased in anyway?

No. I just know how science works. These problems disintegrate as scientific models and theories become more useful. What you don't seem to understand is that any scientist would jump at the opportunity to falsify any facet of modern science. They simply have to do so honestly... IOW, the data (or evidence, as we're calling it) has to support their conclusions. If they are successful, it brings success, fame, and potentially fortune.

I would love still to see any TE to bring forth scriptures to prove their belief. Can you prove that science is a sound doctrine?

Science is a sound doctrine because it is the study of the Creation of God.

 

[Ron21647]

GodSaves,

Ok, I still haven't read the posts between about page 4 or 5 and page 15. and at the rate this is growing, I may never get to them. I just want to respond to a few things you have been saying.

I'm not convinced that scripture requires God to be omnisicient and omnipotent. It just requires that no one and no thing is even close to Him.

Next, the only parts of the Bible I have a problem with are those that obviously contradict science as we know it. I have no problem believing in any miracles which did not leave physical evidence. In other words, the creation, the flood, and the sun standing still would have left physical evidence that we could see and study today.

You mentioned several times about interpreting the scripture as a child. That is all well and good if you are a child, but I am not a child, and when I read the Bible, I actually think about "what did He mean by that?"

The AIG, ICR, and others have come up with an interpretation which I believe to be totally false. When I read some of the things they say I actually laugh out loud. Then they try to cover themselves by saying that anyone who disagrees is not a true believer.

As far as I am concerned, any interpretation of creation that tries to put a period of time on the days of Gen. chapter 1 and make them sequential is bound to fail, whether 1 day = 1 day, 1 day = 1,000 years, or 1 day = 20 million years. The reason being is that the events listed are in the wrong order. So I don't try to interpret it in one of these ways, I interpret it as a story saying God is responsible for everything. Period.

Any attempt to merge science with a literal interpretation is bound to fail. If any of the people over at AIG and ICR were to take a junior high science class and use the information they are putting out, they would fail the class.

I have also heard that I am putting my faith into man instead of God. Well, guess what? The Bible was written by men, compiled into which books are in and which are out by men, and translated by men. I will admit they were guided by the Holy Spirit, but who is to say they did everything the Spirit told them to do? The truth is that we just don't know. We have to take that on faith.

As far as the argument goes that "God said it was good, so there could have been no death", maybe my definition of good isn't the same as everyone elses. God created life to be born, live, reproduce, and die. Some things eat other things. That is the way He created it, and that is what is "good".

As far as seeing evidence for my self, I have taken quite a few science classes at the undergraduate level, we had "hands on" lab sessions, and although we of course did no original research, I do have some knowledge about what is going on. And that is the bottom line, I can't believe something that contradicts things I have seen with my own eyes.

Ron

 

[GodSaves]

You mentioned several times about interpreting the scripture as a child. That is all well and good if you are a child, but I am not a child, and when I read the Bible, I actually think about "what did He mean by that?"

I don't think I said interpret scripture as a child. I think I said have faith like a child. I don't have the time at the moment to go back to all of my posts and see if I did say that. If I did, I didn't mean interpret as a child but rather faith as a child.

I still see each post from a TE that you let science be your guide for your interpretation of the Bible.

I can't believe something that contradicts things I have seen with my own eyes.

What have you seen that contradicts the Bible? I am just curious.

I am also try to state in my posts (maybe it isn't coming across clearly) that using science for interpretations (or to hold them up or disprove them) shouldn't be done. Science never has all the facts. Science has stated many facts, then on later find of evidences finds out they were wrong. All evidence has not been found for everything and may never be found. Basing an interpretation on science that can only present theories and lacks in all the information needed is harmful. And when you say you cannot believe in a world wide flood, or creation because you don't see it with your own eyes(evidence), isn't this harmful to your faith? It sounds too much like an atheist saying I cannot believe in God because I cannot see Him with my own eyes or there is not evidence of Him.

I can very well be wrong about my literal translation of the creation of the world, the world wide flood, but I never doubted for one moment God, or what He says. I hold strongly to what is said in Romans 1:18-22, God made it plain. He didn't try to hide how He created the world, how the flood happened, He made it plain so we can clearly understand without the need of science, or other men telling us it didn't happen. I do not look to science that is riddled with non believers looking for fame and fortune (as one put it) to help me in my interpretation of the Bible. I pray, I study, and I believe God made it plain. I put my faith in God that He made it plain to us, so we wouldn't have to look at a fallible science, or a fallible man to help us understand His Words. I have faith that God meant for us to know how He created this world so that we all can know His Glory. Is it not a greater Glory to God that He did create the world in 6 days, breathed life into a man, took his rib and created woman? Or is it to the greater Glory of God that He created some matter(or whatever your scientific technical word you want to use) and everything evolved over billions of years and man was created by aliens, or something?

Jesus raised the dead.
Jesus cast out demons.
Jesus walked on water.
Jesus calmed the storm.
Jesus healed.
Jesus gave us salvation.
All this for His Glory, and all done in mere moments, but God took billions of years to create earth, and let something else create man. If God can create by just saying, as He did, why would it take billions of years when everything is at His command and He is all powerful? Oh wait, God made it plain to us, why would I substitute billion for a day.