progmonk said:
So for my own clarification do you believe that temple is heaven, earth, or all of His creation?
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.
progmonk said:Yes.
The imagery is what I try to emphasise most though. God gives the function of time to light and dark, the outer court, gives the function of weather to the heavens, inner court, gives the function of providing food to the ground. God then populates these arenas with his things to govern them, the sun and the moon to reign over day and night, the birds and the fish to frolic, the animals to multiply and his image to act as an angled mirror between creation and God. God then takes up residence in the temple he has created.
So for my own clarification do you believe that temple is heaven, earth, or all of His creation?
You are performing a bait and switch here. You started off talking about assumptions of radiocarbon dating. The so called assumptions you mentioned are not actually used. That other link was nothing to do with assumptions of carbon dating but to do with assumptions of linking stone artifacts with in situ organic material - a different topic for a different day.Did you catch it that time? They have to make ASSUMPTIONS!
As someone else has stated - you want a theological discussion but you can't resist wanting to throw in some science if you think it strengthens your position. You cannot have the penny and the cake. When you make erroneous statements of the science it weakens your argument.Which is what I've been saying the whole time! And as for the rest of what you posted, no my expertise is not in dating methods, and I never claimed it to be, hence the THEOLOGICAL discussion I wanted to create. Meanwhile the bulk of what has been posted has been exactly what I've come to expect from OEC's...ignore what is said and try to take the discussion where they want it to go, where they believe they have some advantage. This is why I stopped going to the non-christian area to pose this question. The nasty rhetoric and assertions of my having a low iq. Again, if you'd like to have a theological discussion as I posed to begin with, let's. Otherwise have a good day.
progmonk said:all of the creation, in some ways this is fuelled by my longer held view that Christ's second coming is in order to fully revitalise creation and dwell among his people for eternity. It also helps me to see the proclamation of "and God saw that it was good." as God seeing it good for his own dwelling, I think this makes it a more powerful statement.
The use of bara within Psalm 51:10 create in me a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within me, I think talks far more of a renewing of heart than a wholly new creation, so I'm not sure I agree with the JPS here.That's an interesting idea, but I tend to believe that bara means create when it pertains to God. The Jewish Publication Society says it this way: "The Hebrew bara is used in the Bible exclusively of divine creativity. It signifies that the product is absolutely novel and unexampled, depends solely upon God for its coming into existence, and is beyond the human capacity to reproduce" (Sarna, Nahumn M., Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary, Jewish Publication Society, 1989). This in conjunction with yom and a numeral meaning a 24 hour day leads me to believe it at more of a face value, but I can see your point. I do have a question.
If God's creation fell why did he leave it until Christ to bring it back to him by his own power? Same question more or less, though to answer your question with what I believe, I believe that he was having fun, enjoying handcrafting the stars, creating the earth carving the mountains with streams, he's in no hurry to complete, after all the heavens declare the work of his hands. The glory of God is the end of all things, not as some might have it the glorification of man. He is not subject to time, enjoying the work he was doing is why I believe he took the 13.5 billion years, and I think in part this idea of God creating in this way is something which spurs me on to praise him more.If God created the universe, why do you think he left it non-functioning for so long before seeming to do something with it, and does this idea make God subject to his own creation time?
progmonk said:The use of bara within Psalm 51:10 create in me a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within me, I think talks far more of a renewing of heart than a wholly new creation, so I'm not sure I agree with the JPS here.
If God's creation fell why did he leave it until Christ to bring it back to him by his own power? Same question more or less, though to answer your question with what I believe, I believe that he was having fun, enjoying handcrafting the stars, creating the earth carving the mountains with streams, he's in no hurry to complete, after all the heavens declare the work of his hands. The glory of God is the end of all things, not as some might have it the glorification of man. He is not subject to time, enjoying the work he was doing is why I believe he took the 13.5 billion years, and I think in part this idea of God creating in this way is something which spurs me on to praise him more.
I can appreciate that. So its not so much that you believe God "couldn't" have created everything in 7 days, only that he chose not to? Do you believe that during this time is when dinosaurs were on the earth? Not as a scientific question, more as a point of reference.
progmonk said:yes I do believe that. Just a point on the thing about 7 days I do hope you don't hold that he's limited in that he could only create in 7 days as in he couldn't create in less time, when I did believe YEC I saw the 7 days as God enjoying his creativity
progmonk said:The use of bara within Psalm 51:10 create in me a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within me, I think talks far more of a renewing of heart than a wholly new creation, so I'm not sure I agree with the JPS here.
.
Oh no, God could've created it all in less time then our tony human minds can fathom. Instantaneous is no problem for God! : ) I think he may have used 7 days as more of a tool for us. To show us (before Christ's first coming) the way he wanted us to live, to give humanity structure. ( cause isn't it obvious how badly we need his guidance! ; ) )
I wanted to take this as an aside. I don't think it speaks directly to yec or oec, but it is worth exploring. First, we do have to take into account that the psalms then are the equivalent to our hymns today. They would've been sung and put to music, and hyperbole should be expected. Also, it is possible that it more means to create a new "heart" or "spirit" because as we now know, when we believe on Christ, we become new creatures in Him.
2 Corinthians 5:17 New King James Version (NKJV)
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
Like I said, not directly involved in our discussion, but linked, and well worth exploring. : D
progmonk said:I totally agree, his intention is to point us to him, one of the wonderful conclusions I've come to about Genesis 1 is that God's intention is to be Emmanuel and the beauty of that being shown from the beginning just makes my heart jump for joy, the message of the incarnation as the opening of God's great and magnificent plan of creation, God truly is great
Papias wrote:Amazing. MM, did you actually read my post? Did you check on the reference I gave? I ask because my references are not only made up of real, peer-reviewed scientists who've published in actual journals, but the whole site I listed as a reference (talkorigins.org) is also endorsed by the National Academies of Sciece, the Smithsonian, the Geological Society of America, and more. If that's not using "actual fact", then please inform me what is.
I will start here. talkorigins.org is an evolutionists site. I've been there several times. Also, the places you've mentioned as "reputable" are organizations bent on proving evolution.
.As a matter of fact, the smithsonian has been duped twice with fake fossils from China supposedly proving the dino/bird link. ....I'm sorry but groups of fallible people bent to disprove God do not garner any weight with me
Please compare that in your mind with what you have done - posted videos from well known quacks and charlatans. You started with Bruce Malone, who has no background nor credentials in biology, geology, etc, and makes money from his many publications, which have been shown over and over to be filled with errors and the common methods of pseudoscience.
While it may be hard to do worse than that, you managed to top that by posting videos and sites from Kent Hovind, an even more well known scheister, who has bilked Christians out of millions of dollars, makes arguements so silly that even other creationists laugh at them, and is a convicted fraud who is now in federal prison.
Wow, MM, just wow.
Do you even know the story behind Kent Hovind's "conviction"?
**********
Papias wrote:
**********I hope to sometimes reach people with the saving message of Christ. When they see a minister using Malone and Hovind, is it any surprise that they start to think that Christianity itself might be a hoax? Please, for the unsaved, use some better vetting of your sources.
**********
You mean like you did with the smithsonian?
**********
No, as we've pointed out, Bible scholars who know hebrew and the ancient world much better than you reject the literal interpretation. Why do you think that we'll listen to some guy on the internet (who's shown he has no credibility by using Malone and Hovind), and ignore the Bible Scholars?
The Hebrew word for day, yom, ...... In the Genesis Creation account, yom is used with a numeral, indicating that it intends the reader to understand that these are literal days of twenty-four hours.
As a unit of time, the .... This, too, argues that the Creation week in Genesis was a week of seven literal days.
4. God set aside the seventh day of Creation week as a holy rest day. The .....weekly cycle of seven days. The integrity of the weekly cycle continues and is an evidence for Creation week being composed of seven literal days.
5. 6. The fourth commandment (....The admonition concerning days of labor and day of rest would also be meaningless.
7. The wording of the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis is best understood as meaning literal days. Such expressions as "day and night," "evening and morning," "light and darkness" can hardly be understood as indefinite periods of time.
The view that each day of the Genesis Creation account is actually an extremely long period of time--rather than literal days of twenty-four hours --causes problems. For example, Genesis says that plants were created on the third day (see Genesis 1:11-13) and that sunlight was created on the fourth day (see verses 14-19). If the third day is actually a long period of time, how could plants have existed without sunlight? Likewise, many plants require insects for pollination. How could these plants have survived and reproduced without insects which were not created until the sixth day (see Genesis 1:24, 25)--if these days were actually long periods of time?
**********Did it ever cross your mind that we've heard those same "facts" hundreds of times before? Yes, I did listen, and even go to your videos. They show that you've been duped by arguments that have been refuted over and over -even on these fora. You might learn a lot by perusing old threads here - even several years back.
The same could easily be said of evolution. We've heard the same tired excuses for a lack of evidence but we're supposed to put our faith in fallible humans many of whom want to disprove God.
Is it possible you've let your faith slip by the words of men?
The point is that for evolution to be even remotely true there needs to be billions if not trillions of intermediary fossils.
A handful of bones that we cannot even date accurately does not support evolution.
If a whale gets buried above a dolphin, does that mean he evolved from that dolphin? They have some very similar structures, and are the only creatures that breathe through a blow hole. The whole idea of using fossils is based on the ASSUMPTION of the geologic time scale which doesn't exist anywhere in the world, is based on circular reasoning, and was dreamed up by people trying to sell the idea that the earth was millions of years old.
And yet you admit to me you don't know most of this as well, but will preach to me that I need to be more educated.Recommending that people actually know what they are talking about before speaking is "arrogant and self-righteous"? While at the same time saying that you know better than the experts, who have spent their whole lives studying the evidence is somehow not arrogant? Might you have that backwards?
You stepped in and assumed I knew nothing of what I was speaking of, and chose to assert your scientific superiority.
That is what turns people away. When they get dose after dose of this type of attitude.
**********Is not the fact that all the different dating methods confirm each other "proof" of an old earth? And, by the way, evolution is called a fact.
Actually wrong on both counts. All forms of "dating" have major flaws, and use assumption on most every point. In fact its documented proof that if a scientist finds a date that doesn't fit with the evolutionary time table, its simply discarded. This is not science.
And evolution is only asserted as a fact by fools and athiests.( one in the same really) There are far too many holes in evolution to call it a fact.
I believe Ted obliterated this argument nicely, but in point of fact, since when did the majority decide truth? The majority of "Christian" scientists believed in things like blood letting, geo-centrism, and flat earth, in direct contradiction to what the bible teaches.
**********Cool. If that's from a reputable University, then I commend you.
I believe it could be from Harvard and evolutionists would still call it fake.
I must say Papias, its very frustrating to discuss anything with you if you're willing to dismiss what you hear because it doesn't mesh with evolution.
If you wish to continue the theological aspect, then please by all means, let's. Otherwise I have no choice but to skip over the scientific posts I simply don't have the time, I'm sorry.
However, nothing in this poll supports your position that of those scientists who believe in the God of the Scriptures, the majority of them believe in the theory of evolution as to how man appeared upon the earth. Keep searching, friend.
All well and good. Here it is.Sorry, friend, but again this poll doesn't 'prove' that 'among those who are experts, who know the evidence, practically all support evolution'. As far as I can tell evolution doesn't even come into the equation in this poll. Yes, if you have other data that supports your position, I'd be interested in reviewing it.
No, I think I made it clear that it is the person themself. No man, no man knows the heart of another.To my claim that there is only one person on the face of the earth who knows that they have been born again you asked: and is that one person miamited? If not, then stop implying that those who disagree with you aren't TrueChristiansTM.
progmonk said:all of the creation, in some ways this is fuelled by my longer held view that Christ's second coming is in order to fully revitalise creation and dwell among his people for eternity. It also helps me to see the proclamation of "and God saw that it was good." as God seeing it good for his own dwelling, I think this makes it a more powerful statement.
progmonk said:all of the creation, in some ways this is fuelled by my longer held view that Christ's second coming is in order to fully revitalise creation and dwell among his people for eternity. It also helps me to see the proclamation of "and God saw that it was good." as God seeing it good for his own dwelling, I think this makes it a more powerful statement.
If I write that I believe most born again believers, whether scientist or not, believe in young earth creationism
However, your claim was that most 'christian' scientists accept evolutionary theory and this poll mentions nothing about christians. Just scientists in general.
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?