|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jan 12, 2004 22:33:55 GMT -5
SonWorshiper - "I believe He has led me to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11."
And yet, I believe that He has led me to hold to a figurative interpretation of the same pkmtyolpage. Since one of us must clearly be mistaken, any claim of divine revelation must be excluded when considering the proper interpretation of the pkmtyolpage.
"I esteem His instruction far above the evidence that would support an alternate belief."
Yet He continues to instruct us through that very evidence. The evidence found in the natural world is nothing less than God's revelation of how He created! What logical basis is there for ignoring that evidence? If you would determine how God created, one cannot do so without examining His creation!
"Nowhere in Scripture is it even hinted that Genesis 1-11 is a parable."
However, when viewed in light of the physical evidence, God's revelation to us through the natural world, it is clear that a literal interpretation cannot hold true.
"The Genesis Account of Creation is mentioned as fact throughout the entire Bible, including The New Testament."
And yet those same references may be consistently interpreted as references to a well known story, just as I might make reference to events in Homer's The Odyssey, and have those references perceived as factual by one who did not take into account all the facts concerning the story.
"Nowhere is it referred to as a parable."
Nor do parables need to be referred to as such in order to be recognized as figurative.
"You'd think, if it was, God would let somebody in on this little 'secret.'"
He did, centuries ago, through the physical evidence that He has left us, and that you continue to ignore. It just took our species a while to be able to comprehend that evidence.
"To dismiss it as a parable would be to admit that the authors of The New Testament, who were under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit, and even The Lord Jesus Christ Himself, were misleading in referring to it as factual."
Not at all. Interpreting the Creation parable as figurative in no way involves dismissing it, nor does it require that any New Testament authors or figures were being misleading or misled by making reference to that parable. It simply means that they referred to a story well-known to their audiences in order to more clearly be understood by them.
"scientific theories are reported as proven facts, when, in reality, they are nothing more than the scientists drawn conclusions."
This statement is nothing more than your failure to recognize the difference between facts and theories. That all objects exert an attractive force on each other is a proven fact. That gravity exists is a fact, because the evidence demonstrates this to be the case. Gravitational theory is the statement which describes these facts.
"Evidence can and has been misleading in the past, causing scientists to draw wrong conclusions."
However, there is no evidence that the presently accepted scientific model of the origin of the universe, Earth, or life are in any way inaccurate, even after over a century of the most intense scientific scrutiny. Given this incredible lack of evidence supporting the young Earth creationist model, or contrary to the presently accepted model, there is no logical basis for casting doubt on the accepted model.
"I believe one day, Darwinism will be a rejected idea"
Young Earth creationists have been making such predictions since the theory first became accepted, and a century later it remains accepted because it describes the evidence infinitely more accurately than any other model.
"I don't allow outside influences to sway my interpretation of God's Word. It really doesn't matter to me what is being reported in the secular world."
However, a conclusion which can only hold true at the exclusion of evidence cannot be regarded as logical. If a literal interpretation of the fantastic events of Gen. 1-11 is truly the correct one, it will be consistent with all evidence, both scientific and scriptural. That the physical evidence has been recognized as inconsistent with a literal interpretation of those events for over two centuries demonstrates that such an interpretation cannot be the correct one.
--Y2Traf
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 13, 2004 0:02:01 GMT -5
TD - there are some things in His Word that even science can't explain, but that doesn' t mean that what He says happened didn't happen. Science is always trying to explain His Word, right? Right! Theories run amuck (sp), but because something in His Word hasn't been proven, does not make it incorrect. Maybe that "unexplained event" just hasn't been able to be explained yet, but maybe one day it will - and then again, maybe one day it won't until we are with Him and He explains it to us. I believe that are just some things that we are to hold in faith because His Word says that it happened, no matter if it can be proven in this day or a day to come. By Faith, we believe in His mysteries that there will come a time when we will know that His Word was right on! <><
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jan 13, 2004 8:08:35 GMT -5
Jan - "there are some things in His Word that even science can't explain, but that doesn' t mean that what He says happened didn't happen."
There are also a whole bunch of things, such as the fantastic events mentioned in the poll at the top of this thread, that science can very easily confirm or refute. The fact that there is no evidence to support these events as having literally occurred after hundreds of years of searching, while mountains of evidence to the contrary have been found, leaves the possibility that those events occurred as written as a virtual impossibility.
"Science is always trying to explain His Word, right?"
Wrong. Science attempts to explain the natural world. Whether that explanation jives with any interpretation of any pkmtyolpage of any religious text is immaterial.
"but because something in His Word hasn't been proven, does not make it incorrect."
However, the fact that certain interpretations of events in His Word have been disproven absolutely renders those interpretations incorrect.
--El Traf
|
|
|
Post by SonWorshiper on Jan 13, 2004 10:37:26 GMT -5
Quote by TD:
And yet, I believe that He has led me to hold to a figurative interpretation of the same pkmtyolpage. Since one of us must clearly be mistaken, any claim of divine revelation must be excluded when considering the proper interpretation of the pkmtyolpage.
My Response:
Oh, so now you rely on The Holy Spirit for your figurative interpretation? I thought you relied on physical evidence.
And no, I will not exclude The Spirit's leading in my interpretation. The fact that I say The Spirit is leading me to view Genesis 1-11 as literal and the fact that you say The Spirit is leading you to view it as figurative only means that one of us is wrong. I believe it is you and therefore I will not exclude it from my thinking.
Quote by TD:
Yet He continues to instruct us through that very evidence. The evidence found in the natural world is nothing less than God's revelation of how He created! What logical basis is there for ignoring that evidence? If you would determine how God created, one cannot do so without examining His creation!
My Response:
No. In fact, The Bible says that in the last days deception would be incredibly strong and convincing. Darwinism has been a major contributor to the increase of aethism and those who reject God's Word, and as such, cannot be considered as a revelation of God. Darwinism is satanic deception, and from that viewpoint, is soundly and logically dismissed.
Quote by TD:
However, when viewed in light of the physical evidence, God's revelation to us through the natural world, it is clear that a literal interpretation cannot hold true.
My Response:
God's revelation to us is found in His Word. Physical evidence must be viewed in light of Scripture, not the other way around. If the physical evidence does not line up with Scripture, then either the physical evidence is unreliable, or the conclusions of the evidence by scientists must be wrong.
Quote by TD:
And yet those same references may be consistently interpreted as references to a well known story, just as I might make reference to events in Homer's The Odyssey, and have those references perceived as factual by one who did not take into account all the facts concerning the story.
My Response:
It's statements like these that cause some people (not me of course) to wonder about your salvation. To compare God's Word, The Holy Bible, to The Odyssey, is not something a person walking in The Spirit would do.
Let me fill you in on a little secret. God's Word was inspired by holy men as they were filled with The Holy Ghost. Therefore it can and should be viewed as infallible. The Odyssey is a novel written by man, and shouldn't be brought in as an example to compare with God's Word.
Quote by TD:
Not at all. Interpreting the Creation parable as figurative in no way involves dismissing it, nor does it require that any New Testament authors or figures were being misleading or misled by making reference to that parable. It simply means that they referred to a story well-known to their audiences in order to more clearly be understood by them.
My Response:
The New Testament writers were filled with The Holy Spirit as they penned it down. They referred to Genesis 1-11 many times and viewed it as literal. Because they were under the influence of The Holy Spirit as they wrote, I believe, if they refer to something as literal, then it should be viewed as literal. To view Genesis 1-11 as a parable would mean The New Testament writers were misleading, and we know this isn't true, since they were inspired by The Holy Spirit as they wrote.
Quote by TD:
However, there is no evidence that the presently accepted scientific model of the origin of the universe, Earth, or life are in any way inaccurate, even after over a century of the most intense scientific scrutiny. Given this incredible lack of evidence supporting the young Earth creationist model, or contrary to the presently accepted model, there is no logical basis for casting doubt on the accepted model.
My Response:
Since I don't put a lot of faith in the physical evidence anyway, I don't really care what the accepted models say. I only care what God's Word says.
Quote by TD:
However, a conclusion which can only hold true at the exclusion of evidence cannot be regarded as logical. If a literal interpretation of the fantastic events of Gen. 1-11 is truly the correct one, it will be consistent with all evidence, both scientific and scriptural. That the physical evidence has been recognized as inconsistent with a literal interpretation of those events for over two centuries demonstrates that such an interpretation cannot be the correct one.
My Response:
In your viewpoint, you see the evidence as infallible. In my viewpoint, I see God's Word as infallible. The Bible clearly says that in the last days deception would run amuck. I believe theories like Darwinism is part of the deception. That's why it is imperative to believe God's Word above all else, otherwise you become a victim of the enemy's deception, and a pawn in promoting his theories.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Jan 13, 2004 10:41:24 GMT -5
If Genesis is part fable,part truth..then wouldn't it stand to reason that the rest of the Bible might be the same thing? The problem with this reasoning is that it clumps all the writings of the Bible together when in fact they are a wide variety of different genres. Do you read the Song of Solomon the same way that you would read Job? Psalms? Chronicles? The Gospels are very different than any of the OT writings especially Genesis.
|
|
|
Post by WatingforHim on Jan 13, 2004 12:12:57 GMT -5
I have here an interesting web site if any care to visit. www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/It has a great deal of scientific evidence supporting The Creation, and a goodly amount of evidence debunking evolution as well.
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jan 13, 2004 13:50:04 GMT -5
IMHO..if one word of the Bible is false or not literally true,,then all of it is a lie.You either believe or you don't. A: My questions are these: Where in the bible do you find a command to believe only what is in the Bible? Where in the Scriptures does it state that you need a book to be saved? The fact of the matter is folks, that the Bible doesn't make such a claim. These claims are manmade traditions dating back only a few hundred years. The Bible says the TRUTH will set is free - which is why it is essential to belong to a Church which professes the fullness of truth, not a mix of revealed truth and human traditions. The Bible makes it perfectly clear - truth is what sets us free; the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15); therefore it is through the CHURCH that men are saved. That would be true even if the Church had never compiled the Bible. Don't you believe that the Savior provided everything men required to be saved? Well, Jesus Christ founded a Church. He did not write a book. When he ascended into heaven He left behind a fully functioning Church with inspired, infallible teaching; seven sacraments; a ministerial priesthood; a hierarchy of bishops with a Pope; and full authority to teach and administrate in His name. And this was all that they needed as a means to salvation. They had no Bibles; but they did have the fullness of truth which sets men free - the truth which eventually would be written down and compiled into a Bible. However it is the presence of that truth, NOT the fact of its being gathered into a book, which sets men free. Incidentally, the Bible is inerrant, but it is NOT infallible. Infallibility is a characteristic of interpretation and teaching, not a characteristic of a book. If the Bible were "infallible", it would convey the same message to everyone who reads it. However, an inerrant book in the hands of fallible interpreters is the fastest road to heresy. Which is why Christ gave us an infallible Church to interpret and teach his truth, both written and unwritten, just as it did during the 350 years of Church history when the Bible had not yet been compiled.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 30, 2003.
www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AuUcGod bless
|
|
|
Post by SonWorshiper on Jan 13, 2004 14:47:11 GMT -5
Paul M.'s Quote:
Where in the Scriptures does it state that you need a book to be saved? The fact of the matter is folks, that the Bible doesn't make such a claim.
My Response:
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17). The Bible is The Word of God. The word of God can come through a gospel tract, a voice, or The Bible Itself. Although different means can be used, it's always The Word of God that converts a soul.
Paul M.'s Quote:
These claims are manmade traditions dating back only a few hundred years. The Bible says the TRUTH will set is free - which is why it is essential to belong to a Church which professes the fullness of truth, not a mix of revealed truth and human traditions.
My Response:
I can't believe these words are coming from a catholic, a church that prides itself on it's ability to set forth traditions of men.
Paul M.'s Quote:
The Bible makes it perfectly clear - truth is what sets us free; the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15); therefore it is through the CHURCH that men are saved.
My Response:
Churches that hold fast to The Word of God, and the purity of The Gospel are the pillars of truth. Churches that bring in man made and paganistic traditions would not be considered "the pillar of truth."
And saving faith comes by hearing The Word of God and responding in faith, as Romans 10:17 clearly states. Yes, oftentimes people get saved in church by hearing the preaching of The Gospel. But salvation is not found in the church itself. This is one of those traditions of men you claim you're not a part of.
Paul M.'s Quote:
Well, Jesus Christ founded a Church. He did not write a book.
My Response:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (II Timothy 3:16). Although He didn't write the book, He did inspire it. I mean, you do believe Jesus is God don't you?
Paul M.'s Quote:
When he ascended into heaven He left behind a fully functioning Church with inspired, infallible teaching; seven sacraments; a ministerial priesthood; a hierarchy of bishops with a Pope; and full authority to teach and administrate in His name.
My Response:
Not according to the book of Acts. Paul said in Acts 15:29, "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication..."
In reality, although fully functioning and full of Holy Ghost power, The Lord left behind a church in its infant stages, which didn't mature into fully established church doctrines until The Lord used Paul and other New Testament writers to pen down these doctrines in the epistles to the church.
A segment of this church was then corrupted with the teachings of the Nicolaitans (church hierarchy, a separation of clergy and the people, putting the clergy on a pedestal), which by reading Revelation you will find that The Lord Jesus Christ hates.
And the ministerial priesthood is one of the saddest institutional, man-made traditions of the catholic church. Priests in The Old Testament were chosen ministers of God who went in the holy temple to make oblations and sacrifices for God's people. They were the temporary mediators between God and man.
When Jesus Christ died on The Cross, The Bible says the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51), signifying that the veil between God and man was destroyed.
Now, through Jesus Christ, all believers have been made royal priests unto their God (I Peter 2:5) and all have access to The Holiest of Holies through The Blood of The Lamb (please read the entire Book of Hebrews).
The temporary mediators (priests) between God and man are no longer in affect. Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man (I Timothy 2:5). Through Him every believer is part of His royal priesthood (I Peter 2:9).
All believers now have a personal, intimate relationship with God without the need of priests. Isn't that great news? ;D
Paul M.'s Quote:
And this was all that they needed as a means to salvation. They had no Bibles; but they did have the fullness of truth which sets men free - the truth which eventually would be written down and compiled into a Bible. However it is the presence of that truth, NOT the fact of its being gathered into a book, which sets men free.
My Response:
What they needed for salvation is the same thing we need today was is and was the preaching of The Gospel (I Corinthians 15:1-4), mixed with the faith of the hearers.
Paul M.'s Quote:
Incidentally, the Bible is inerrant, but it is NOT infallible. Infallibility is a characteristic of interpretation and teaching, not a characteristic of a book. If the Bible were "infallible", it would convey the same message to everyone who reads it.
My Response:
The fact that people come to their own interpretations of The Bible is not indicative that it is fallible. It only mean's our interpretations may be fallible.
Paul M.'s Quote:
However, an inerrant book in the hands of fallible interpreters is the fastest road to heresy.
My Response:
Which is why it is imperative to seek the guidance of The Holy Spirit, who Jesus has sent to all believers, when reading Scripture.
Paul M.'s Quote:
Which is why Christ gave us an infallible Church to interpret and teach his truth, both written and unwritten, just as it did during the 350 years of Church history when the Bible had not yet been compiled.
My Response:
The catholic church itself has proven this statement to be false. There's so much man-made doctrine in this institution that I hesitate to call it a church. And then, throw in all the scandalous affairs this institution has been involved in (and tried to cover up) and I sincerely wonder why anyone is still a part of it.
|
|
|
Post by Himmel on Jan 13, 2004 16:00:08 GMT -5
Son Worshiper: The catholic church itself has proven this statement to be false. There's so much man-made doctrine in this institution that I hesitate to call it a church. And then, throw in all the scandalous affairs this institution has been involved in (and tried to cover up) and I sincerely wonder why anyone is still a part of it. [/quote/] Himmel: Now, Now, some of us here are Catholic Christians! Ok, the church may have some statues here and there, a few old traditions, a little man made doctrine, ;D Oh yea, and that nasty little scandal. , but what church is perfect? They all have some hang-ups and scandals. At least my church teaches non- violence and the only one who will speak out against war! God bless, Louise
|
|
|
Post by hounddawg on Jan 13, 2004 16:25:36 GMT -5
Well..all I can say is this..I choose to believe that the Genesis account of creation is what happened.Whether anyone else does or not is for them to decide.I KNOW what God has done in MY life and I KNOW how I have seen HIS hand in other's lives too.As for anyone thinking that I have my head in the sand,,so be it! After all..it's just an opinion!!!!And you know the old saying about opinions!!!!! In my book.,,,the THEORY of man evolving from some sort of primordial sludge or something is ridiculous!
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jan 13, 2004 16:47:25 GMT -5
Well..all I can say is this..I choose to believe that the Genesis account of creation is what happened.Whether anyone else does or not is for them to decide.I KNOW what God has done in MY life and I KNOW how I have seen HIS hand in other's lives too.As for anyone thinking that I have my head in the sand,,so be it! After all..it's just an opinion!!!!And you know the old saying about opinions!!!!! In my book.,,,the THEORY of man evolving from some sort of primordial sludge or something is ridiculous! I fully respect your beliefs as a total creationist. I am a creationist that does not believe everything is completely clear in Genesis. I became concerned when you asserted that if you found one small mistake in the Bible, you would not believe anyore. That's a tragic way to believe. Your belief must be in Christ, not in ancient writings that may have a few small errors. I believe the Bible does contain the true account of Christ, I do believe, for the most part, that it is accurate. Please don't hinge your faith in Christ on total Inerrancy and infallibilityof the Holy Bible. When Christ comes again, I think all Christians will be in for a few small surprises God bless
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jan 13, 2004 17:35:37 GMT -5
SonWorshiper - "Oh, so now you rely on The Holy Spirit for your figurative interpretation? I thought you relied on physical evidence."I rely on both; through the physical evidence, God has led me to my figurative interpretation of the pkmtyolpage. "And no, I will not exclude The Spirit's leading in my interpretation."If both of us are claiming that God has led us to our interpretation of Scripture, yet we interpret it differently, then divine revelation cannot be considered in determining the correct interpretation. If the correct interpretation is to be achieved, the means of achieving it will provide the same results, regardless of who employs it. "The Bible says that in the last days deception would be incredibly strong and convincing."That's all well and good, but neither you nor anybody else have presented the slightest bit of credible evidence to demonstrate that evolutionary theory is in any way a deception. " Darwinism has been a major contributor to the increase of aethism and those who reject God's Word"Yeah, you've posted that bit before, but utterly failed to provide a logical link between the two. Care to try again? " Darwinism is satanic deception"Prove it. Show the physical evidence that demonstrates it false. "God's revelation to us is found in His Word."But not His only revelation to us. Through His Creation, He has shown us how He created. "Physical evidence must be viewed in light of Scripture, not the other way around."Theories are formed to describe data, data are never made to conform to theories. If you would arrive at a logical conclusion, you cannot begin by mandating that all evidence conform to your preconceptions or be defined as false. "If the physical evidence does not line up with Scripture, then either the physical evidence is unreliable, or the conclusions of the evidence by scientists must be wrong."Or that pkmtyolpage of Scripture is being incorrectly interpreted. Gven that the physical evidence supporting the present scientific models has not been demonstrated to be unreliable, and the conclusions drawn from that evidence continue to be supported, this would become a very likely answer. "To compare God's Word, The Holy Bible, to The Odyssey, is not something a person walking in The Spirit would do."Why not? Both books contain descriptions of events which are not historical, yet might be alluded to as if they were. If you have elevated the Bible to a position in you mind where it is somehow incapable of comparison to other great works of literature, you've pretty much set it up as an idol unto itself. "They referred to Genesis 1-11 many times and viewed it as literal."That any individuals believe events described in a pkmtyolpage to be literal is certainly not evidence that they should be; if those events literally occurred, then the physical evidence will support that claim. "I believe, if they refer to something as literal, then it should be viewed as literal."Wow. Belief based on belief, all the while entirely disregarding the physical evidence. How did you ever manage to pkmtyolp high school science? "In your viewpoint, you see the evidence as infallible."While not infallible, I certainly place a great deal of confidence in the conclusions drawn from the evidence, as these conclusions have been demonstrated to be accurate for centuries, with no evidence to the contrary. "I believe theories like Darwinism is part of the deception."That's nice. Where's your evidence? WaitingforHim - Regarding Creation/Evolution Encyclopedia, the site is nothing more than another collection of the same erroneous and outdate young Earth creationist claims, without a scientifically valid statement in the bunch. Not a single piece of credible evidence supporting the young Earth creationist model nor contrary to the presently accepted scientific models was presented. If one would educate onesself on a scientific topic, a good idea would be to start with actual scientific publications. hounddawg - "In my book.,,,the THEORY of man evolving from some sort of primordial sludge or something is ridiculous!"Why? The issue of the origins of the universe, Earth, and life is one of evidence. Over the last two hundred years, mountains of evidence have been apkmtyolmed demonstrating that the Earth and universe are ancient, that humans along with all other life forms are evolved from pre-existing species, that humans have never lived for 200+ years, and that there never was a global flood. Those who hold to literal interpretations of these events do so in spite of the entirety of the physical evidence, and maintain those beliefs through ignorance of that physical evidence. In support of a literal interpretation of those events, those individuals have not a shred of evidence, but only their self-imposed blinders. --DX TD
|
|
|
Post by hounddawg on Jan 13, 2004 20:40:22 GMT -5
TD, With all due respect,as I said before,I PERSONALLY choose to believe the Genesis account.Prove to me that it is not literal..and then we can talk about man evolving from monkeys.The God that I serve is big enough to do anything..including forming man from the dust.Am I saying that a species cannot evolve? No..I am not saying that at all.I do believe that evolution does exist. But I don't believe that your ancestors or mine swung from trees. How do you explain the fact that no two human beings on earth are the same? It would seem to me if we evolved that after millions of years that nature would run out of "randomness" and genetic characteristics would start to be repeated in nature. And as for some accusing me of "worshipping" the Bible..hogwash!!!! I don't worship the Bible..but I do believe that it is the word of God.And my salvation does not depend on the book of Genesis.,,only Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Jan 13, 2004 21:17:27 GMT -5
TD, With all due respect,as I said before,I PERSONALLY choose to believe the Genesis account.Prove to me that it is not literal..and then we can talk about man evolving from monkeys.The God that I serve is big enough to do anything..including forming man from the dust.Am I saying that a species cannot evolve? No..I am not saying that at all.I do believe that evolution does exist. But I don't believe that your ancestors or mine swung from trees. How do you explain the fact that no two human beings on earth are the same? It would seem to me if we evolved that after millions of years that nature would run out of "randomness" and genetic characteristics would start to be repeated in nature. And as for some accusing me of "worshipping" the Bible..hogwash!!!! I don't worship the Bible..but I do believe that it is the word of God.And my salvation does not depend on the book of Genesis.,,only Jesus Christ. In regards to your "randomness" comment. I know that Traffic believes God guided and guides evolution. While he does not have evidence for this, it is what Traffic believes. So there is no "randomness", it is all planned out by God. But, like you, some people believe God can create Creation anyway He chooses, be it the literal way of the first few chapters of Genesis or through evoltuion. To me, it's enough to know THAT God created the world. While I will find it interested to hear God tell me how He did it, I don't find it to be an important issue in my Christian walk.
|
|
|
Post by SonWorshiper on Jan 13, 2004 23:16:31 GMT -5
Quote by Himmel:
At least my church teaches non- violence and the only one who will speak out against war!
My Response:
My old pastor would probably disagree with you on the non-violence part. He once made a visit to South America and witnessed the torture chambers (that have been turned into museums) that were underneath some of the catholic monasteries.
History also disagrees with you on the non-violence part as the catholic church murdered and tortured thousands of people who wouldn't acknowledge her authority.
|
|