|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YE-creation: science , pompous dogma or faith message? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
We got side tracked in the quantized redshift thread recently. Here we can talk about what young earth creation really is.
For me it is a 'faith message' which is well backed by a lot of scientific facts. I only have ever wanted to present it in that way. Of course sometimes it comes of sounding like a pompous dogma. That is certainly not my intention. On occasions some of us will state some facts with an exclamtion mark becasue, for example, we can't believe that the other camp frequently wont even acknowledge it as suggestive of our viewpoint. But I do not claim that evoltuionists whether atheists, agnostics or OECs are idiots or anything like that. My message is simply that if we go reason only, my experience and my testimony, and my 'proclamation' is that you will go wrong becasue we believe that reason is far less important than conscience, obedience and faith. That is simply my testimnoy and you can do with it what you want. I will not force it on anyone. And I do not claim that you have to be a YEC to be a Christian. I have never claimed that. I marvel at Scripture becasue this fundamental issue is pointed out with such clarity in the very first pages. There were two trees in the garden - that had to be approached from the right attitude: knowledge and life. We proclaim that knowledge from the basis of a life-link with 'the true vine' is the way to go. Anything else is ultimately futility. That is our message. That is all it is. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-15-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
halcyonwaters Inactive Member |
Well said TB. I'd like to include myself in that -- I do NOT believe you need to believe in creation or any other doctrine to be a Christian. Christ is number one, and anything else is secondary.
I respect everyone, but that does not mean I respect what I see as butchering of the Bible's meaning, or the authority of the Bible David
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]We got side tracked in the quantized redshift thread recently. Here we can talk about what young earth creation really is. For me it is a 'faith message' which is well backed by a lot of scientific facts. I only have ever wanted to present it in that way. Of course sometimes it comes of sounding like a pompous dogma. That is certainly not my intention. On occasions some of us will state some facts with an exclamtion mark becasue, for example, we can't believe that the other camp frequently wont even acknowledge it as suggestive of our viewpoint. But I do not claim that evoltuionists whether atheists, agnostics or OECs are idiots or anything like that. My message is simply that if we go reason only, my experience and my testimony, and my 'proclamation' is that you will go wrong becasue we believe that reason is far less important than conscience, obedience and faith. That is simply my testimnoy and you can do with it what you want. I will not force it on anyone. And I do not claim that you have to be a YEC to be a Christian. I have never claimed that. I marvel at Scripture becasue this fundamental issue is pointed out with such clarity in the very first pages. There were two trees in the garden - that had to be approached from the right attitude: knowledge and life. We proclaim that knowledge from the basis of a life-link with 'the true vine' is the way to go. Anything else is ultimately futility. That is our message. That is all it is.
[/QUOTE] JM: Nicely said and precisely why your faith is not scientific. I contrast views like yours with other Christians. Rather than force science to fit the bible, they accept that the bible is a book about salvation. They also accept that modern scientific findings (such as an old earth with no global flood) are in perfect harmony with their faith. Forgive my false dichotomy for a moment (as there are many shades to this statement), but it seems that ye-creationists are constantly forcing science to fit a non-scientific text whilst other Christian's accept scientific discovery as independent verfication of God's creative power. Ye-creationists limit their God by tying him down to what they read in the bible. Other Christians acknowledge that God is all powerful and that evolution on an old earth is no threat to their God or salvation. You may not be as radical as Ken Ham (who insists that ye-creationism is a matter of salvation), but your efforts here to awkwardly force fit science into the bible belies your rigid faith. Why not worship the God of the bible rather than worship the bible as God? Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 08-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
halcyonwaters Inactive Member |
--Why not worship the God of the bible rather than worship the bible as God?--
Good question. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." David
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: And the word says (Numbers 31:16-17): Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Aww, what a pretty picture of god. Nowhere does John's text indicate that one should worship the bible as God. You are interpreting it that way. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 08-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: My bolds. I raise the question: Since "the beginning", how much of "the Word" has been preserved? What has been added, deleted, or altered, through the processing of man, to arrive at the modern Bible? Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
halcyonwaters Inactive Member |
--Nowhere does John's text indicate that one should worship the bible as God. You are interpreting it that way.--
The Bible is the Word of God and can be trusted to be accurate, truthful, and an authority. No Where is there any hint that Genesis is not written history. It written as history, qouted as history, Jesus believed it was history... I would be saying the same thing if you tried to qoute Parables as history. They are clearly not history, they are stories. If you can give me one biblical reason to believe Genesis is just meant to be a poem, I'm listening. Then, I'll start asking you about verses like II Peter 3:5 where Peter says (paraphrased) "Don't doubt the coming judgement of Christ. People forget that the world was already judged by the flood. It will happen again." David
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
halcyonwaters Inactive Member |
--My bolds.
I raise the question: Since "the beginning", how much of "the Word" has been preserved? What has been added, deleted, or altered, through the processing of man, to arrive at the modern Bible? Moose -- Our modern Bible is translated from a very old Bible. This isn't something I'm worried about, personally -- and I haven't studied it hardly at all. Right now, my knowledge on this ends that there are two old copies of the Bible, and one is slightly different. The one that is different, and considered altered has a few books where it's slightly shorter than than it should be. (Clarifications are removed.) It doesn't add up to much. I can't really debate this, sorry. I just wanted to say something so you didn't think I was ignoring your question. David
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Most modern bibles are translations of the KJB, which was a translation of the Duoai which was a translation of the Vulgate, which was a translation into Latin of a bible commissioned by the emporer Constantine. Prior to this time THE Bible did not exist. What did exist was hundreds or thousands of individual texts. Eusebius, compiled, translated and editted these into a book. Viola, a Holy and infallible document, just as the Emporer had requested. The texts of the OT are every bit as editted and modified, but I guess you don't care, as you admittedly have NEVER RESEARCHED THE BOOK UPON WHICH YOU STAKE YOUR SOUL!!!! ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3822 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
And, of course, there are some missing books and internal inconsistencies. The Bible is not inerrant because it was compiled and translated by fallible people.
[QUOTE][B]The Bible is the Word of God and can be trusted to be accurate, truthful, and an authority.[/QUOTE] [/B] The accuracy of the Bible is inversely proportional to the numberof times it has been edited and translated. The authority of the Bible is, at least partially, proportional to how much spiritual authority you place in the Roman Emperor Constantine, a man who was not even baptised when he oversaw the assembly of the Bible. [QUOTE][B]No Where is there any hint that Genesis is not written history.[/QUOTE] [/B] Nor is there any geologic evidence that it is historically correct.There is also historical evidence that the Flood as depicted in Genesis pre-dates the Pentateuch. It is apparently a Sumerian story and the Sumerian version of Noah is present in the Epic of Gilgamesh. [QUOTE][B]It written as history, qouted as history, Jesus believed it was history...[/QUOTE] [/B] (1) Who are you to put words in the mouth of Jesus? (2) The way it is written and quoted is no different from the parables of Jesus
[QUOTE][B]Then, I'll start asking you about verses[/QUOTE] [/B] You mean, you will start using parables. The root of this problem is that you think that the Bible is inerrant. Then you go around trying to use the Bible to prove itself inerrant. That is circular reasoning. Also, whoever said Peter had perfect knowledge? He had authority but not omniscience. The other disciples were not omniscient either and there are inconsistencies in their versions of the Saviours' life. You noted that you have not studied Biblical history deeply. I seriously encourage you to do so. I think you have a right to know certain things about the Bible, and about mainline Christianity. Do you believe that the Second Coming may be soon? [This message has been edited by gene90, 08-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3822 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
Most of 'The Word' was written a long time after 'the beginning', therefore your use of this passage to support an inerrant Bible is
in error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: John's account of 'in the beginning' contrasts with Genesis Gen 1 does not mention the 'word' being there in the beginning. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
halcyonwaters Inactive Member |
--Most modern bibles are translations of the KJB, which was a translation of the Duoai which was a translation of the Vulgate, which was a translation into Latin of a bible commissioned by the emporer Constantine. Prior to this time THE Bible did not exist. What did exist was hundreds or thousands of individual texts. Eusebius, compiled, translated and editted these into a book. Viola, a Holy and infallible document, just as the Emporer had requested.--
John, can you show me evidence that the KJV version of the Bible is different from the original texts? I'm starting not to know what I can trust from you. On the matters I know a little about, you're misrepresenting the facts. The Bible was not just pulled out of thin air, it was based on what all the differnet churches had already accepted as inspired. David
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
halcyonwaters Inactive Member |
--There is also historical evidence that the Flood as depicted in Genesis pre-dates the Pentateuch.--
FloodBabel Spread of Flood Stories Moses writes Torah Gene90 writes about historical evidence that the flood pre-dates the account in Genesis. --(1) Who are you to put words in the mouth of Jesus?(2) The way it is written and quoted is no different from the parables of Jesus-- Jesus comparing his judgement and the flood:Matthew 24:36-39; Luke 17:26-27 Parable: Matthew 24:32, Matthew 25 A clear difference. --You noted that you have not studied Biblical history deeply. I seriously encourage you to do so. I think you have a right to know certain things about the Bible, and about mainline Christianity. Do you believe that the Second Coming may be soon?-- Eventually I will study it. Right now, I'm content with just listening to experts in the field. We can't have knowledge in all areas... but yes, I will eventually study it. I don't know if the second coming is soon. I see a lot of correlations between the Bible and present-day. But a lot of generations have felt that way. David [This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
halcyonwaters Inactive Member |
--John's account of 'in the beginning' contrasts with Genesis
Gen 1 does not mention the 'word' being there in the beginning. Cheers Joe Meert-- The Word is Jesus. Jesus is God. God was in the beginning. David
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024