During the show, I thought to myself. If there was a God, and he created this really really really really big universe with all these wonders that are out there waiting for us to explore, why would you rather believe that His word only exist in a book? Why not embrace in a God that is bigger and more powerful than anything we can ever understand, you know, like the God that created this really really really really really big universe?
But that is the one we embrace, the one who made all of it. Absurd there should be a question about that.
What does His having communicated to us in writing have to do with how big He is? He communicates through Nature too, but being fallen we can't be sure we're reading Nature accurately. That's why He kindly gave us a written testimony. In which, by the way, He informs us that Nature shows His character too. But you don't see Him there, do you? That's because you're fallen. We need the writings to help us see the reality of things.
He communicates through Nature too, but being fallen we can't be sure we're reading Nature accurately...In which, by the way, He informs us that Nature shows His character too. But you don't see Him there, do you?
Aren't you fallen too? Does it make sense that God deliberately communicates with us in way that we will almost certainly understand?
I'm not sure you said what you intended to say here, but if Nature were as easy to read as a book it wouldn't have taken so long for science to discover all the things it finally laboriously discovered.
Since we are in the Accuracy forum, I think it is on topic to point out that there is nothing in the Bible that supports the idea of man becoming less able or capable scientifically after Adam sinned. In fact there is some Biblical support for exactly the opposite.
Ah well, believers know what it means even if you don't.
On the other hand, if your book was as easy to read as nature, then Christians would have achieved the same degree of unanimity on questions of doctrine that scientists have achieved on such questions as "is the Earth young or old?";
Oh that is not a problem with being able to read the Book. It's only too clear that it describes a Young Earth, and the reason some Christians disagree is merely that they are swayed by the claims of science, poor confused things.
"are we really descended from filthy monkey-men?" and that all-time favorite "are creationists a bunch of amusing loonies?"
Also nothing to do with the readability of the Bible.
I do not read Greek, but I've learned a few Greek words, and any time one consults an online Bible source one is presented with a variety of translations for any particular verse plus the Concordance which discusses the various meanings of the words in that verse.
The King James Bible made use of all the available Greek manuscripts as well as Latin, German, French, Syriac and many others, plus all the previous translations in English. Each verse was "diligently compared" with all these to arrive at the rendering they preferred. It is not a translation of a translation, and the more I learn about it the more I trust it.
I can speak a bit of Spanish, understand it better, understand some French and some German and even a few phrases in Russian. I even know enough of the first three to pick out some problems with subtitles myself.
Which of course has nothing to do with anything. The Bible in English translation, at least the King James, is quite trustworthy, but wherever there are questions we always have the Concordance and other translations to help us out.
In ANY language the Bible is far easier to read and understand than Nature.
Phat writes: And I think Faith is trying to explain her theory of why the secular scientists are wrong...being fallen, they couldn't read nature any better than they can read the Bible.
It's more like I don't think Nature is readable at all the way a book is and evidence for that is how long it took to develop scientific knowledge. If Nature were so easily readable primitive peoples could have understood what Newton and Einstein discovered. Also I don't think "secular scientists are wrong..." about anything other than evolution and the Old Earth. There's a long list of things they're right about. But again, it took until quite recently for that knowledge to be acquired.
If I understand Faith (and I wouldn't be surprised if I don't) she believes that she is fallen too but Jesus has helped her back up.
All I was saying was that God gave us the Bible BECAUSE Nature isn't readable. We'd see Him in Nature if it were. And yes this is because our minds are fallen, we're spiritually blind, and intellectually hindered as well. That's why we need a revelation from God to understand things rightly.
Yes you did compile a list of sciences I'd supposedly have to reject if I reject evolution and an Old Earth but you are wrong, I reject none of them and none of them needs to be rejected because they fit in quite well with Creationist assumptions.
Wherever there are Old Earth assumptions we disagree, but the bulk of science has nothing to do with such assumptions. Genetics doesn't need them, most Geology doesn't need them, medicine doesn't need them, very little needs them and the stuff that uses them is all theoretical and impractical, essentially useless, they are tacked on and have nothing to do with the facts of the sciences.
Yes, I do believe they don't need it. They make use of it here and there though I don't think it's really necessary, but the vast majority of their knowledge has no need of it at all. 90% or more of your course in Geology is quite acceptable to a Creationist because all that knowledge has nothing to do with an Old Earth.