[_ Old Earth _] Christianity's Compatibly with Science.

[lordkalvan]

The word of God is truth.

Have you given up all intention of attempting a reasoned argument and reverted to simple Bible thumping and pulpit pounding? If so, I am not altogether sure what you are doing in the Christianity & Science part of the forum.

 

[jasoncran]

Can you imagine [as I've said before] how great a tool for evangelism it would have been for Jesus to state some of these things in the bible, spoke them to those writers EVEN IN a way they wouldn't even have a clue what they were writing down? It would have been an wonderful way to show that this one religion, amongst the thousands, was actually the true one. A great opportunity lost.

i think that the lord didnt want us focus on that because to him its more important for salvation then to know the secrets of the workings of the heavens.

real science creates more questions then answers.

so men wouldnt look to God but more and more what that meant and would spend enternity on that answer.

i dont buy the athiests when they state if God was right here and i could see him i would serve him.

its take faith to believe the bible and the bible isnt meant to prove God is real just that it states that he is.
circular yes. logic only goes so far

to quote c.s. lewis. i dont believe in the sun because i can see it but because by it i can see!

 

[Deavonreye]

Well, I appreciate the honesty of your post, jason.


Alabaster, lordkalvan's point is one that I would like to ditto.

 

[jasoncran]

alabaster, does your church teach apologetics?

sadly many these days dont.

 

[Alabaster]

i hate doing this to brethren.

why do you alalbaster see that the book of job is all literal and not poetic?

Excuse me? I distinctly remember being opposed by a member here when I said God was waxing poetic in a particular portion of Job.

FOR the record I am a creationist.

For the record, so am I, so your challenge is moot.

 

[Alabaster]

alabaster, does your church teach apologetics?

sadly many these days dont.

We teach the truth of the Word of God unreservedly. Why are you asking me that?

 

[Alabaster]

Well, I appreciate the honesty of your post, jason.


Alabaster, lordkalvan's point is one that I would like to ditto.

Of course you do. Have you run out of steam, then? ;)

 

[Deavonreye]

Of course you do. Have you run out of steam, then? ;)

"Run out of steam"? You haven't offered anything of value to the discussion that would have put any stress on me.

 

[Alabaster]

"Run out of steam"? You haven't offered anything of value to the discussion that would have put any stress on me.

Good, then carry on without the personal address...shall we?

 

[Deavonreye]

Good, then carry on without the personal address...shall we?

Personal address? I'm not following. Are you talking about "agreeing with a post from lordkalvan"?

 

[Alabaster]

Personal address? I'm not following. Are you talking about "agreeing with a post from lordkalvan"?

No, there are far to many 'you's' in the dialogue here. It is becoming rude. When I am personally addressed I respond likewise, and it shouldn't be.

 

[Deavonreye]

No, there are far to many 'you's' in the dialogue here. It is becoming rude. When I am personally addressed I respond likewise, and it shouldn't be.

: Well, . . . okay.

 

[lordkalvan]

No, there are far to many 'you's' in the dialogue here. It is becoming rude. When I am personally addressed I respond likewise, and it shouldn't be.

You are personally responsible for the content of what you post so others are most likely to use the personal pronoun when replying; this isn't rudeness. Since you posted the C&P from livingwaters.com, in the last four pages you have offered virtually nothing that amounts to science and precious little that amounts to Christianity, insofar as your various comments regarding God's truth, etc could as easily be offered by any believer in any monotheistic faith. At best you seem to be witnessing, so I wonder again what your intention is in posting here?

ETA Maybe you should pay attention to Jason's last post.

 

[Alabaster]

You are personally responsible for the content of what you post so others are most likely to use the personal pronoun when replying; this isn't rudeness. Since you posted the C&P from livingwaters.com, in the last four pages you have offered virtually nothing that amounts to science and precious little that amounts to Christianity, insofar as your various comments regarding God's truth, etc could as easily be offered by any believer in any monotheistic faith. At best you seem to be witnessing, so I wonder again what your intention is in posting here?

ETA Maybe you should pay attention to Jason's last post.

My offering was a valid contribution to the thread.

Of course I will witness to the power of God and the truth of Jesus Christ and the Scriptures. No one can stop that.

I don't agree with Jason.

 

[lordkalvan]

My offering was a valid contribution to the thread.

I didn't say it wasn't, but you seem singularly unwilling to defend the claims that it made.

Of course I will witness to the power of God and the truth of Jesus Christ and the Scriptures. No one can stop that.

As you are entitled to, but this doesn't amount to very much to do with Christianity & Science and will just be regarded as irrelevant 'noise'.

I don't agree with Jason.

Which doesn't make his comments not pertinent and to the point.

 

[abrown9]

Alabaster,

Even if we accept that God has the ability to circumvent physical constraints, how can contradictions within the bible be explained? Factual errors are no doubt a result of human authorship, and thus throw into question anything presented in the bible.

For example, Ahaziah is stated to be 22 years old in Kings when he took his reign, but is said to take his reign at 42 in Chronicles. Since Jehoram, the former king, died at age 40, it seems as though Ahaziah (who took the throne immediately after his father) could not possibly be 42. It must instead be concluded that Ahaziah is 22.

It seems to me the most reasonable explanation I've seen presented for this contradiction is a Scribal error. If scribes recording the verse are capable of making errors, there is undoubtedly an element of human influence in the scripture. This is not to suggest that the bible is not the word of God. Rather, it suggests to me that the only possible way it can be the word of God would be a scenario where the authors are influenced by God. The authors and scribes still possess human fallibilities (eg. transcription errors) and are limited by the scientific knowledge of their time.

Furthermore, the mere fact that the whale that swallowed Jonas is referred to as a fish demonstrates there is either a) A lack of knowledge (whales are mammals) or b) some degree of poetry that need not be translated literally.

 

[Alabaster]

There are no contradictions in any scripture. There are, however, minor copyist errors, mostly concerning numerals and counts, that do not infringe on the message therein.

For a people who did not classify living things into mammal and non-mammal, etc, calling the whale in Jonah a 'great fish' is no contradiction by any means.

 

[abrown9]

There are no contradictions in any scripture. There are, however, minor copyist errors, mostly concerning numerals and counts, that do not infringe on the message therein.

A contradiction is still a contradiction. It doesn't have to infringe on any overlying theme to show that there is human error in the scriptures. If there is human error, there is human involvement. Take, for example, the differences between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John's recording of the inscription on the cross. Their works were influenced by the stories they heard. No doubt, similar statements of scientific fact were influenced by the overwhelming beliefs of the time.

For a people who did not classify living things into mammal and non-mammal, etc, calling the whale in Jonah a 'great fish' is no contradiction by any means.

So you agree that the overwhelming scientific opinion at the time influenced what was written?

 

[Alabaster]

A contradiction is still a contradiction. It doesn't have to infringe on any overlying theme to show that there is human error in the scriptures. If there is human error, there is human involvement. Take, for example, the differences between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John's recording of the inscription on the cross. Their works were influenced by the stories they heard. No doubt, similar statements of scientific fact were influenced by the overwhelming beliefs of the time.

We all know that humans wrote the scriptures---under divine inspiration. We also accept minor copyist errors.

The Gospels are independent eye-witness records, and do not contradict.

So you agree that the overwhelming scientific opinion at the time influenced what was written?

The limited understanding and knowledge of what we see as scientific facts today filtered through in their language and accounts. It doesn't affect the truth of anything that is discovered later. In fact, it reinforces the scientific knowledge we have today.

 

[jasoncran]

what does biblical innerency have to do with science?