Members Alimantado Posted May 21, 2009 Members Share Posted May 21, 2009 Use more expressions? Eh? I'm confused, Molly. :puzzled: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members candlelight Posted May 22, 2009 Members Share Posted May 22, 2009 Use more expressions? Eh? I'm confused' date=' Molly. :puzzled:[/quote'] Smilies. :Green God bless, Molly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JAHinton Posted July 18, 2009 Members Share Posted July 18, 2009 BIG BANG A presentation at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago says, "in the beginning there was nothing and nothing exploded." This is the only accurate statement I ever heard from evolutionist. NOTHING EXPLODED Evolution definitely is not a fact it is not even a theory. Theories require scientific evidence. Evolution is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is merely somebody's guess. That is all it is it does not deserve the dignity of being called a theory. The 'scientific community" wants to imply that those creationist are scientific morons. The truth is evolution has more scientific difficulties than creation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crushmaster Posted July 18, 2009 Members Share Posted July 18, 2009 I love saying that. "I believe in the Big Bang. God said it and, "BANG!" it happened!" Well said, sir. I agree; evolution is just a hypothesis, and a very shaky one at that. God bless, Crushmaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bakershalfdozen Posted July 19, 2009 Members Share Posted July 19, 2009 Recently, I've been amazed and dismayed at the number of Christians I've read about that say they don't believe in a literal 6 day creation. The late Dr. J. Vernon McGee gave the perfect answer, IMO, to that today on the Through the Bible Q & A program."If you don't believe what the Bible says about creation, by what authority do you believe the Gospel?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pneu-engine Posted July 20, 2009 Members Share Posted July 20, 2009 The late Dr. J. Vernon McGee gave the perfect answer, IMO, to that today on the Through the Bible Q & A program."If you don't believe what the Bible says about creation, by what authority do you believe the Gospel?" That is beautiful. I thoroughly enjoy logic like that. :clap::clap: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alimantado Posted July 20, 2009 Members Share Posted July 20, 2009 Recently, I've been amazed and dismayed at the number of Christians I've read about that say they don't believe in a literal 6 day creation. The late Dr. J. Vernon McGee gave the perfect answer, IMO, to that today on the Through the Bible Q & A program."If you don't believe what the Bible says about creation, by what authority do you believe the Gospel?" That is an unfair question to ask if the person does not think they disagree with what the Bible says about Creation. All the non-literalists I've met have said that they very much believe what the Bible says about Creation but that they think the opening chapters of Genesis were never intended to be taken literally. I find it is quite common in discussions for person to mischaracterise another's position by claiming that the person agrees with an interpretation of scripture that they in fact reject, thereby making the person's objection look like an objection to an acknowledged Bible truth rather than an objection to a certain interpretation. For example, a Calvinist could say to many on here: if you don't believe what the Bible says about grace, by what authority do you believe the Gospel? The truth, of course, is that many on here do agree with what the Bible says about grace; they merely disagree with the Calvinist's interpretation. So it would be unfair and perhaps even disingenuous of the Calvinist to imply otherwise via the question above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members trc123 Posted July 20, 2009 Members Share Posted July 20, 2009 To this specific matter in how people characterize others while discussing their differences of interpretation, you have a valid point, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JAHinton Posted July 20, 2009 Members Share Posted July 20, 2009 (1) Not all things in scripture are intended to be taken literally. Scripture however forewarns us with such phrases as "is like unto' or "as though it were." These are totally missing from the account of creation. (2) Men have taken, until the advent of the evolutionary hypothesis, taken it to be literal. Then so as not to appear scientifically ignorant they have attempted to find away to make evolution and scripture agree. Paul warns against "science falsely" so called. If "science" does not agree with scripture pitch science do not change scripture. (3) If you believe something that is not true and I know that its not true yet allow you to continue to believe it, I am guilty of deception. Jesus would have known that it was misunderstood but did nothing to correct the misunderstanding. (4) They have a God that is unable to express himself clearly. My God is very distinct in what He means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members trc123 Posted July 20, 2009 Members Share Posted July 20, 2009 Ps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alimantado Posted July 20, 2009 Members Share Posted July 20, 2009 (2) Men have taken, until the advent of the evolutionary hypothesis, taken it to be literal. I'd be keen for someone to expand on this in more detail. I've had heard both your claim before and claims to the contrary. For example, I've heard that Augustine was arguing for a non-literal interpretation of the Creation account back in c.400 and that there is a long tradition of this belief in Christianity.If you believe something that is not true and I know that its not true yet allow you to continue to believe it' date=' I am guilty of deception.[/quote'] I would agree with this statement and I don't see where my earlier post stands in contention with it. I was arguing for the correct presentation of an opposing view, not for us to never point out when we think someone else is wrong. Thanks for your comments, JA Hinton! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bakershalfdozen Posted July 20, 2009 Members Share Posted July 20, 2009 Ali, It isn't unfair if I think their interpretation is wrong. Seriously though, nowhere does the Bible indicate that Genesis is to be taken figuratively, allegorically or mythically. In fact, Exodus says it was 6 literal days which became evidenced in the Jewish Sabbath:Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alimantado Posted July 20, 2009 Members Share Posted July 20, 2009 Ali' date=' It isn't unfair [i']if I think their interpretation is wrong. It is unfair because the question implies that the person being asked has already acknowledged something they have not acknowledged: that they believe the Bible is wrong. Again, a calvinist could say to you: "If you do not believe what the Bible says about Grace, by what authority do you believe the Gospel?" It's a loaded question because it is implying that at some point prior to the question being asked you admitted that you disagree with what the Bible says. The sensible answer to this question would be, "the assumption in your question that I have claimed not to believe what the Bible says about Grace is totally fallacious. Just because you think I disagree with the Bible on this point, it does not mean I think I disagree with the Bible on this point." To say that someone's belief conflicts with scripture is fair. To say that they also admit their belief conflicts with scripture is unfair and a distortion of their own claims (unless they actually do claim this for themselves, like I do ).Seriously though' date=' nowhere does the Bible indicate that Genesis is to be taken figuratively, allegorically or mythically.[/quote'] Fine. I've got no argument with this. I am interested in the claim, often made, that no Christians believed in a figurative interpretation before the enlightenment period. Good to talk to you again, Bakers. Hope all is well over in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members irishman Posted December 20, 2010 Author Members Share Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) Buckle your seat-belts folks, because here is another take on it! The "big bang" theory and the belief therein (or any evolutionary theory) is an act of the will, and not merely a "blindness to truth"! Here's what i mean: The evolutionist: "In the beginning there was this massive ball of energy"...the creationist asks, "Where did it come from?" and the evolutionist answers "It always existed"! Now, is that any different than our belief that God always was..that He had no beginning or end? It takes the same faith to believe both sides; the problem is the will. The evolutionist does not choose to believe, simply put. He hates God and godly people, and God's ways. He blatantly, and openly opposes the things of God, not because of a "distorted" or "twisted " faith, (he makes exercises the same type of faith in evolutionary theory), but because He doesn't want God to "control" his life. As for the foolishness of "something out of nothing", our belief in creation may look the same to him as his evolutionary theory does to us. Edited December 20, 2010 by irishman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted December 20, 2010 Members Share Posted December 20, 2010 No doubt evolutionists overriding desire to deny God, even to disprove God, befuddles their minds so they accept that which is absurd rather than even consider what Scripture says. They have determined to place their "faith" in anything their "wisdom" can come up with as opposed to anything the Bible may teach. Of course, outside of Scripture, their arguements and theories hold no water. If there was nothing and suddenly there was something which somehow became everything, yet they deny God, then just where did the something come from? Whether a mass of energy or a mass of material that became or was so huge it "created" energy and expoded, where did it have its origin? Their own theories of how evolution proceeded from their "big bang" also don't hold water and must be revamped every few years. There is only one idea which best explains all this and yet they won't even consider that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.