Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why carry on like a playground dispute? | Acts 1:3 | da_sheep | 45358 | ||
Hi. Just to keep things short ... - www.AnswersInGenesis.org - scientific evidence of a young Earth concerning the billion year old model, - if your "evidence" is radioactive dating ... people DECIDED to believe that the world was billions of years old, BEFORE radioactive dating was even invented. :-) (study history, or look up info) - concerning fossil deposits ... there is not a single place in the world where the fossils actually appear as in textbooks. (an honest and informed person who works with fossils at a museum would agree to this. Note. honest and informed.) - as for why the billion year old model is accepted ... politics. (look up the Monkey Trial)(info can also be found at the mentioned web-page). Is the Bible scientific? Yes. For science is the study of observations. Remember, theories can not be proven, according to science's own definition. Rather, theories are hypothetical ideas generated by the mind, not observations. Also, - Bible clearly says man from dust. (not monkey) - the Genesis 1 account is confirmed in Exodus 20 and in Exodus 31 PLEASE. DO NOT just reply out of impulse. This gets nowhere. Spend 3 years researching first. Order books. Etc. Then come back with your reply. -In conclusion: Arguing gets no where. Answers will not be found when questions are asked without FIRST being willing to listen prior to asking. The main issue is NOT about being a literist or not. No. It's about Faith in God. And when there are things that you do not understand, that is when you must have Faith. This is proven true time again and again. No reason to doubt the Bible or to bend it to our understanding. See this passage: (also, look at the description of the water cycle! not scientific?!!!) Isaiah 55:8-11 (NIV) 8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord . 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, 11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. Be blessed by God's Word. :-) |
||||||
2 | Why carry on like a playground dispute? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 45591 | ||
Hmmm. Quote: "PLEASE. DO NOT just reply out of impulse. This gets nowhere. Spend 3 years researching first. Order books. Etc. Then come back with your reply." I have been studying the origins debate in depth for over 4 years. So I qualify according to your standards. Quote: "No reason to doubt the Bible or to bend it to our understanding." I agree. No reason to doubt or bend any truth for all truth originates from God, whether it be scientific or scriptural, unless you believe God is a deceiver? It is the literalist who is required to produce evidence of a young earth which not only flies in the face of honest science but actually requires more evolution than the most die-hard atheistic scientist would propose. I've read dozens of books on all kinds of origins theories and perspectives, including some very persuasive ones from the young earth perspective. To date, the young earth perspective is the least valid scientifically and scripturally. You may agree with Ken Hamm and the others at AIG but you do so not because the science makes sense to you but because it conforms to what you were taught to believe and is neccesary to fit with your interpretation of Genesis. I don't fault you for it. I have many friends and a dear pastor who also shares your perspective. You have to deal with the fallout as each tenative "evidence" falls. Paluxy River fossils are but one example. Dr. Carl Baugh? Nice of him to disappear after his credentials were questioned. Ken Hamm is very critical of Hugh Ross. You'll note the recverse isn't true. Dr. Ross has never said an unkind word about Mr. Hamm. Dr. Ross has presented the view of long creation days in front of the faculty of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and not one of them was willing to dispute the conclusions. In fact they were enthusiastically endorsing the conclusions. This issue was also debated by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy and again they refused to say that the Bible requires six consecutive twenty four hour days. |
||||||
3 | Why carry on like a playground dispute? | Acts 1:3 | da_sheep | 45750 | ||
Part 1 Hi nimrod, Thanks for your reply. With all due respect, I would like to know what you think of the following. "science makes sense to you but because it conforms to what you were taught to believe and is neccesary to fit with your interpretation of Genesis" That reasoning is true for the opposite too ... that is because your underlying belief that the world was millions of years old, that therefore any science that supports that view is therefore true and that those that are different must be inaccurate. Imagine if someone grew up in a world that did not teach either view. But that the child was taught how to read. And this child picked up the Bible. What then would "in six days" mean to this child. And if this child were to walk around in the world, no one to guide, but just to observe, what conclusions would be reached? Only that God created the world (because it is evident in creation) just as it is written in the Bible. Or let's say the gospel was brought to some people far away in a remote area, away from western science. And then the Bible was presented. What then will they think? Some other thoughts: Adam was created on the 6th day. How old did Adam live? How old was he when he gave birth to Seth? There was a seventh day. So how long was the seventh day? How many people were cast out of the Garden of Eden? And to tie it to a post you had earlier ... if you said that the first 1000 years was about 40 000 years (just so that you can fit evolutionary theory), how long then are you saying Adam lived? So then, how long did Noah live? But if you say that only the first thousand years was forty thousand years long and after that a year was only a year ... I feel so sorry for those who were living around then. For there were people alive between the time of Adam and Noah and so forth. One thousand years is 365000 times longer than a day. Imagine this: If you went to bed one day. Woke up the next morning and time was running 365000 times faster ... yikes. Such talk is foolishness. Also, remember that a thousand years FOR US is like a day TO GOD. So, it is more reasonable to say that Adam's life (930 Adam years) is like a day to God. For Adam is a man. |
||||||