PDA

View Full Version : Please pray for this forum!



Richard Amiel McGough
06-06-2007, 04:41 PM
Please pray that God will use this forum for His Glory, and that His Word will go forth with purity, clarity, and strength from here. And that we will be united in our faith, fulfilling the Scripture:

Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

And remember to Praise God for the gifts of technology He has given us to use in the proclamation of His Gospel.

Amen!

shalag
06-20-2007, 10:33 AM
:pray: In prayer for Biblewheel:

Ecclesiastes 1:1(23/Kaf Sof) Cast your bread upon the waters,
For you will find it after many days.

2Give a serving to seven, and also to eight,
For you do not know what evil will be on the earth.

3If the clouds are full of rain,
They empty themselves upon the earth;
And if a tree falls to the south or the north,
In the place where the tree falls, there it shall lie.

4He who observes the wind will not sow,
And he who regards the clouds will not reap.

5As you do not know what is the way of the wind, F10
Or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child,
So you do not know the works of God who makes everything.

6In the morning sow your seed,
And in the evening do not withhold your hand;
For you do not know which will prosper,
Either this or that,
Or whether both alike will be good.

7Truly the light is sweet,
And it is pleasant for the eyes to behold the sun;

8But if a man lives many years
And rejoices in them all,
Yet let him remember the days of darkness,
For they will be many.
All that is coming is vanity.

shalag
06-25-2007, 06:13 PM
Please pray that God will use this forum for His Glory, and that His Word will go forth with purity, clarity, and strength from here. And that we will be united in our faith, fulfilling the Scripture:

Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

And remember to Praise God for the gifts of technology He has given us to use in the proclamation of His Gospel.

Amen!

For the readers of this forum I pray:
:pray: Ephesians 1:15 (65) Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints,
16 (66) I do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers:
17 (67) that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him,
18 (68) the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,
19 (69) and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power
20 (70) which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,
21 (71) far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.

Richard Amiel McGough
06-25-2007, 06:18 PM
For the readers of this forum I pray:
:pray: Ephesians 1:15 (65) Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints,
16 (66) I do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers:
17 (67) that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him,
18 (68) the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,
19 (69) and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power
20 (70) which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,
21 (71) far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.

:pray: Lord God - You are the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. You are the Creator, and you have given us the revelation of your Holy Word. I pray with my sister shalag that you give each member of this forum "the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of" You and Your Son, Christ Jesus our Lord, through the power of Your Holy Spirit! Amen! :pray:

shalag
09-11-2007, 04:26 PM
Please pray that God will use this forum for His Glory, and that His Word will go forth with purity, clarity, and strength from here. And that we will be united in our faith, fulfilling the Scripture:

Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

And remember to Praise God for the gifts of technology He has given us to use in the proclamation of His Gospel.

Amen!

Father, by the atoning blood of Your Son Jesus Christ, I ask for the reconciliation of Your body - this body of believers participating in this forum - in Your Holy Spirit. We thank you for the wisdom, the knowledge and the revelation of Your holy Word. We ask forgiveness for and renounce all pride, self-righteousness, arrogance, and striving, and lay all revelation at your feet. We thank You that your Word does not return void but that it shall accomplish that which you please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto YOU have sent it. Father, whether You have revealed these things to us for our own edification, sharing Your intimate presence with us, or whether you use it for edification of Your body, or for Jews or any unbeliever -we give it back into your Hand and we go out with joy and are led forth in peace and instead of the thorn and the brier we offer to You the fruit of the Spirit. We agree that it is good and pleasant that the brethren dwell together in the unity of Your Holy Spirit and we thank you for Your grace to do so.

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name, the Name of Jesus, the Name above all Names, the Name at which every knee will bow, those above the earth, those below the earth, and we who are in the earth. Thy kingdom come and we acknowledge that it is even upon us now through Jesus Christ whom we take rest as you establish it in Your fullness. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread - and forgive us our tresspasses - as we forgive our brother(s). Lord Jesus, deliver us from evil - especially the evil mouth, the acid tongue. Your love is not rude, does not boast, and is not proud. All power, and honor, and glory - to You alone. Amen

Richard Amiel McGough
12-02-2012, 06:32 PM
Please pray that God will use this forum for His Glory, and that His Word will go forth with purity, clarity, and strength from here. And that we will be united in our faith, fulfilling the Scripture:

Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

And remember to Praise God for the gifts of technology He has given us to use in the proclamation of His Gospel.

Amen!



:pray: Lord God - You are the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. You are the Creator, and you have given us the revelation of your Holy Word. I pray with my sister shalag that you give each member of this forum "the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of" You and Your Son, Christ Jesus our Lord, through the power of Your Holy Spirit! Amen! :pray:


This is a reminder of where I was at when I opened this forum back in June 2007. I find it fascinating to review my old posts. It gives us a "case study" of how my beliefs changed over time, and why.

David M
12-03-2012, 07:04 AM
This is a reminder of where I was at when I opened this forum back in June 2007. I find it fascinating to review my old posts. It gives us a "case study" of how my beliefs changed over time, and why.

Just maybe Richard, you have to start all over again and come to the Bible afresh. Please do not lump the likes of me, jce and Twospirits as belonging to mainstream Christians that are following man-made myths. I know you keep challenging me on why I can make such a claim, but as you have said (as I recall); "you might be right". As one who is prepared to look for stepping stones of agreement, in order to get to the truth, I realize that this could be a very long process.

It is very difficult to find a basis of agreement, when I have already tried to do this and even compromise to find a way or resolving the age of the earth by looking at the early stages of creation as if paralleled to the way Evolutionists think life evolved. There is a progression of complexity in the creation of life as recorded in Genesis which in the early stages would explain the large periods estimated by dating methods. There might have been steps in Creation that Evolution has gaps for and that man been the last in the line of creation came when all that went before was said by God to be very good. God was preparing the environment for man to live on the earth and so I am open to accept that this could have taken a long time. There might be factors in the history of the earth in the period in which it was said that the earth was void and without form that might be responsible for the appearance of the age of the earth. Our study of these possibilities doe not need to interfere with getting to the truth of the words that are in the scriptures from which the Bible has been handed down.

I have just written a post after watching Michio Kaku's video; The Universe in a Nutshell. The problem is that we do not have an explanation for the beginning. Without God, we only have science by which to come up with an explanation. I do not see how we can explain the beginning without God. Either matter had to exist without a beginning (which requires the same belief as God existing without any beginning), or else matter or God came into existence. If all matter was created out of God's energy, then in a manner of speaking, "God is all and in all". The one problem in God's creation which God will put right, is the pinnacle of God's creation - man, do not all have the spirit (knowledge, understanding) of God in them. This only comes (these days) from learning about God from His inspired word. God has used people to bring about His purpose and maybe that is still happening in ways we do not see. Maybe we have to work towards establishing these statements I have just made.

There is a lot of will on this forum by those who hold the promises of God dear (as I do), that you will find God again and see the value in His promises. I finished another post before this one in which I made the statement that "the love of God is far greater that the severity of God". The severity of God is short and temporarily compared to His eternal mercy and love. The positive gain of eternal life, which God is offering, is far greater than anything else anyone could offer you. It might be an "If" for you at the moment, but if God did create the Universe and the earth and life upon it, then it is possible for God to do what He has promised.

Whether we accept God or not at the beginning of our study, the have the problem of agreeing on what we should understand by the word of God. This means we have to look at everything closely and bring all ideas to the table and see what ideas can be eliminated and which ideas to keep. What we have to do is look at all ways verses can be understood and keep an open mind on certain verses until they are found to agree or are answered by other pars of scripture. I know this has already been done, and others have come to different conclusions. I say, that there are errors in those conclusions and they have not taken all scripture into account or there conclusions have been built up on a series of misunderstandings.

You were right to question your former beliefs which are taught mainstream christian churches and you know what most of the mainstream churches teach, but somehow you are holding on to ideas that you will not drop and will continue to support and say that this is what the plain and simple truth of the Bible says. I appreciate your challenges which have made me stronger for having to justify those beliefs by reasoning from the world of God. I only want to reason from the word of God to get the best understanding. We can use dictionaries for Hebrew and Greek to help get to an understanding of the words. The one difficulty is getting to the understanding that was in the author's mind and which the author intends us to understand. If the scriptures are inspired by God, then it is what God wants us to understand that we need to know.


Starting at the beginning we could start off by examining what is meant by the "image of God". God has different sides to His Character. God is a god of love but is also a god who hates. Now why should God hate anything? What is it that God hates? We have to start somewhere and starting at the beginning, and in the Old Testament, God is presented as ONE. Somehow, we need to stay focused as closely as possible on the subject without allowing ourselves to go down side trails.

Only yesterday I was reminded that Isaac waited 19/20 years for his prayer to be answered when Rebecca could not conceive. Your transition has only been five years from the post in 2007 you refer to. You say that God does not answer prayer; do you think God has blessed this forum as you requested? God does not answer prayer in the way we expect, because most times we ask amiss. Because we do not get immediate answers, we might not think God answers prayers. Many will testify differently and jce has done. When you asked for God to bless this forum, what was your motive? The fact is, this forum is still going and it can help those looking for truth. That is the only reason I am contributing to thos forum I am not looking for personal gain. I want to help others discern the truth from the lies. If that is both our intents, then we should be more in tune with studying the word of God and not worry about a person's credentials. Jesus chose fishermen to become "fishers of men", Jesus did not choose theologians to propound theories. Theories do not save anyone.

I look forward to more meaningful discussions with you in future, in which avoidance of "throwing stones" should be sought. Let's stick to the arguments and reason from the scriptures we have in order to get the best out of those scriptures we can.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough
12-03-2012, 11:02 AM
Just maybe Richard, you have to start all over again and come to the Bible afresh. Please do not lump the likes of me, jce and Twospirits as belonging to mainstream Christians that are following man-made myths. I know you keep challenging me on why I can make such a claim, but as you have said (as I recall); "you might be right". As one who is prepared to look for stepping stones of agreement, in order to get to the truth, I realize that this could be a very long process.

Hey there my friend,

Great post! Thanks!

:signthankspin:

I really appreciate your effort to find "stepping stones of agreement." And yes, it could be a long process, but I think the "fast track" is to accept nothing that cannot be established on reasons that would convince a "rational skeptic." If we don't do that, then we have not way to discern between ourselves and deluded folks who hold entirely unfounded beliefs.

The first challenge is to discern what you mean by "man made myths." It seems to me that the doctrine of the Bible as "God's inerrant Word" is the primary man-made myth underlying all our discussion. It is a myth that we have received from the believers who came before us, and I've never seen any reason sufficient to convince a rational skeptic. Even the Bible Wheel, which is the strongest evidence I have ever seen suggesting that the Bible was designed by a supernatural agent does not tell us how we are supposed to interpret it or that it is "inerrant" in any way at all. I think these are issues of primary importance.

What would it mean to "start all over again and come to the Bible afresh"? It feels like I've done that to a large extent. I used to look at the Bible through "believer's eyes" not unlike your own. But now I am able to freely admit what I see and don't try to FORCE the Bible to fit my preconceived "man-made" doctrines.



It is very difficult to find a basis of agreement, when I have already tried to do this and even compromise to find a way or resolving the age of the earth by looking at the early stages of creation as if paralleled to the way Evolutionists think life evolved. There is a progression of complexity in the creation of life as recorded in Genesis which in the early stages would explain the large periods estimated by dating methods. There might have been steps in Creation that Evolution has gaps for and that man been the last in the line of creation came when all that went before was said by God to be very good. God was preparing the environment for man to live on the earth and so I am open to accept that this could have taken a long time. There might be factors in the history of the earth in the period in which it was said that the earth was void and without form that might be responsible for the appearance of the age of the earth. Our study of these possibilities doe not need to interfere with getting to the truth of the words that are in the scriptures from which the Bible has been handed down.

I hope you remember that I have allowed for the possibility of God intervening in evolution (though I don't personally believe it). The only rational challenges to evolution that I see are 1) the origin of the first cell and 2) the specific mechanisms that drive it (some scientists don't think the "standard" mechanisms like mutation, natural selection, recombination, etc. are sufficient to explain everything). But the origin of the first cell is not particularly relevant to the topic of evolution per se because evolution is concerned with how that first cell evolved. So even if God created the first cell, it wouldn't change any facts concerning how it evolved thereafter. And disputes over the mechanism doesn't change the fact that evolution has occurred over the span of millions of years.

So where does the Bible story fit into the science of evolution? It doesn't. The Bible says essentially nothing about how life arose. It says little more than "God did it." So we must look to the natural world for answers. And the answers we find are very compelling and supported by massive amounts of evidence.

Even if there are "gaps" in evolution, I don't see how that kind of thing would be relevant because the Bible teaches nothing like what really happened. It doesn't teach that animals evolved over millions of years. Therefore, the Bible is largely silent on this issue, but anything it does appear to teach (like Young Earth Creationism) is clearly wrong and should not be believed.



I have just written a post after watching Michio Kaku's video; The Universe in a Nutshell. The problem is that we do not have an explanation for the beginning. Without God, we only have science by which to come up with an explanation. I do not see how we can explain the beginning without God. Either matter had to exist without a beginning (which requires the same belief as God existing without any beginning), or else matter or God came into existence. If all matter was created out of God's energy, then in a manner of speaking, "God is all and in all". The one problem in God's creation which God will put right, is the pinnacle of God's creation - man, do not all have the spirit (knowledge, understanding) of God in them. This only comes (these days) from learning about God from His inspired word. God has used people to bring about His purpose and maybe that is still happening in ways we do not see. Maybe we have to work towards establishing these statements I have just made.

The focus on "the beginning" seems silly to me. Science is very young. We only discovered Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in the last hundred years! To complain that we don't have all the answers about how the universe arose means nothing to me, and I cannot imagine any justification to use that as a reason to believe "God did it."

You say you "do not see how we can explain the beginning without God." I think we should explore this, because I don't see how God is any kind of explanation at all because God - if he is defined as omniscient and eternal - is incapable of doing anything. Such a God cannot act because all actions take place in time, and he is supposed to be outside of time, the creator of time. Thus, that concept of God is logically incoherent and cannot give us any kind of "explanation" of anything. And besides, God is just a "man-made concept" - no one has seen him or knows anything about him except what other humans have written in books.



There is a lot of will on this forum by those who hold the promises of God dear (as I do), that you will find God again and see the value in His promises. I finished another post before this one in which I made the statement that "the love of God is far greater that the severity of God". The severity of God is short and temporarily compared to His eternal mercy and love. The positive gain of eternal life, which God is offering, is far greater than anything else anyone could offer you. It might be an "If" for you at the moment, but if God did create the Universe and the earth and life upon it, then it is possible for God to do what He has promised.

I am absolutely and totally open to any and all truth, so if you or other members of this forum have a truth you would hope for me to believe, all you need to do is explain why I should believe it is true. Pretty simple, eh? :winking0071:

Of course, we all know that everyone has different opinions about the Bible and that most areas of dispute are disputed because the Bible is so ambiguous. So it becomes a war of words with no way for anyone to establish the truth. That's why I'm so mystified when I see you and others hold so tenaciously to things that cannot be known with any certainty.



You were right to question your former beliefs which are taught mainstream christian churches and you know what most of the mainstream churches teach, but somehow you are holding on to ideas that you will not drop and will continue to support and say that this is what the plain and simple truth of the Bible says. I appreciate your challenges which have made me stronger for having to justify those beliefs by reasoning from the world of God. I only want to reason from the word of God to get the best understanding. We can use dictionaries for Hebrew and Greek to help get to an understanding of the words. The one difficulty is getting to the understanding that was in the author's mind and which the author intends us to understand. If the scriptures are inspired by God, then it is what God wants us to understand that we need to know.

I think there is a persistent misunderstanding here. I never believed anything merely because it was "taught in mainstream christian churches" (though I can't deny those beliefs strongly influenced me). I've always been an independent thinker. And even if I did, how is that different than you strict adherence to the teachings of the Christadelphians? How is that different than anyone else adhering to teachings received from fallible men?

I think we all would greatly benefit if we started with a "clean slate" with absolutely no assumptions about the Bible. What would we conclude if we read it with no presumption that it was the "inerrant and infallible Word of God"?



Starting at the beginning we could start off by examining what is meant by the "image of God". God has different sides to His Character. God is a god of love but is also a god who hates. Now why should God hate anything? What is it that God hates? We have to start somewhere and starting at the beginning, and in the Old Testament, God is presented as ONE. Somehow, we need to stay focused as closely as possible on the subject without allowing ourselves to go down side trails.

That's an interesting place to start. And not a bad idea since we see it in the first chapter of Genesis. But then again, I'm not sure it is good to start with a debate about the Trinity. Is not your mind absolutely closed on this issue? I'm pretty sure you would reject any evidence that contradicts your position, no matter how logical or true or incontrovertible. This means you would find yourself on the receiving end of my wrath for I cannot abide willful rejection of logic and truth, and we both know that would be neither pleasant nor fruitful. You are absolutely committed to a man-made doctrine concerning the nature of Christ no less than the most fervent Trinitarian. The potsherds clash with other potsherds.



Only yesterday I was reminded that Isaac waited 19/20 years for his prayer to be answered when Rebecca could not conceive. Your transition has only been five years from the post in 2007 you refer to. You say that God does not answer prayer; do you think God has blessed this forum as you requested? God does not answer prayer in the way we expect, because most times we ask amiss. Because we do not get immediate answers, we might not think God answers prayers. Many will testify differently and jce has done. When you asked for God to bless this forum, what was your motive? The fact is, this forum is still going and it can help those looking for truth. That is the only reason I am contributing to thos forum I am not looking for personal gain. I want to help others discern the truth from the lies. If that is both our intents, then we should be more in tune with studying the word of God and not worry about a person's credentials. Jesus chose fishermen to become "fishers of men", Jesus did not choose theologians to propound theories. Theories do not save anyone.

I understand that God could "answer prayer" in subtle ways, but that's not how the Bible presents it. The Bible has God doing great and mighty things as if he really existed as a PERSON active in the universe like you or me. I see no evidence for that idea at all. If God does act, it is in the most inscrutable ways that can never be TRUSTED. For example, the vast majority of people who would trust God to heal their children of deadly diseases would be guilty of child abuse and manslaughter because God cannot be TRUSTED to heal anyone of anything. This is a FACT - not an opinion. It directly contradicts the Biblical teaching that God is trustworthy.

If God cannot be trusted to do ANYTHING for his people in this life, why should we trust him to save us in the next?

As for your question if God has blessed this forum - I have no evidence that God has involved himself in it in any way at all. It is here because humans such as myself and my host do what it takes to keep it running.

What was my motive? I stated it in the prayer: "Please pray that God will use this forum for His Glory, and that His Word will go forth with purity, clarity, and strength from here. And that we will be united in our faith."



I look forward to more meaningful discussions with you in future, in which avoidance of "throwing stones" should be sought. Let's stick to the arguments and reason from the scriptures we have in order to get the best out of those scriptures we can.

I agree absolutely! :thumb:

But in my defense I must note that the comments you interpret as "stones" were thrown at persistent and repeated errors that seemed entirely irrational and unjustifiable to me.

Great chatting my friend,

Richard

David M
12-03-2012, 06:02 PM
I really appreciate your effort to find "stepping stones of agreement." And yes, it could be a long process, but I think the "fast track" is to accept nothing that cannot be established on reasons that would convince a "rational skeptic." If we don't do that, then we have not way to discern between ourselves and deluded folks who hold entirely unfounded beliefs.
Starting at Genesis and working through the books of the Bible, what is the first event that we can discuss that you consider could be accepted by a rational skeptic?


The first challenge is to discern what you mean by "man made myths." It seems to me that the doctrine of the Bible as "God's inerrant Word" is the primary man-made myth underlying all our discussion. It is a myth that we have received from the believers who came before us, and I've never seen any reason sufficient to convince a rational skeptic. Even the Bible Wheel, which is the strongest evidence I have ever seen suggesting that the Bible was designed by a supernatural agent does not tell us how we are supposed to interpret it or that it is "inerrant" in any way at all. I think these are issues of primary importance.
You could also be devizing your own myth to say that God's word, as it was originally inspired, was errant and fallible. I will concede that the Bible as it is now, has man-made errors in it and so we can agree the errors when we think the Bible is in error, otherwise we look for a legitimate interpretation that removes the error. We should not let man-made errors derail the process of finding the truth in the error-free part of the Bible.


What would it mean to "start all over again and come to the Bible afresh"? It feels like I've done that to a large extent. I used to look at the Bible through "believer's eyes" not unlike your own. But now I am able to freely admit what I see and don't try to FORCE the Bible to fit my preconceived "man-made" doctrines.
It is hard to suspend our beliefs totally but we have to try and see what the Bible is saying without jumping to our preconceived conclusions. You might not think you are forcing your preconceived conclusions but I think you might be making the wrong connections. This will only become apparent when engaging in discussion and then we will have to keep each other in check about jumping to conclusions.


I hope you remember that I have allowed for the possibility of God intervening in evolution (though I don't personally believe it). The only rational challenges to evolution that I see are 1) the origin of the first cell and 2) the specific mechanisms that drive it (some scientists don't think the "standard" mechanisms like mutation, natural selection, recombination, etc. are sufficient to explain everything). But the origin of the first cell is not particularly relevant to the topic of evolution per se because evolution is concerned with how that first cell evolved. So even if God created the first cell, it wouldn't change any facts concerning how it evolved thereafter. And disputes over the mechanism doesn't change the fact that evolution has occurred over the span of millions of years.
For the sake of finding the truth in the Bible we can avoid the Creation story and we can accept that man has sinned and take it from there.


So where does the Bible story fit into the science of evolution? It doesn't. The Bible says essentially nothing about how life arose. It says little more than "God did it." So we must look to the natural world for answers. And the answers we find are very compelling and supported by massive amounts of evidence.
As replied already, we can for the sake of finding the truth in God's word avoid the creation and start by accepting man has sinned and take it from there. We have to go on and see what God's purpose is and how He will accomplish it. We can look at the history of Israel and see what we can agree on.


Even if there are "gaps" in evolution, I don't see how that kind of thing would be relevant because the Bible teaches nothing like what really happened. It doesn't teach that animals evolved over millions of years. Therefore, the Bible is largely silent on this issue, but anything it does appear to teach (like Young Earth Creationism) is clearly wrong and should not be believed.
The creation story is basic and simplistic. The order in which life by way of plants and animals was creation is generally accepted as being in the correct order. I am saying that we do not concentrate on this and find an agreed starting place say after the fall of Adam and Eve and take it from the point that man has sinned. We do not get into real detail until after the Flood and we start with Abraham and the promises made to him.



The focus on "the beginning" seems silly to me. Science is very young. We only discovered Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in the last hundred years! To complain that we don't have all the answers about how the universe arose means nothing to me, and I cannot imagine any justification to use that as a reason to believe "God did it."
You are putting your faith is science to come up with all the answers. It will not come up with the answers in your lifetime and so what conclusion are you going to come to with the evidence that we have at present. People have had to reach their own conclusions in all generations before the advent of science that was sparked off by Isaac Newton. How do we know if God is not behind the inspiration of the great scientists like Newton and Maxwell? If they did not develop their theories and the mathematics to go with them, at the time they did we would not be where we are today (scientifically speaking) and we would not be having this conversation via the internet.


You say you "do not see how we can explain the beginning without God." I think we should explore this, because I don't see how God is any kind of explanation at all because God - if he is defined as omniscient and eternal - is incapable of doing anything. Such a God cannot act because all actions take place in time, and he is supposed to be outside of time, the creator of time. Thus, that concept of God is logically incoherent and cannot give us any kind of "explanation" of anything. And besides, God is just a "man-made concept" - no one has seen him or knows anything about him except what other humans have written in books.
We can look at this, but it will not help us with understanding the Bible. I agree that if we consider God was there at the beginning when matter was created from energy, it tells us nothing about God. There is no need to introduce concepts such as omniscient and omnipresence etc. Those attributes might or might not become apparent until we see what is revealed about God in the Bible and this is what we have to agree on.



I am absolutely and totally open to any and all truth, so if you or other members of this forum have a truth you would hope for me to believe, all you need to do is explain why I should believe it is true. Pretty simple, eh? :winking0071:
I would hope that as we examine the word of God, the truth will be revealed. It is an exploration together rather than you be told and then you raise objections and your counter argument. I want to avoid this. We have to look at what the Bible says and does not say and try to prevent making assumptions. We have to look for the Bible to provide the answers and avoid forcing conclusions. This is one of the rules that we should work to in order to try and make progress.


Of course, we all know that everyone has different opinions about the Bible and that most areas of dispute are disputed because the Bible is so ambiguous. So it becomes a war of words with no way for anyone to establish the truth. That's why I'm so mystified when I see you and others hold so tenaciously to things that cannot be known with any certainty.
This is why we ignore what we have read or been told and we make our own exposition of the verses of the Bible to come to our own conclusions.



I think there is a persistent misunderstanding here. I never believed anything merely because it was "taught in mainstream christian churches" (though I can't deny those beliefs strongly influenced me). I've always been an independent thinker. And even if I did, how is that different than you strict adherence to the teachings of the Christadelphians? How is that different than anyone else adhering to teachings received from fallible men?
First of all, I think I read a post of yours in which you said you did not agree with labels and yet you are insistent on labeling me. It is wrong to label me as this gives you preconceived ideas of what I believe. We must suspend all labels and get to the truth by our own exposition to get to the heart of the meaning. The teaching I have now, I regard as coming from the Bible and not from fallible men. I am accepting the Bible as the inspired word of God and not of men. I have no reason to think the Bible is error-ridden. I accept the Bible has some introduced errors made by men though not done so deliberately. This should make no difference in getting to an understanding of what the authors intended us to understand, provided we do our own exposition of chapters and verses. We take into account, context and the meaning of words in order to get to the truth. If we are diligent in this, we shall expose the man-made errors that have become man-made myths.


I think we all would greatly benefit if we started with a "clean slate" with absolutely no assumptions about the Bible. What would we conclude if we read it with no presumption that it was the "inerrant and infallible Word of God"?
I agree totally with this approach and that is why we have to set ourselves rules and keep each other in check to ensure we stick to the rules we apply to exposition. What would we conclude if we read the Bible with no presumption that it is errant and fallible? What goes for me must also apply to you also when we engage on this course of exposition.



That's an interesting place to start. And not a bad idea since we see it in the first chapter of Genesis. But then again, I'm not sure it is good to start with a debate about the Trinity. Is not your mind absolutely closed on this issue? I'm pretty sure you would reject any evidence that contradicts your position, no matter how logical or true or incontrovertible. This means you would find yourself on the receiving end of my wrath for I cannot abide willful rejection of logic and truth, and we both know that would be neither pleasant nor fruitful. You are absolutely committed to a man-made doctrine concerning the nature of Christ no less than the most fervent Trinitarian. The potsherds clash with other potsherds.
Unfortunately Richard, you are introducing the Trinity in Genesis when there is no need to. Can you see how you are introducing your preconceived ideas do early on? I did not want to preempt any doctrine when starting from after the fall of Adam and Eve. At some point the Trinity might be brought in as an explanation when we come to Jesus, but from the reading of Genesis alone, I see no evidence for suggesting the Trinity. The only messianic verse is that of Gen 3:15 in which we have God telling us about the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. How can you introduce the Trinity at this stage from what is read there?



I understand that God could "answer prayer" in subtle ways, but that's not how the Bible presents it. The Bible has God doing great and mighty things as if he really existed as a PERSON active in the universe like you or me. I see no evidence for that idea at all. If God does act, it is in the most inscrutable ways that can never be TRUSTED. For example, the vast majority of people who would trust God to heal their children of deadly diseases would be guilty of child abuse and manslaughter because God cannot be TRUSTED to heal anyone of anything. This is a FACT - not an opinion. It directly contradicts the Biblical teaching that God is trustworthy.
We need to explore this as a separate subject. I do not understand how you see "the Bible presents it". I am wary of some faith healing and yet I cannot rule it out. I question the motives and sincerity of faith healers and so we have to be careful what we believe. The examples we have in the Bible are immediate and lasting. I believe faith that originates in the mind can be a powerful force whether that faith is directed towards God or not. Faith can be like a placebo. This should not be used as an excuse to negate faith in God.


If God cannot be trusted to do ANYTHING for his people in this life, why should we trust him to save us in the next?
Your reply is negative. I have no doubt that God can be trusted; it is man that I do not trust. I am convinced God is keeping His word and fulfilling His purpose and that those who are friends with God can receive His providential care. We are told; "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much". That is the key to having prayer answered; how righteous are we to expect God to act on our behalf?


As for your question if God has blessed this forum - I have no evidence that God has involved himself in it in any way at all. It is here because humans such as myself and my host do what it takes to keep it running.
Discerning between time and chance and the providential care of God is difficult. This forum does nothing to affect the will of God and so God does not have to get involved to support it or prohibit it. There will probably come a time when the technology we have today will be lost in the future as a result of what might take place on earth in the future when God's judgement is poured out on the nations. This is conjecture at this time. The forum will have an influence on those reading it, which can be for the better or the worse according to whose posts are read. If it was against the will of God, then God would cause it to close down, but God is letting man have a free hand at the present time.


What was my motive? I stated it in the prayer: "Please pray that God will use this forum for His Glory, and that His Word will go forth with purity, clarity, and strength from here. And that we will be united in our faith."
That is a good motive and a good goal to work towards. In your case you have to find some faith again as without God as an explanation, you have no faith.



I agree absolutely! :thumb:

But in my defense I must note that the comments you interpret as "stones" were thrown at persistent and repeated errors that seemed entirely irrational and unjustifiable to me.
We can forget any past errors we think have been made and start afresh and tackle any errors we make by keeping each other in check. We can deal with the errors as they arose. We must try to deal with one subject/chapter/verse at a time and not get bogged down in side-trails.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough
12-03-2012, 08:36 PM
Starting at Genesis and working through the books of the Bible, what is the first event that we can discuss that you consider could be accepted by a rational skeptic?

I can't think of anything in the creation chapters that would be acceptable to a rational skeptic. Nothing in the later chapters makes any sense scientifically. There was no global flood and the various languages did not come from God confusing languages at Babel. Most skeptical scholars think that the earliest point real history could begin would be in Genesis 12 with the call of Abram, and I agree. But there's no way to confirm that he really existed.




The first challenge is to discern what you mean by "man made myths." It seems to me that the doctrine of the Bible as "God's inerrant Word" is the primary man-made myth underlying all our discussion. It is a myth that we have received from the believers who came before us, and I've never seen any reason sufficient to convince a rational skeptic. Even the Bible Wheel, which is the strongest evidence I have ever seen suggesting that the Bible was designed by a supernatural agent does not tell us how we are supposed to interpret it or that it is "inerrant" in any way at all. I think these are issues of primary importance.
You could also be devizing your own myth to say that God's word, as it was originally inspired, was errant and fallible. I will concede that the Bible as it is now, has man-made errors in it and so we can agree the errors when we think the Bible is in error, otherwise we look for a legitimate interpretation that removes the error. We should not let man-made errors derail the process of finding the truth in the error-free part of the Bible.

I'm glad we agree that the Bible, as it exists today and as represented by ALL existing manuscripts, contains errors. But there is no reason whatsoever to think there were inerrant originals because many of the errors obviously existed in the original, such as the creation story.



It is hard to suspend our beliefs totally but we have to try and see what the Bible is saying without jumping to our preconceived conclusions. You might not think you are forcing your preconceived conclusions but I think you might be making the wrong connections. This will only become apparent when engaging in discussion and then we will have to keep each other in check about jumping to conclusions.

It is the BELIEVERS that have "preconceived conclusions" that are forced by doctrines they've been taught. I am free from all of that so I can see with clear eyes what the Bible actually states. There is absolutely no reason anyone should begin with the idea that the Bible is "God's Word." But that's where believers start. They start with an absolutely unjustified presupposition. I've been stating this fact for a year on this forum now and no one, not one, has presented any reason to think otherwise.



For the sake of finding the truth in the Bible we can avoid the Creation story and we can accept that man has sinned and take it from there.

Where are we going? What are we trying to determine?



As replied already, we can for the sake of finding the truth in God's word avoid the creation and start by accepting man has sinned and take it from there. We have to go on and see what God's purpose is and how He will accomplish it. We can look at the history of Israel and see what we can agree on.

OK.



The creation story is basic and simplistic. The order in which life by way of plants and animals was creation is generally accepted as being in the correct order. I am saying that we do not concentrate on this and find an agreed starting place say after the fall of Adam and Eve and take it from the point that man has sinned. We do not get into real detail until after the Flood and we start with Abraham and the promises made to him.

There is no "correct order" to the creation story in any literal sense. The earth was not created in the beginning. Light was not created before the sun. Plants were not created before the sun. The birds were not created before the land animals. And there was no "first woman" created from the rib of the "first man." The creation story is totally unbelievable if taken literally. That's why Christians have been debating what it means for so long. The best solution is to accept it more as a literary structure - poetry and figurative language. There is good evidence for this because the seven days form a menorah, which also matches the pattern of the Bible Wheel (see Chapter 3 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Book/Chapters/Chapt03.php#Days) of the Bible Wheel book):

http://www.biblewheel.com/Intro/images/bwMenorah.jpg

http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/GenesisSymmetry.jpg





The focus on "the beginning" seems silly to me. Science is very young. We only discovered Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in the last hundred years! To complain that we don't have all the answers about how the universe arose means nothing to me, and I cannot imagine any justification to use that as a reason to believe "God did it."
You are putting your faith is science to come up with all the answers. It will not come up with the answers in your lifetime and so what conclusion are you going to come to with the evidence that we have at present. People have had to reach their own conclusions in all generations before the advent of science that was sparked off by Isaac Newton. How do we know if God is not behind the inspiration of the great scientists like Newton and Maxwell? If they did not develop their theories and the mathematics to go with them, at the time they did we would not be where we are today (scientifically speaking) and we would not be having this conversation via the internet.

It is possible that God could be behind the advancement of science, but I see no reason to think so.

I am not putting faith in science to come up with all the answers. I doubt science will have "all the answers" in a thousand years, let alone in my lifetime. I would not be surprised if there are questions that science probably will never answer.

And please refrain from using the creationist canard that says people put "faith in science." You are forced to put your "faith" in your interpretations of the Bible because you have no evidence supporting them. That's diametrically opposed to science which is based on EVIDENCE, not faith. Please stop repeating that falsehood.

It would be really nice if we could get past these common and erroneous creationist talking points.




You say you "do not see how we can explain the beginning without God." I think we should explore this, because I don't see how God is any kind of explanation at all because God - if he is defined as omniscient and eternal - is incapable of doing anything. Such a God cannot act because all actions take place in time, and he is supposed to be outside of time, the creator of time. Thus, that concept of God is logically incoherent and cannot give us any kind of "explanation" of anything. And besides, God is just a "man-made concept" - no one has seen him or knows anything about him except what other humans have written in books.

We can look at this, but it will not help us with understanding the Bible. I agree that if we consider God was there at the beginning when matter was created from energy, it tells us nothing about God. There is no need to introduce concepts such as omniscient and omnipresence etc. Those attributes might or might not become apparent until we see what is revealed about God in the Bible and this is what we have to agree on.

I agree. Concepts like "omniscience" and "eternal" (in the sense of timeless) are not really biblical anyway. They were introduced by later Christian philosophers. The Bible presents an anthropological God with lots of emotions, irrationality, and limitations (though it contradicts itself elsewhere). So let's stick to the actual Biblical descriptions of God and see where that leads.




I am absolutely and totally open to any and all truth, so if you or other members of this forum have a truth you would hope for me to believe, all you need to do is explain why I should believe it is true. Pretty simple, eh? :winking0071:
I would hope that as we examine the word of God, the truth will be revealed. It is an exploration together rather than you be told and then you raise objections and your counter argument. I want to avoid this. We have to look at what the Bible says and does not say and try to prevent making assumptions. We have to look for the Bible to provide the answers and avoid forcing conclusions. This is one of the rules that we should work to in order to try and make progress.

I thin that's a GREAT idea! It's rather tedious and exhausting to keep slapping down assertions.

Let's clearly identify any assumptions being made. :thumb:

A good place to start would be the assumption that the Bible is (or ever was) God's inerrant Word.

Or if you don't want to go there, then perhaps we should start with how the Bible defines the concept of "God" since we encounter God in the first verse of the Bible. That's probably the best starting point.




Of course, we all know that everyone has different opinions about the Bible and that most areas of dispute are disputed because the Bible is so ambiguous. So it becomes a war of words with no way for anyone to establish the truth. That's why I'm so mystified when I see you and others hold so tenaciously to things that cannot be known with any certainty.
This is why we ignore what we have read or been told and we make our own exposition of the verses of the Bible to come to our own conclusions.

How will that help resolve the fact that everyone has different opinions about the Bible?

Is there any other ancient literature that you feel qualified to interpret without reading what the experts have written? Shakespeare? Homer? The Arabic Koran? Why would we want to limit ourselves to be IGNORANT of all knowledge that went before us?




I think there is a persistent misunderstanding here. I never believed anything merely because it was "taught in mainstream christian churches" (though I can't deny those beliefs strongly influenced me). I've always been an independent thinker. And even if I did, how is that different than you strict adherence to the teachings of the Christadelphians? How is that different than anyone else adhering to teachings received from fallible men?

First of all, I think I read a post of yours in which you said you did not agree with labels and yet you are insistent on labeling me. It is wrong to label me as this gives you preconceived ideas of what I believe. We must suspend all labels and get to the truth by our own exposition to get to the heart of the meaning. The teaching I have now, I regard as coming from the Bible and not from fallible men. I am accepting the Bible as the inspired word of God and not of men. I have no reason to think the Bible is error-ridden. I accept the Bible has some introduced errors made by men though not done so deliberately. This should make no difference in getting to an understanding of what the authors intended us to understand, provided we do our own exposition of chapters and verses. We take into account, context and the meaning of words in order to get to the truth. If we are diligent in this, we shall expose the man-made errors that have become man-made myths.

I am not "labeling" you when I mention the fact that you have adamantly defended all the doctrines of the Christadelphians. You consistently label me as deceived by the teachings of the "mainstream churches" - so what's the difference?

Your assertion that you have "no reason to believe the Bible is error ridden" suggests that you have never really thought about that with an open mind. I say this because you cannot give any reasons to believe the Bible is not error ridden.




I think we all would greatly benefit if we started with a "clean slate" with absolutely no assumptions about the Bible. What would we conclude if we read it with no presumption that it was the "inerrant and infallible Word of God"?
I agree totally with this approach and that is why we have to set ourselves rules and keep each other in check to ensure we stick to the rules we apply to exposition. What would we conclude if we read the Bible with no presumption that it is errant and fallible? What goes for me must also apply to you also when we engage on this course of exposition.

It is impossible to begin "with no presumption that it is errant and fallible" because we already know about many errors it contains, and many errors that would certainly have been contained in the originals.

And besides, the Bible is a book written by humans, and all books have errors. So the most rational starting point is to assume it contains some errors.






Starting at the beginning we could start off by examining what is meant by the "image of God". God has different sides to His Character. God is a god of love but is also a god who hates. Now why should God hate anything? What is it that God hates? We have to start somewhere and starting at the beginning, and in the Old Testament, God is presented as ONE. Somehow, we need to stay focused as closely as possible on the subject without allowing ourselves to go down side trails.

That's an interesting place to start. And not a bad idea since we see it in the first chapter of Genesis. But then again, I'm not sure it is good to start with a debate about the Trinity. Is not your mind absolutely closed on this issue? I'm pretty sure you would reject any evidence that contradicts your position, no matter how logical or true or incontrovertible. This means you would find yourself on the receiving end of my wrath for I cannot abide willful rejection of logic and truth, and we both know that would be neither pleasant nor fruitful. You are absolutely committed to a man-made doctrine concerning the nature of Christ no less than the most fervent Trinitarian. The potsherds clash with other potsherds.
Unfortunately Richard, you are introducing the Trinity in Genesis when there is no need to. Can you see how you are introducing your preconceived ideas do early on? I did not want to preempt any doctrine when starting from after the fall of Adam and Eve. At some point the Trinity might be brought in as an explanation when we come to Jesus, but from the reading of Genesis alone, I see no evidence for suggesting the Trinity. The only messianic verse is that of Gen 3:15 in which we have God telling us about the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. How can you introduce the Trinity at this stage from what is read there?

I did not "introduce the Trinity in Genesis." You did. I was responding to your assertion that "God is presented as ONE." That is obviously in response to the doctrine of the Trinity which you adamantly oppose. That's why I said it probably was not a good place to start.

Neither the Oneness of God nor the Trinity can be determined by focusing only on Genesis. If the doctrine is taught anywhere in the Bible, it is in the NT.




I understand that God could "answer prayer" in subtle ways, but that's not how the Bible presents it. The Bible has God doing great and mighty things as if he really existed as a PERSON active in the universe like you or me. I see no evidence for that idea at all. If God does act, it is in the most inscrutable ways that can never be TRUSTED. For example, the vast majority of people who would trust God to heal their children of deadly diseases would be guilty of child abuse and manslaughter because God cannot be TRUSTED to heal anyone of anything. This is a FACT - not an opinion. It directly contradicts the Biblical teaching that God is trustworthy.

We need to explore this as a separate subject. I do not understand how you see "the Bible presents it". I am wary of some faith healing and yet I cannot rule it out. I question the motives and sincerity of faith healers and so we have to be careful what we believe. The examples we have in the Bible are immediate and lasting. I believe faith that originates in the mind can be a powerful force whether that faith is directed towards God or not. Faith can be like a placebo. This should not be used as an excuse to negate faith in God.

The fact that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayer means that he cannot be trusted to do anything for anyone. Yet the Bible repeatedly asserts God can be trusted. That's why this issue is significant. It has nothing to do with the huckster faith healers. It has to do with the conflict between Reality and what the Bible teaches.




If God cannot be trusted to do ANYTHING for his people in this life, why should we trust him to save us in the next?
Your reply is negative. I have no doubt that God can be trusted; it is man that I do not trust. I am convinced God is keeping His word and fulfilling His purpose and that those who are friends with God can receive His providential care. We are told; "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much". That is the key to having prayer answered; how righteous are we to expect God to act on our behalf?

Your assertion that God can be trusted is like saying that you can fly by flapping your arms. You KNOW it is not true. You KNOW that God cannot be TRUSTED to do anything. Everyone knows this. Suppose your son got appendicitis. Could you literally TRUST God to heal him? OF course not. And you know it. This is an indisputable fact. God cannot be trusted to actually do anything at all. Simple as that.

I think you are mistaking the idea of "TRUSTING GOD" to actually do something (like heal your son) with your belief that God will do something later (like resurrection) even though he did nothing to stop your son dying from appendicitis.



Discerning between time and chance and the providential care of God is difficult. This forum does nothing to affect the will of God and so God does not have to get involved to support it or prohibit it. There will probably come a time when the technology we have today will be lost in the future as a result of what might take place on earth in the future when God's judgement is poured out on the nations. This is conjecture at this time. The forum will have an influence on those reading it, which can be for the better or the worse according to whose posts are read. If it was against the will of God, then God would cause it to close down, but God is letting man have a free hand at the present time.

It is difficult to discern between "chance and the providential care" because they are probably the same thing.



That is a good motive and a good goal to work towards. In your case you have to find some faith again as without God as an explanation, you have no faith.

Faith? Faith in what? Look at the ten thousand contradictory interpretations of the Bible. Why should I believe any of them? And how could anyone have faith in a God who promises to be trustworthy but who has proven that he is absolutely untrustworthy?

The fact that Christians say that God is trustworthy when they know he is not convinces me that they have been brainwashed with meaningless words. The word TRUSTWORTH means "worthy of trust." God cannot be actually TRUSTED to do anything. Everyone knows this. The truly deluded are jailed when they don't give proper health care to their children because they are "trusting God."



We can forget any past errors we think have been made and start afresh and tackle any errors we make by keeping each other in check. We can deal with the errors as they arose. We must try to deal with one subject/chapter/verse at a time and not get bogged down in side-trails.

Great! Let's do that.

Looking forward to a new beginning, :sunny:

David M
12-04-2012, 02:32 AM
Hello Riichard
This will be the last post in this thread. I want to move on instead of skirting round the issues that have nothing to do with what the Bible is saying.


I can't think of anything in the creation chapters that would be acceptable to a rational skeptic. Nothing in the later chapters makes any sense scientifically. There was no global flood and the various languages did not come from God confusing languages at Babel. Most skeptical scholars think that the earliest point real history could begin would be in Genesis 12 with the call of Abram, and I agree. But there's no way to confirm that he really existed.
I have no reason to doubt that God divided the languages though we do not need to start there. Abraham is an important character, God made promises to Abraham and it is from Abraham that Israel has descended. It does not matter that Abraham is not mentioned in secular history, the importance is to see the continuity of God's word and how God will keep the promises to Abraham. We can agree the promises and then see when those promises were fulfilled.



I'm glad we agree that the Bible, as it exists today and as represented by ALL existing manuscripts, contains errors. But there is no reason whatsoever to think there were inerrant originals because many of the errors obviously existed in the original, such as the creation story.
We have agreed that the Bible is not a science book, but there is no reason to reject the creation story even though I have suggested we do not start from here. The creation story is a simple story and I have explained does not go into lots of detail. It gives an explanation of why we are here and what the origin of the earth and all things in the universe.



It is the BELIEVERS that have "preconceived conclusions" that are forced by doctrines they've been taught. I am free from all of that so I can see with clear eyes what the Bible actually states. There is absolutely no reason anyone should begin with the idea that the Bible is "God's Word." But that's where believers start. They start with an absolutely unjustified presupposition. I've been stating this fact for a year on this forum now and no one, not one, has presented any reason to think otherwise.
It might not be from where I started but it does not mean that I am brainwashed by false doctrine. I have been able to study the Bible by myself and share thoughts with others and I have come to what I am confident is a better understanding than what the mainstream churches teach. Having rejected lots of teaching that I cannot agree with, I am not abandoning my beliefs. I will revisit these beliefs in the course of Bible exposition with you, but you should not accuse me of following doctrine as if following a blind leader. If I associate with people with the same beliefs, it is done willingly and knowingly. For the sake of doing Bible exposition to get to a proper understanding, then perhaps we should consider ourselves belonging to two separate cults of which we are the only members.



Where are we going? What are we trying to determine? I want to agree what the Bible says on particular subjects. It does not matter whether what we read in the Bible is poetry or a play or prophecy the first thing is to read correctly and understand as best we can what the Bible is actually saying and not what we think it is saying or the myriad versions of what others think it is saying.



There is no "correct order" to the creation story in any literal sense. The earth was not created in the beginning. Light was not created before the sun. Plants were not created before the sun. The birds were not created before the land animals. And there was no "first woman" created from the rib of the "first man." The creation story is totally unbelievable if taken literally. That's why Christians have been debating what it means for so long. The best solution is to accept it more as a literary structure - poetry and figurative language. There is good evidence for this because the seven days form a menorah, which also matches the pattern of the Bible Wheel (see Chapter 3 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Book/Chapters/Chapt03.php#Days) of the Bible Wheel book):


[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;50912]It is possible that God could be behind the advancement of science, but I see no reason to think so.
The fact that you agree it is possible is sufficient. To agree it is possible is the same as to agreeing that God can rule in the lives of people to bring about His purpose and that includes the people in government of the nations.


I am not putting faith in science to come up with all the answers. I doubt science will have "all the answers" in a thousand years, let alone in my lifetime. I would not be surprised if there are questions that science probably will never answer.

And please refrain from using the creationist canard that says people put "faith in science." You are forced to put your "faith" in your interpretations of the Bible because you have no evidence supporting them. That's diametrically opposed to science which is based on EVIDENCE, not faith. Please stop repeating that falsehood.
Maybe not you, but people are putting their faith in science to come up with the cures to combat illness and disease and extend lifespans. Those with the money, are having their bodies frozen in the hope that they can be defrosted when a cure has been found and they can be restored to life. It might be a few, but this is the message going out. Kaku is saying as little as 2100 for humans to have the power of God.


It would be really nice if we could get past these common and erroneous creationist talking points.
and for that reason I agree we can skip the creation story though to believe in God we must believe in God as creator and not in evolution without creation. We do not need to return to the creation story, though we might have to refer to some scriptural principle that originates from the Adam and Eve story.



I agree. Concepts like "omniscience" and "eternal" (in the sense of timeless) are not really biblical anyway. They were introduced by later Christian philosophers. The Bible presents an anthropological God with lots of emotions, irrationality, and limitations (though it contradicts itself elsewhere). So let's stick to the actual Biblical descriptions of God and see where that leads.
I disagree with your opening statement. We have references to God in the OT as being eternal and we have references to God as the almighty God. We have some passages that suggest God can be everywhere (if not specifically all at the same time.



A good place to start would be the assumption that the Bible is (or ever was) God's inerrant Word.
I prefer not to make any assumption what so ever and just get to the understanding of the word and the message.


Or if you don't want to go there, then perhaps we should start with how the Bible defines the concept of "God" since we encounter God in the first verse of the Bible. That's probably the best starting point.
Yes we could start here for if we are talking about God we should know what God has revealed to us about himself.



How will that help resolve the fact that everyone has different opinions about the Bible?
We can bring other opinions to the table, and ultimately we must agree of continue to differ. It does not matter what others think, what is important is the conclusion our own exposition leads to. Once we are agreed on a subject, it would be up to others to fall in line or to come up with their reason to differ.


Is there any other ancient literature that you feel qualified to interpret without reading what the experts have written? Shakespeare? Homer? The Arabic Koran? Why would we want to limit ourselves to be IGNORANT of all knowledge that went before us?
I do not want to refer to any other literature except dictionaries that will help get to all possible meanings of words. By referring to other works of men, unless we agree with their findings that have to be supported by scripture, I would regard them as works of fallible men and so I am likely to agree with your statement . All the knowledge we need is in the Bible and that is what we must study.



I am not "labeling" you when I mention the fact that you have adamantly defended all the doctrines of the Christadelphians. You consistently label me as deceived by the teachings of the "mainstream churches" - so what's the difference?
I am not specifically trying to label you with a set of doctrines pertaining to any one church. By the doctrines you support and promote, it is obvious some of those doctrines belong to mainstream Christianity. There is a lot of overlap between different churches, but the big issues are like those of the nature of Jesus, the pre-existence of Jesus, the devil, the Trinity, the resurrection, and the kingdom of God on earth.


Your assertion that you have "no reason to believe the Bible is error ridden" suggests that you have never really thought about that with an open mind. I say this because you cannot give any reasons to believe the Bible is not error ridden.
I have not given it as much thought as you have done in order to build up your case. I have challenged you in the past to raise the errors and I will do my best to explain them away. I do not go looking for errors and if I come across what I think is an error, I look for a legitimate meaning that will not appear as an error.



It is impossible to begin "with no presumption that it is errant and fallible" because we already know about many errors it contains, and many errors that would certainly have been contained in the originals.
it is difficult to lay aside all the conclusions we have already come to, so all we can do, is bring all the evidence and re-examine the Bible passages to see how better we might understand them. I do not see the amount of errors that you do and so I do not make the claim you are doing


And besides, the Bible is a book written by humans, and all books have errors. So the most rational starting point is to assume it contains some errors.
I have agreed that the Bible contains errors due to translation and transcription and might have some deliberate errors that have been put in, but we should be able to spot those that do not fit in. We can ignore whether the message is right or wrong until we have understood the message.



I did not "introduce the Trinity in Genesis." You did. I was responding to your assertion that "God is presented as ONE." That is obviously in response to the doctrine of the Trinity which you adamantly oppose. That's why I said it probably was not a good place to start.
We shall soon find out if the Trinity occurs in Genesis or in the OT. I have quoted on a number or occasions the verses that say; "I am God and beside me, there is none else"



Neither the Oneness of God nor the Trinity can be determined by focusing only on Genesis. If the doctrine is taught anywhere in the Bible, it is in the NT.
That is my point; why should God of the OT who is revealed as the ONE God suddenly appear as a God of Three in the NT? God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. God does not change.



The fact that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayer means that he cannot be trusted to do anything for anyone. Yet the Bible repeatedly asserts God can be trusted. That's why this issue is significant. It has nothing to do with the huckster faith healers. It has to do with the conflict between Reality and what the Bible teaches.
It is a matter of personal faith and I do not know the things you have prayed for or the way you have prayed for them, God answers prayers in the way He knows best is for us. People in the bible did not get their prayers answered straightaway and had to wait years. It is not surprising that the Bible teaches us to be patient. Any hint that you might be testing God is not going to work. Your reality is different from other people's reality. We might explore the differences to find out what is missing for your prayers to be answered. The



Your assertion that God can be trusted is like saying that you can fly by flapping your arms. You KNOW it is not true. You KNOW that God cannot be TRUSTED to do anything. Everyone knows this. Suppose your son got appendicitis. Could you literally TRUST God to heal him? OF course not. And you know it. This is an indisputable fact. God cannot be trusted to actually do anything at all. Simple as that.
As above, any attempt to test God is not going to succeed. Expecting God to answer your prayer in order to get proof is not a valid enough reason to have prayers answered. If "the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much", why is is then your prayers were never answered?


I think you are mistaking the idea of "TRUSTING GOD" to actually do something (like heal your son) with your belief that God will do something later (like resurrection) even though he did nothing to stop your son dying from appendicitis.
I am reminded of the poem that says; "almost all when age, disease or sorrow strikes them, is inclined to think there is a god or someone very like him". It is not good enough to seek God only in times of trouble and not seek God when not in trouble. We have to live with the fact that people can lay claim to major recoveries as a result of prayer that cannot be explained away. I think it it is possible for a person's faith to be so strong in themselves that they will recover, and that their faith, though not God-based, can be enough for the mind to have control over the body and cause self-healing.



It is difficult to discern between "chance and the providential care" because they are probably the same thing.
A person whose heart is right with God will thank God for all they receive and take nothing for granted. They will not curse God (as Job did not) when in times of adversity and will give thanks to God for whatever they receive to sustain them.



Faith? Faith in what? Look at the ten thousand contradictory interpretations of the Bible. Why should I believe any of them? And how could anyone have faith in a God who promises to be trustworthy but who has proven that he is absolutely untrustworthy?
The fact that Christians say that God is trustworthy when they know he is not convinces me that they have been brainwashed with meaningless words. The word TRUSTWORTH means "worthy of trust." God cannot be actually TRUSTED to do anything. Everyone knows this. The truly deluded are jailed when they don't give proper health care to their children because they are "trusting God."
Your statements are just repetition. You must decide which interpretations to possibly accept and which interpretations to reject. We can only go on the testimonies of those who are convinced of God's providential care and treat each case on its own merits.


I will wait for you to start a thread on the nature of God in whose image man has been created.

All the best

David

jce
12-04-2012, 10:12 AM
I can't think of anything in the creation chapters that would be acceptable to a rational skeptic. Nothing in the later chapters makes any sense scientifically. There was no global flood...

Is there any other ancient literature that you feel qualified to interpret without reading what the experts have written? Shakespeare? Homer? The Arabic Koran? Why would we want to limit ourselves to be IGNORANT of all knowledge that went before us?

Looking forward to a new beginning, :sunny:

Help me out here Richard, you say that, scientifically there could have been no global flood, yet there are many ancient accounts from diverse cultures relating the details of a great flood which included characters similar to those in the Bible. Do you not question this phenomena, or does your new beginning include limiting yourself to ignorance of this knowledge that went before us? Don't you find it at least peculiar that the flood account is so widespread?

Have you ever taken a "Google Earth" tour of the Grand Canyon? If not you should. First, it is an amazing thing to just take the tour, but, in so doing, you will get a chance to examine the terrain all over this area and the evidence is overwhelming that there had to be, at one time, an astonishing amount of water which left its mark, etching out spillways and trenched out valleys where the runoff waters drained away. In fact, if you take a tour of all the great mountain ranges, the evidence of water erosion from these high places, carving out great valleys is unmistakable. I found it a very convincing testament to the account of the Biblical deluge. One thing was clear to me after making these personal observations, Catastrophism trumps Uniformitarianism when it comes to explaining the Earth's historical surface scars, and the former concept is not unpopular with many geologists, past and present who've concluded that a catastrophic flood event best describes the earth's current topography.

I understand why you reject the idea of the flood. You have simply chosen whom to trust, but denial does not prove that it didn't happen, especially in light of the persuasive visible evidence.

All the best to you too my friend in your search for Truth, wherever it leads.

John

Richard Amiel McGough
12-04-2012, 10:56 AM
Help me out here Richard, you say that, scientifically there could have been no global flood, yet there are many ancient accounts from diverse cultures relating the details of a great flood which included characters similar to those in the Bible. Do you not question this phenomena, or does your new beginning include limiting yourself to ignorance of this knowledge that went before us? Don't you find it at least peculiar that the flood account is so widespread?

Good morning John,

There is a massive amount of evidence for LOCAL floods happening throughout the history of this planet. There is ZERO evidence for a global flood that killed all land animals as described in the Bible. Simple as that.



Have you ever taken a "Google Earth" tour of the Grand Canyon? If not you should. First, it is an amazing thing to just take the tour, but, in so doing, you will get a chance to examine the terrain all over this area and the evidence is overwhelming that there had to be, at one time, an astonishing amount of water which left its mark, etching out spillways and trenched out valleys where the runoff waters drained away. In fact, if you take a tour of all the great mountain ranges, the evidence of water erosion from these high places, carving out great valleys is unmistakable. I found it a very convincing testament to the account of the Biblical deluge. One thing was clear to me after making these personal observations, Catastrophism trumps Uniformitarianism when it comes to explaining the Earth's historical surface scars, and the former concept is not unpopular with many geologists, past and present who've concluded that a catastrophic flood event best describes the earth's current topography.

It is rather curious that you gave no evidence for your assertion that "the evidence is overwhelming that there had to be, at one time, an astonishing amount of water which left it's mark." Why do you not believe it resulted from slow erosion over a period of millions of years?

You don't seem to understand how science works. You can't just go by superficial appearances and leap to your preconceived conclusion based on an ancient text written by primitive superstitious people who were totally ignorant of how the world really works. The problem is that there is an overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts the flood story. Here are a few of the facts you will need to explain away if you want to believe in a global flood:

There is no evidence of a global extinction of all the land animals in the last hundred thousand years.
There is no evidence of a genetic bottle neck that would be expected if all modern animals descended from pairs in recent history.
Ice cores from Antarctica are continuous over a span of a hundred thousand years. There is no evidence that Antarctica was deluged by a global flood.
etc.

The idea of the global flood is simply outside the realm of scientific possibility. And besides that, there are all sorts of improbabilities, like polar bears and kangaroos traveling thousands of miles, even crossing oceans, to get to the Middle East to get on Noah's ark to prevent them from being killed by the flood. And what were the carnivores supposed to eat when they got off the ark? There is no end to the absurdities generated if we interpret the story literally. I can't imagine any serious adult believing it for a second.



I understand why you reject the idea of the flood. You have simply chosen whom to trust, but denial does not prove that it didn't happen, especially in light of the persuasive visible evidence.

Please try to be a little more serious. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "whom to trust." As I explained in a recent post, I was trained in science and I REPRODUCED many scientific experiments myself. I measured the speed of light, the acceleration of gravity,and many similar things. I don't take science "on faith." Creationists constantly misrepresent science as if it were as unfounded and absurd as their own religious beliefs and so must be "taken on faith" with no supporting evidence. You write as if you believe that cars, computers, and cell phones run on "faith" like Islam, Mormonism, and Christianity. This is getting ridiculous. Don't you care if your beliefs have any connection with truth and reality?

Al the best,

Richard

jce
12-04-2012, 11:03 AM
I can't think of anything in the creation chapters that would be acceptable to a rational skeptic. Nothing in the later chapters makes any sense scientifically. There was no global flood and the various languages did not come from God confusing languages at Babel. Most skeptical scholars think that the earliest point real history could begin would be in Genesis 12 with the call of Abram, and I agree. But there's no way to confirm that he really existed.

Looking forward to a new beginning, :sunny:

I think it's an interesting point that Jesus made when telling of the account of the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16, that Jesus quoted the rich man's request (v 27-31)... "Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house for I have five brothers so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment. But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them. And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

Of course Jesus was alluding to His own resurrection when he included that part in the parable, but it is a noteworthy addition that the validity of the Books of Moses was affirmed when it was implied that Moses' testimony was just as reliable as the testimony of someone returning from the dead. In other words, if one rejects Moses' Book of Genesis, they will necessarily reject Jesus, for both Moses and the Resurrected Christ testify to the Truth.

Food for thought from your friend,

John

duxrow
12-04-2012, 11:10 AM
:woah:Actually, 2 floods, when Peter speaks of the one prior to Day One...
Gen1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
2Pet3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

The "replenish" in Gen 1:28 confirms this for me; likewise Jer4:23.

No problem for dinosaurs and neanderthals to live in the pre-Adamic age. Right? :winking0071:

Richard Amiel McGough
12-04-2012, 12:05 PM
I have no reason to doubt that God divided the languages though we do not need to start there. Abraham is an important character, God made promises to Abraham and it is from Abraham that Israel has descended. It does not matter that Abraham is not mentioned in secular history, the importance is to see the continuity of God's word and how God will keep the promises to Abraham. We can agree the promises and then see when those promises were fulfilled.

In my estimation, you have EVERY reason to doubt that God divided the languages, and NO reason to believe he did.

I have no problem whatsoever following the story line of the Bible. We don't need to believe it is all factual - the truth is it is probably more like a historical novel. It is obviously based in a lot of real history, but there is no reason to believe the story itself is entirely historical.



We have agreed that the Bible is not a science book, but there is no reason to reject the creation story even though I have suggested we do not start from here. The creation story is a simple story and I have explained does not go into lots of detail. It gives an explanation of why we are here and what the origin of the earth and all things in the universe.

There is every reason to reject the creation story as literally true. It has all the hallmarks of the mythological cosmology of the ANE. I've proven this dozens of times and no one has challenged, let alone refuted, the facts. I presented the same information again (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3461-Questions-of-Genesis-Why-did-God-Create-Adam-and-Eve-Naked&p=50702#post50702) just last week and got no response:



I am mystified by your willingness to assert that the Bible is "God's revelation" when in fact you have never given any evidence supporting that assertion, and there is so much evidence to the contrary. The real issue is that the interpretation of the Bible changes in accordance with our scientific knowledge so the Bible can never serve as a guide to such questions. The truth can only be discerned by science. For example, when folks were ignorant of the true age of the universe they had no problem believing that it was created six thousand years ago. The Bible did not guide anyone into truth, but rather misled them to err by a factor of about 2.3 million (6,000 x 2,3000,000 = 13.8 billion years). God's "eyewitness account" gave no Christian any idea about the truth of "what really happened." They had to wait for the scientific discovery of the geological ages back in the 19th century which then forced Christians to change their interpretation of "God's eternal Word" to conform to the new information. Some Christians refuse to accept this evidence, even now in the 21st century. This is a monument to how dogmatic religion blinds people to truth. The irony is that they can't see that they are merely holding to antiquated "science" that presents a primitive mythological cosmology of a three-tiered universe with of a flat earth held up by pillars with water below and above held up by a dome. Here is an article from the conservative Christian think-tank called www.Biologos.org (http://www.biologos.org/) that explains the ancient mythological cosmology of the Bible: Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography in the Bible. (http://biologos.org/blog/mesopotamian-cosmic-geography-in-the-bible-part-3) It quotes lots of Scripture. I think they give good support for there conclusion.

http://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/godawa_3_1.jpg

This is the worldview that folks would get just by reading the Bible. The truth is found only by scientific research. To appeal to the Bible as the source of objective scientific facts about the world is obviously erroneous and misleading.



This is the mythological cosmology taught in the Bible. And the Bible is filled with other ancient Greek mythology concerning mythical creatures like the hydra (serpent with many heads) as discussed in the thread Greek Mythology in the Bible? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2081-Greek-Mythology-in-the-Bible).

http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/images/Hydra.gif

No Christian has yet refuted these facts. I am utterly mystified by how believers can claim to believe the Bible while denying what it plainly states.



I want to agree what the Bible says on particular subjects. It does not matter whether what we read in the Bible is poetry or a play or prophecy the first thing is to read correctly and understand as best we can what the Bible is actually saying and not what we think it is saying or the myriad versions of what others think it is saying.

Excellent! That's a perfect starting point.




I am not putting faith in science to come up with all the answers. I doubt science will have "all the answers" in a thousand years, let alone in my lifetime. I would not be surprised if there are questions that science probably will never answer.

And please refrain from using the creationist canard that says people put "faith in science." You are forced to put your "faith" in your interpretations of the Bible because you have no evidence supporting them. That's diametrically opposed to science which is based on EVIDENCE, not faith. Please stop repeating that falsehood.
Maybe not you, but people are putting their faith in science to come up with the cures to combat illness and disease and extend lifespans. Those with the money, are having their bodies frozen in the hope that they can be defrosted when a cure has been found and they can be restored to life. It might be a few, but this is the message going out. Kaku is saying as little as 2100 for humans to have the power of God.

People have very good reasons to hope science will find cures for diseases, given that science has proven itself quite successful in that endeavor, whereas belief in God has been proven to be utterly useless in that regard.



and for that reason I agree we can skip the creation story though to believe in God we must believe in God as creator and not in evolution without creation. We do not need to return to the creation story, though we might have to refer to some scriptural principle that originates from the Adam and Eve story.

Many Christians have tried to find a harmony between God and evolution because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.




I agree. Concepts like "omniscience" and "eternal" (in the sense of timeless) are not really biblical anyway. They were introduced by later Christian philosophers. The Bible presents an anthropological God with lots of emotions, irrationality, and limitations (though it contradicts itself elsewhere). So let's stick to the actual Biblical descriptions of God and see where that leads.
I disagree with your opening statement. We have references to God in the OT as being eternal and we have references to God as the almighty God. We have some passages that suggest God can be everywhere (if not specifically all at the same time.

No, we don't have Biblical references to God being "eternal" in the sense of the Christian philosophers. The Bible words (Hb: olam, Gr: aionios) are based on the roots meaning "age" (long time) not "eternal." The Christian philosophers invented a God that is nothing like the anthropological God of the Bible. I just happened across an article on the HuffingtonPost this morning talking about this fact. It's called 5 Common Misconceptions about the Bible (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-hayes/5-misconceptions-about-the-bible_b_2173965.html?utm_hp_ref=religion) which says:
The character "Yahweh" in the Hebrew Bible should not be confused with the god of western theological speculation (generally referred to as "God"). The attributes assigned to "God" by post-biblical theologians -- such as omniscience and immutability -- are simply not attributes possessed by the character Yahweh as drawn in biblical narratives. Indeed, on several occasions Yahweh is explicitly described as changing his mind, because when it comes to human beings his learning curve is steep. Humans have free will; they act in ways that surprise him and he must change tack and respond. One of the greatest challenges for modern readers of the Hebrew Bible is to allow the text to mean what it says, when what is says flies in the face of doctrines that emerged centuries later from philosophical debates about the abstract category "God."

This is why it is so important to study the history of Christian theological speculation. It is where many of the ideas that you think are "biblical" actually arose.




A good place to start would be the assumption that the Bible is (or ever was) God's inerrant Word.
I prefer not to make any assumption what so ever and just get to the understanding of the word and the message.

Excellent! I presume then that you will stop asserting it is the "Word of God" in this discussion?



I do not want to refer to any other literature except dictionaries that will help get to all possible meanings of words. By referring to other works of men, unless we agree with their findings that have to be supported by scripture, I would regard them as works of fallible men and so I am likely to agree with your statement . All the knowledge we need is in the Bible and that is what we must study.

That seems exceedingly foolish since the Bible is literature and so to be understood it must be compared with all the literature of its time. The fact that you don't want to do this, which is what all scholars know they MUST do to understand any work of ancient literature, suggests that you are still asserting that the Bible is different because it is the "Word of God." But this contradicts your statement that you would not be making that assumption.




I am not "labeling" you when I mention the fact that you have adamantly defended all the doctrines of the Christadelphians. You consistently label me as deceived by the teachings of the "mainstream churches" - so what's the difference?
I am not specifically trying to label you with a set of doctrines pertaining to any one church. By the doctrines you support and promote, it is obvious some of those doctrines belong to mainstream Christianity. There is a lot of overlap between different churches, but the big issues are like those of the nature of Jesus, the pre-existence of Jesus, the devil, the Trinity, the resurrection, and the kingdom of God on earth.

The reason those doctrines belong to "mainstream Christianity" is because they accurately represent what the Bible teaches. You will never be able to convince many believers of doctrines that directly contradict the plain teaching of Scripture, such as when you deny Peter's teaching about the "angels that sinned."



I have not given it as much thought as you have done in order to build up your case. I have challenged you in the past to raise the errors and I will do my best to explain them away. I do not go looking for errors and if I come across what I think is an error, I look for a legitimate meaning that will not appear as an error.

But why would you begin with the presumption that the Bible is error free? You certainly don't begin with the presumption when studying the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or any other book. Why do you give the Bible a special status?




It is impossible to begin "with no presumption that it is errant and fallible" because we already know about many errors it contains, and many errors that would certainly have been contained in the originals.
it is difficult to lay aside all the conclusions we have already come to, so all we can do, is bring all the evidence and re-examine the Bible passages to see how better we might understand them. I do not see the amount of errors that you do and so I do not make the claim you are doing

My point was that we should not begin with a presumption of inerrancy. There is no warrant for that at all. We should begin with the same presumption we would use when evaluating any book, which is that all books potentially contain error.




I did not "introduce the Trinity in Genesis." You did. I was responding to your assertion that "God is presented as ONE." That is obviously in response to the doctrine of the Trinity which you adamantly oppose. That's why I said it probably was not a good place to start.
We shall soon find out if the Trinity occurs in Genesis or in the OT. I have quoted on a number or occasions the verses that say; "I am God and beside me, there is none else"

That verse you quoted is not from Genesis. To determine the truth or falsehood of the Trinity, we would have to discuss the NT passages that address it.




Neither the Oneness of God nor the Trinity can be determined by focusing only on Genesis. If the doctrine is taught anywhere in the Bible, it is in the NT.
That is my point; why should God of the OT who is revealed as the ONE God suddenly appear as a God of Three in the NT? God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. God does not change.

The fact that the Trinity is not clearly expressed in Genesis does not mean that it is not the Biblical teaching. We must examine the whole Bible, not just parts that fit our preconceptions. And your assertion is not true anyway. Many people see the Trinity in the OT, including Genesis. Even the Jews have developed a doctrine that closely mirrors the Trinity. Here is what Jewish scholar Yehuda Liebes said in his Studies in the Zohar, pg. 140:
It is a well-known fact that the Zohar frequently describes the Godhead as a threefold unity, doing so in different ways. The tenfold structure of the Kabbalistic sefirot can actually be fitted into threefold division, particularly in accordance with a certain passages from Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer - a passage on which the Zohar bases itself (see note 15) - thus remaining within the realm traditional Judaism.

Your doctrines denying the Trinity seem like sophistry to me. We all know that folks can make up any doctrine they want from the Bible. All they need to do is twist words. Who's to say who is right and who is wrong. It's like philosophy that never comes to any provable conclusion. Each person believes what they want to believe. If you wanted to believe in the Trinity, you could create arguments for it and assert absolutely that they are absolutely NECESSARY just like you do with the angels that sin.




The fact that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayer means that he cannot be trusted to do anything for anyone. Yet the Bible repeatedly asserts God can be trusted. That's why this issue is significant. It has nothing to do with the huckster faith healers. It has to do with the conflict between Reality and what the Bible teaches.
It is a matter of personal faith and I do not know the things you have prayed for or the way you have prayed for them, God answers prayers in the way He knows best is for us. People in the bible did not get their prayers answered straightaway and had to wait years. It is not surprising that the Bible teaches us to be patient. Any hint that you might be testing God is not going to work. Your reality is different from other people's reality. We might explore the differences to find out what is missing for your prayers to be answered. The

You missed my point. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "personal faith." It has to do with the FACT that God is NOT TRUSTWORTHY. Don't you know the meaning of the word "trustworthy"? It means that you could TRUST GOD to actually do something. But you KNOW that you cannot trust God to actually do anything. You can hope all day, you can pray all night, but you cannot "trust" because you KNOW that he cannot be TRUSTED to actually do anything.




Your assertion that God can be trusted is like saying that you can fly by flapping your arms. You KNOW it is not true. You KNOW that God cannot be TRUSTED to do anything. Everyone knows this. Suppose your son got appendicitis. Could you literally TRUST God to heal him? OF course not. And you know it. This is an indisputable fact. God cannot be trusted to actually do anything at all. Simple as that.
As above, any attempt to test God is not going to succeed. Expecting God to answer your prayer in order to get proof is not a valid enough reason to have prayers answered. If "the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much", why is is then your prayers were never answered?

It is not an attempt to "test" God. It is a simple statement of fact. No Christian can TRUST that God will actually do anything at all. Everyone knows this. If you had a sick child, you could not TRUST that God would actually heal him. God therefore is NOT TRUSTWORTHY by definition.




I think you are mistaking the idea of "TRUSTING GOD" to actually do something (like heal your son) with your belief that God will do something later (like resurrection) even though he did nothing to stop your son dying from appendicitis.
I am reminded of the poem that says; "almost all when age, disease or sorrow strikes them, is inclined to think there is a god or someone very like him". It is not good enough to seek God only in times of trouble and not seek God when not in trouble. We have to live with the fact that people can lay claim to major recoveries as a result of prayer that cannot be explained away. I think it it is possible for a person's faith to be so strong in themselves that they will recover, and that their faith, though not God-based, can be enough for the mind to have control over the body and cause self-healing.

This has nothing to do with seeking God "only in times of trouble." The FACT is that God cannot be TRUSTED to actually do anything in any specific circumstance. If I told you that you could trust me to help you, and then you have some trouble and ask me for help and I ignore you as if you did not exist, would you call me "trustworthy"? Of course not. I get the impression you don't understand the word "trustworthy."

And it is entirely irrelevant if some few people here or there have "major recoveries as a result of prayer that cannot be explained away." That only proves that God is not trustworthy. Those people who were "healed" were the lucky few, if they were healed at all (mere anecdotes prove nothing, and the fact that we can't explain spontaneous recovery does not prove it was the result of prayer).




It is difficult to discern between "chance and the providential care" because they are probably the same thing.
A person whose heart is right with God will thank God for all they receive and take nothing for granted. They will not curse God (as Job did not) when in times of adversity and will give thanks to God for whatever they receive to sustain them.

They would get exactly the same results if they prayed to a milk jug:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI




Faith? Faith in what? Look at the ten thousand contradictory interpretations of the Bible. Why should I believe any of them? And how could anyone have faith in a God who promises to be trustworthy but who has proven that he is absolutely untrustworthy?
The fact that Christians say that God is trustworthy when they know he is not convinces me that they have been brainwashed with meaningless words. The word TRUSTWORTH means "worthy of trust." God cannot be actually TRUSTED to do anything. Everyone knows this. The truly deluded are jailed when they don't give proper health care to their children because they are "trusting God."
Your statements are just repetition. You must decide which interpretations to possibly accept and which interpretations to reject. We can only go on the testimonies of those who are convinced of God's providential care and treat each case on its own merits.

They need to be repeated until you acknowledge their reality or show that they are wrong. You have done neither.

Personal testimonies prove nothing.



I will wait for you to start a thread on the nature of God in whose image man has been created.


I think it would be good if you started that thread since it was your idea and you know where you would like to start.

Great chatting,

Richard

jce
12-04-2012, 12:14 PM
Good morning John,

There is a massive amount of evidence for LOCAL floods happening throughout the history of this planet. There is ZERO evidence for a global flood that killed all land animals as described in the Bible. Simple as that.


It is rather curious that you gave no evidence for your assertion that "the evidence is overwhelming that there had to be, at one time, an astonishing amount of water which left it's mark." Why do you not believe it resulted from slow erosion over a period of millions of years?

The eruption of Mt St Helen, in your own state was a small model, providing evidence of what a catastrophe can accomplish over a short time. It does not require millions of years as you assume.


You don't seem to understand how science works. You can't just go by superficial appearances and leap to your preconceived conclusion based on an ancient text written by primitive superstitious people who were totally ignorant of how the world really works. The problem is that there is an overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts the flood story. Here are a few of the facts you will need to explain away if you want to believe in a global flood:
[LIST]
There is no evidence of a global extinction of all the land animals in the last hundred thousand years.

The fossil record contains evidence of creatures being buried suddenly, along with well preserved timber. Sea creature remains found in mountainous regions. Species supposedly millions of years old in the fossil record, still with us today, unchanged by evolutionary processes.


There is no evidence of a genetic bottle neck that would be expected if all modern animals descended from pairs in recent history.

Human agriculture dates back to about 5,000 years and look at the diversity of the human race since that short period of time, how all women today have been genetically linked back to their common ancestor in recent times. If humanity can repopulate the entire earth in such a short time and with such diversity, how can you conclude animals unable.



Ice cores from Antarctica are continuous over a span of a hundred thousand years. There is no evidence that Antarctica was deluged by a global flood.

Can you prove that the polar ice caps are not the remainder of the Flood waters? Can you prove that the mountains were not thrust up and the great ocean trenches opened at the same time?



The idea of the global flood is simply outside the realm of scientific possibility.

Once again you claim science rules out a global flood, in what way?


And besides that, there are all sorts of improbabilities, like polar bears and kangaroos traveling thousands of miles, even crossing oceans, to get to the Middle East to get on Noah's ark to prevent them from being killed by the flood.

Can you disprove that there was only one super continent that was broken up by the catastrophic event of the flood and the uplift of mountains and separation in the great oceanic gorge caused a rapid drifting apart of the remainders?


And what were the carnivores supposed to eat when they got off the ark? There is no end to the absurdities generated if we interpret the story literally. I can't imagine any serious adult believing it for a second.

I believe it. I also believe the account that Jesus gave when He foretold of those who would be taken by surprise at another cataclysmic event which would parallel the time of Noah, and also Peter's statement when he referred to scoffers who think themselves wise in their disregard of the Biblical warnings.


Please try to be a little more serious. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "whom to trust." As I explained in a recent post, I was trained in science and I REPRODUCED many scientific experiments myself. I measured the speed of light, the acceleration of gravity,and many similar things.

And do you also believe in something from nothing as seriously as do other notable men of science?


I don't take science "on faith." Creationists constantly misrepresent science as if it were as unfounded and absurd as their own religious beliefs and so must be "taken on faith" with no supporting evidence.

Of course you do. You accept BB Cosmology based on the speed of light being a constant, contrary to the evidence it is not. How can you prove that the red shift from distant galaxies is an accurate measurement if the speed of light has degraded from its original state? You are simply putting your faith in an unknown quantity and quality. The Universe is degrading, it is winding down, it is reacting to the curse. The Universe we live in today is much different than the one God created in the beginning. How can you prove otherwise? I would think that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would convince you, but no, you make an excuse that sometimes it operates in an open system and other time a closed system, whatever suits your theory. Tell me, is the Earth an open system or closed? Please explain your answer scientifically.



You write as if you believe that cars, computers, and cell phones run on "faith" like Islam, Mormonism, and Christianity. This is getting ridiculous. Don't you care if your beliefs have any connection with truth and reality?

What a total mis-characteration of what I believe. Science has accomplished many practical things, but it eventually runs into the curtain. The truth is expressed in the pages of God's Word, if science is at a loss to explain a Biblical event through natural phenomena, we should not be surprised and we should not exclude the possibility of the power of Almighty God to accomplish things we cannot. Your own life is an unexplained miracle. The origin of life is a miracle. The resurrection of Christ is a miracle.


Al the best,

Richard

I remain, your friend.

John

Richard Amiel McGough
12-04-2012, 12:18 PM
:woah:Actually, 2 floods, when Peter speaks of the one prior to Day One...
Gen1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
2Pet3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

The "replenish" in Gen 1:28 confirms this for me; likewise Jer4:23.

No problem for dinosaurs and neanderthals to live in the pre-Adamic age. Right? :winking0071:
The word "replenish" is a mistranslation that has misled careless Christian interpreters for centuries. I even heard J. Vernon McGee make this sophomoric error.

Peter was talking about the flood of Noah, not some speculative flood between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2! We know this from context:

2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The first reference is explicitly about Noah's flood. The second reference refers to ungodly MEN that would die just like in Noah's flood.

duxrow
12-04-2012, 12:44 PM
:sEm_ImSorry:They went into the Ark by two's, and Jesus sent out the seventy by two's. Two brothers, two prophets (1K13), two Saul's, two Enoch's and Lamech's, Rachel & Leah, Mary & Martha, Peter & Paul, Elijah & Elisha, Esau & Jacob, Eldad & Medad, Jannes & Jambres, male & female, Old & New, Clean & Unclean, Good & Evil, Alpha & Omega, Theophilus-twice, the double portion, two-edged sword, and on and on and on...

2 pillars (Boaz & Jachin) on Solomon's Temple, and 2 on the temple that Samson pulled down -- now in the NT we are a temple! Walking on 2 legs! Anybody 'pulled your leg' lately??

Gen41:32 -- "By 2 it's established", BY GOD! ain't gonna be no more no more... :thumb:

Richard Amiel McGough
12-04-2012, 01:22 PM
Good morning John,

There is a massive amount of evidence for LOCAL floods happening throughout the history of this planet. There is ZERO evidence for a global flood that killed all land animals as described in the Bible. Simple as that.

It is rather curious that you gave no evidence for your assertion that "the evidence is overwhelming that there had to be, at one time, an astonishing amount of water which left it's mark." Why do you not believe it resulted from slow erosion over a period of millions of years?
The eruption of Mt St Helen, in your own state was a small model, providing evidence of what a catastrophe can accomplish over a short time. It does not require millions of years as you assume.

There is no question about what a catastrophic flood could accomplish. That's not the problem with the idea of a global flood.

And why didn't you respond to my question? You have not responded to the many problems that make the idea of a global flood impossible.




You don't seem to understand how science works. You can't just go by superficial appearances and leap to your preconceived conclusion based on an ancient text written by primitive superstitious people who were totally ignorant of how the world really works. The problem is that there is an overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts the flood story. Here are a few of the facts you will need to explain away if you want to believe in a global flood:


There is no evidence of a global extinction of all the land animals in the last hundred thousand years.
There is no evidence of a genetic bottle neck that would be expected if all modern animals descended from pairs in recent history.
Ice cores from Antarctica are continuous over a span of a hundred thousand years. There is no evidence that Antarctica was deluged by a global flood.
etc.

The idea of the global flood is simply outside the realm of scientific possibility. And besides that, there are all sorts of improbabilities, like polar bears and kangaroos traveling thousands of miles, even crossing oceans, to get to the Middle East to get on Noah's ark to prevent them from being killed by the flood. And what were the carnivores supposed to eat when they got off the ark? There is no end to the absurdities generated if we interpret the story literally. I can't imagine any serious adult believing it for a second.

The fossil record contains evidence of creatures being buried suddenly, along with well preserved timber. Sea creature remains found in mountainous regions. Species supposedly millions of years old in the fossil record, still with us today, unchanged by evolutionary processes.

Yes, fossils usually are buried quickly because otherwise they would rot, be eaten by scavengers, or otherwise not preserved. But the geological strata most certainly were NOT laid down in a global flood, so your point is irrelevant.

And why didn't you address my points? It is impossible that there was a global flood for many many reasons. I just listed three of the most obvious that anyone should be able to see and understand. What is your answer to those points?





There is no evidence of a genetic bottle neck that would be expected if all modern animals descended from pairs in recent history.




Human agriculture dates back to about 5,000 years and look at the diversity of the human race since that short period of time, how all women today have been genetically linked back to their common ancestor in recent times. If humanity can repopulate the entire earth in such a short time and with such diversity, how can you conclude animals unable.

I never said animals were "unable" to repopulate the planet! I said that there is NO EVIDENCE of a genetic bottle neck that would have occurred IF all the modern animals descended from pairs in recent history. This is why all your creationist arguments are so weak. They contradict VAST BODIES OF EVIDENCE. This shows, yet again, that creationists are radically ignorant of science. They make claims that are completely inconsistent with the overwhelming body of evidence.




Ice cores from Antarctica are continuous over a span of a hundred thousand years. There is no evidence that Antarctica was deluged by a global flood.
Can you prove that the polar ice caps are not the remainder of the Flood waters? Can you prove that the mountains were not thrust up and the great ocean trenches opened at the same time?

Yes, absolutely! Ice core samples show ANNUAL LAYERS from yearly snowfall.




The idea of the global flood is simply outside the realm of scientific possibility.
Once again you claim science rules out a global flood, in what way?

I have presented a few of the most obvious reasons, and you have not responded to them, let alone refuted them. And there are many more I could present. Have you given any evidence of any kind that supports a global flood? I have not seen any as yet.




And besides that, there are all sorts of improbabilities, like polar bears and kangaroos traveling thousands of miles, even crossing oceans, to get to the Middle East to get on Noah's ark to prevent them from being killed by the flood.
Can you disprove that there was only one super continent that was broken up by the catastrophic event of the flood and the uplift of mountains and separation in the great oceanic gorge caused a rapid drifting apart of the remainders?

Of course not. There is good evidence that there have been supercontinents. But that doesn't help your theory at all because the supercontinents existed billions of years ago. They certainly did not exist in recent history! Here's what the wiki says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent):
Most commonly, paleogeographers employ the term supercontinent to refer to a single landmass consisting of all the modern continents. The earliest known supercontinent was Vaalbara. It formed from proto-continents and was a supercontinent by 3.1 billion years ago (3.1 Ga). Vaalbara broke up ~2.8 Ga ago. The supercontinent Kenorland was formed ~2.7 Ga ago and then broke sometime after 2.5 Ga into the proto-continent Cratons called Laurentia, Baltica, Australia, and Kalahari. The supercontinent Columbia or Nuna formed during a period of 2.0–1.8 billion years and broke up about 1.5–1.3 billion years ago.[1][2]

The supercontinent Rodinia formed about 1.1 billion years ago and broke up roughly 750 million years ago. One of the fragments included large parts of the continents now located in the southern hemisphere. Plate tectonics brought the fragments of Rodinia back together in a different configuration during the late Paleozoic era about 300 million years ago, forming the best-known supercontinent, Pangaea. Pangaea subsequently broke up into the northern and southern supercontinents, Laurasia and Gondwana, about 200 million years ago.

All science is contrary to the idea of a recent global flood.




And what were the carnivores supposed to eat when they got off the ark? There is no end to the absurdities generated if we interpret the story literally. I can't imagine any serious adult believing it for a second.
I believe it. I also believe the account that Jesus gave when He foretold of those who would be taken by surprise at another cataclysmic event which would parallel the time of Noah, and also Peter's statement when he referred to scoffers who think themselves wise in their disregard of the Biblical warnings.

Well, that only proves that Paul Simon got it right when he sang "A man sees what he wants to see, And disregards the rest."

And you didn't answer my question (again!) - what did the carnivores eat after the flood?




Please try to be a little more serious. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "whom to trust." As I explained in a recent post, I was trained in science and I REPRODUCED many scientific experiments myself. I measured the speed of light, the acceleration of gravity,and many similar things.
And do you also believe in something from nothing as seriously as do other notable men of science?

Don't you believe that God created something from nothing?




I don't take science "on faith." Creationists constantly misrepresent science as if it were as unfounded and absurd as their own religious beliefs and so must be "taken on faith" with no supporting evidence.
Of course you do. You accept BB Cosmology based on the speed of light being a constant, contrary to the evidence it is not. How can you prove that the red shift from distant galaxies is an accurate measurement if the speed of light has degraded from its original state? You are simply putting your faith in an unknown quantity and quality. The Universe is degrading, it is winding down, it is reacting to the curse. The Universe we live in today is much different than the one God created in the beginning. How can you prove otherwise? I would think that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would convince you, but no, you make an excuse that sometimes it operates in an open system and other time a closed system, whatever suits your theory. Tell me, is the Earth an open system or closed? Please explain your answer scientifically.

Don't be absurd. I do NOT "believe" in BB cosmology like you believe in the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And I don't "believe" in the constancy of the speed of light. The evidence for any change is very weak and not conclusive, and I measured the speed myself and found it to be consistent with the established results. And even if it were changing, the change is very slight so it would not significantly alter the calculated age of the universe. You are just straining at gnats while swallowing the camel of creationist absurdities.

I find it outrageously ironic that creationists lift themselves up in such ludicrous pride and think to challenge the results of 21st century relativistic cosmology (which they don't even understand) in their efforts to support their dogmas based on ancient religious texts written by men utterly ignorant of all science.

Your appeal to the 2nd law amplifies the absurdity of your war against science, truth, and reality beyond all measure. It is not an "excuse" when I EXPLAIN that the second law does not apply to an open system. If it did, you would be DEAD because your body fights decay ONLY by utilizing the low entropy food you take in. THE GROSS TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE and WILLFUL DECEPTION of creationists on this point really gets under my skin because my Ph.D. dissertation was on the topic of the 2nd Law in Quantum Systems. I know what I'm talking about when I tell you that corrupt creationists have made a FOOL of you and all Christians who have believed their lies.

The earth is on OPEN SYSTEM because it receives LOW ENTROPY ENERGY FROM THE SUN. :doh:

You can prove the absurdity of your comment to yourself in a nano-second. Imagine that the earth were a CLOSED SYSTEM. This would mean that no energy comes in from any source. There would be no input from the sun. Life would be impossible.




You write as if you believe that cars, computers, and cell phones run on "faith" like Islam, Mormonism, and Christianity. This is getting ridiculous. Don't you care if your beliefs have any connection with truth and reality?
What a total mis-characteration of what I believe. Science has accomplished many practical things, but it eventually runs into the curtain. The truth is expressed in the pages of God's Word, if science is at a loss to explain a Biblical event through natural phenomena, we should not be surprised and we should not exclude the possibility of the power of Almighty God to accomplish things we cannot. Your own life is an unexplained miracle. The origin of life is a miracle. The resurrection of Christ is a miracle.

You have CONSTANTLY implied that I "believe" in science in the same way that religious people "believe" in their religion. If you now say that you no longer believe that, then GREAT! I'm glad we finally destroyed that false characterization of my understanding of science.

We are not talking about "miracles." If miracles happened that left no evidence, then neither you nor I have any REASON to believe in them. Your have never given any reason for your outrageous presumption that the Bible is God's inerrant Word. What if you are wrong? If the Bible contains error and you attribute it to God, then you are calling God a liar. Doesn't this concern you at all?



I remain, your friend.

John
I'm very glad for that. But I do wish that you would work with me to get your feet on the ground of reality. I don't understand how you could base your eternal life on things that are demonstrably false. You have NOTHING to gain by aligning yourself with deliberately deceptive creationists.

All the best to you, my good friend,

Richard

jce
12-04-2012, 08:24 PM
There is no question about what a catastrophic flood could accomplish. That's not the problem with the idea of a global flood.

And why didn't you respond to my question? You have not responded to the many problems that make the idea of a global flood impossible.

What makes a global flood impossible but the limitations of man's science. Is God unable to flood the earth and restore it? Is He restricted to the method's of man? Millions of years are not necessary to account for the devastating amount of erosion which could be caused by a flood beyond your ability to comprehend.


Yes, fossils usually are buried quickly because otherwise they would rot, be eaten by scavengers, or otherwise not preserved.

What buried them so quickly?


But the geological strata most certainly were NOT laid down in a global flood, so your point is irrelevant.

That opinion is not shared by all geologists. Before Charles Lyell introduced his theory of Uniformitarianism, the majority of geologists attributed the earth's scars to Catastrophism.


And why didn't you address my points? It is impossible that there was a global flood for many many reasons. I just listed three of the most obvious that anyone should be able to see and understand. What is your answer to those points?

Impossible? Can you prove that? Why is it impossible? Impossible for man or impossible for God? Which is it?


I never said animals were "unable" to repopulate the planet! I said that there is NO EVIDENCE of a genetic bottle neck that would have occurred IF all the modern animals descended from pairs in recent history.

What are you talking about? There were male and female of each species preserved. They had plenty of time to repopulate and variate within species. What scientific theory prohibits that from occurring?


This is why all your creationist arguments are so weak. They contradict VAST BODIES OF EVIDENCE. This shows, yet again, that creationists are radically ignorant of science. They make claims that are completely inconsistent with the overwhelming body of evidence.

What's so overwhelming about multiverses, dark matter dark energy, etc. I find pseudo science rather "underwhelming". When I consider the Awesome Creative Power of the Living God, then my mind is overwhelmed with wonder. Now, if you want to be overwhelmed, consider His handiwork vs the puny ideas of men.



Yes, absolutely! Ice core samples show ANNUAL LAYERS from yearly snowfall.

And these same tests yielded results of hundreds of thousands of years when the known time span was less than 100 years.


I have presented a few of the most obvious reasons, and you have not responded to them, let alone refuted them. And there are many more I could present. Have you given any evidence of any kind that supports a global flood? I have not seen any as yet.

I have responded to them all.


There is good evidence that there have been supercontinents. But that doesn't help your theory at all because the supercontinents existed billions of years ago. They certainly did not exist in recent history!

How can you make that statement? You were not there. You cite Wiki as if they would ever support anything Biblical. Were the Wiki writers there to document this global catastrophe which would have disrupted the earths formations and transformed the entire planet. You cannot conceive of this event brought upon the earth by a Mighty God because your faith is in science. You simply elevate it above what God had revealed. None of these things are impossible with God, only with man, who prefers life without God.


All science is contrary to the idea of a recent global flood.

Men are contrary to the idea that the Biblical God exists. That is the problem.


Well, that only proves that Paul Simon got it right when he sang "A man sees what he wants to see, And disregards the rest."

And Bob Dylan got it right when he said, "The answer my friend is blowing in the wind" and "you gotta serve somebody".


And you didn't answer my question (again!) - what did the carnivores eat after the flood?

Well, what do you think? The answer is pretty obvious to me. There would have been plenty of dead carcusses to feed on, including human remains not digested by sharks and other ocean predators, in fact there were probably even some large ocean creatures who found themselves trapped within the inland waters as the large body of water retreated. Yes, I suspect there was plenty of meat to go around.


Don't you believe that God created something from nothing?

Of course, Who else could do it... the tooth fairy? Better not call on him again because he has already granted numerous requests from scientists thinking outside the box.


Don't be absurd. I do NOT "believe" in BB cosmology like you believe in the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Well, what do you believe in?


And I don't "believe" in the constancy of the speed of light. The evidence for any change is very weak and not conclusive, and I measured the speed myself and found it to be consistent with the established results. And even if it were changing, the change is very slight so it would not significantly alter the calculated age of the universe. You are just straining at gnats while swallowing the camel of creationist absurdities.

Your kidding about the absurdities right? We have enough of that from atheists in their attempt to escape God. Barry Setterfield could not get a paper published on his theory of the decreasing speed of light because it was deemed "unscientific" when in reality, Barry was a Creationist and his theory, if popularized would've undermined science at almost every level, which only proves to demonstrate the fragile sand upon which the science of man is erected. His theory by the way predicted a dramatic decrease in light speed from the time of original creation. It is important to consider the possibility of how much different things were before the fall. Light could have been "instantaneous".


I find it outrageously ironic that creationists lift themselves up in such ludicrous pride and think to challenge the results of 21st century relativistic cosmology (which they don't even understand) in their efforts to support their dogmas based on ancient religious texts written by men utterly ignorant of all science.

Again, you insult anyone who disagrees with the direction that godless science is heading. I understand the premise of the Big Bang Theory and Quantum Theory, I just think they are both problematic when it requires inventions such as hyper-inflation, dark matter dark energy and multiple universes. These are hypotheticals, not science.


Your appeal to the 2nd law amplifies the absurdity of your war against science, truth, and reality beyond all measure. It is not an "excuse" when I EXPLAIN that the second law does not apply to an open system. If it did, you would be DEAD because your body fights decay ONLY by utilizing the low entropy food you take in. THE GROSS TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE and WILLFUL DECEPTION of creationists on this point really gets under my skin because my Ph.D. dissertation was on the topic of the 2nd Law in Quantum Systems. I know what I'm talking about when I tell you that corrupt creationists have made a FOOL of you and all Christians who have believed their lies.

The second law is skirted around for living things because it undermines evolutionary theory. Evolutionists need it to be this way. Things in nature do not assemble themselves, they degrade. Living forms survive because of genetically coded instruction, not because they are an exception to it. The debate over the 2nd law between evolutionists and creationists is nothing more than philosophical, not scientific.


The earth is on OPEN SYSTEM because it receives LOW ENTROPY ENERGY FROM THE SUN. :doh:

Yes, and this low entropy energy from the sun degrades everything else in the world. Do you have evidence otherwise?


You can prove the absurdity of your comment to yourself in a nano-second. Imagine that the earth were a CLOSED SYSTEM. This would mean that no energy comes in from any source. There would be no input from the sun. Life would be impossible.

I never said it was a closed system. :doh:


You have CONSTANTLY implied that I "believe" in science in the same way that religious people "believe" in their religion. If you now say that you no longer believe that, then GREAT! I'm glad we finally destroyed that false characterization of my understanding of science.

Everything is of faith. EVERYTHING.


We are not talking about "miracles." If miracles happened that left no evidence, then neither you nor I have any REASON to believe in them.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear".


Your have never given any reason for your outrageous presumption that the Bible is God's inerrant Word. What if you are wrong? If the Bible contains error and you attribute it to God, then you are calling God a liar. Doesn't this concern you at all?

Where else does one go when He has tasted that the Lord is good. When he, Whom to know is Eternal Life holds the keys to heaven and hell. When the debt you owe exceeds your ability to pay, and He steps in and covers it for you. All this and more give me every reason to trust Him completely and lean on His promises. I accept the Words of Scripture as His divine revelation to whosoever will, and if that one will, let him take of the water of life freely. These words are not cleverly devised fables designed to deceive, but are from Him, who cannot lie. You know the power of this sacred book, you have just set it aside for a while. You will return.


I'm very glad for that. But I do wish that you would work with me to get your feet on the ground of reality. I don't understand how you could base your eternal life on things that are demonstrably false. You have NOTHING to gain by aligning yourself with deliberately deceptive creationists.

Richard, don't worry about me, I'm in better hands than Allstate. It is my hope that one day you and I will reflect back on these exchanges and recognize how foolish we both were. God is Good.


All the best to you, my good friend,

Richard

And to you too good friend.

John

Richard Amiel McGough
12-04-2012, 10:01 PM
What makes a global flood impossible but the limitations of man's science. Is God unable to flood the earth and restore it? Is He restricted to the method's of man? Millions of years are not necessary to account for the devastating amount of erosion which could be caused by a flood beyond your ability to comprehend.

It is not the "limitations" of science that prohibit the idea of a global flood, but rather the SUCCESS of science. There is no evidence supporting the idea of the global flood and there is a massive body of evidence that contradicts it. The only reason you believe in it at all is because your primitive pre-scientific mythological book says it happened. How are you beliefs any different than a Muslim who believes Muhammad rode a horse to heaven? They make up exactly the same kinds of absurdities to support the Koran that you invent to support the Bible. You have no reason to believe the mythological claims in that book and you have every reason to believe the results of modern science, so your position strikes me as quite irrational.

Your attempt to establish the truth of the Bible by yapping at the heals of science is quite foolish. You will NEVER convince any rational skeptic with such tactics. On the contrary, you only convince us that your religion requires a irrational belief in endless absurdities.



What buried them so quickly?

Please post a link to the evidence you would like to have explained.




But the geological strata most certainly were NOT laid down in a global flood, so your point is irrelevant.
That opinion is not shared by all geologists. Before Charles Lyell introduced his theory of Uniformitarianism, the majority of geologists attributed the earth's scars to Catastrophism.

Yes, the geologists from 150 years ago believed a lot of things that geologists have since corrected. Many of them were looking for proof of the Bible. Creationists have a very bad habit of quoting out of date science in their attacks. It makes them look very foolish.

If you want your assertion to stand, you will need to cite some modern geologists published in peer reviewed journals who reject the geological column and are not motivated by religion. Good luck with that.




And why didn't you address my points? It is impossible that there was a global flood for many many reasons. I just listed three of the most obvious that anyone should be able to see and understand. What is your answer to those points?
Impossible? Can you prove that? Why is it impossible? Impossible for man or impossible for God? Which is it?

Impossible for the reasons stated. The reasons that you have not refuted.

Impossible for God unless he is intent on deception.




I never said animals were "unable" to repopulate the planet! I said that there is NO EVIDENCE of a genetic bottle neck that would have occurred IF all the modern animals descended from pairs in recent history.
What are you talking about? There were male and female of each species preserved. They had plenty of time to repopulate and variate within species. What scientific theory prohibits that from occurring?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The flood story says that the pairs of males and females preserved on the ark repopulated the planet. This means there would be a genetic bottleneck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck) at the time of the flood. No such bottleneck exists, therefore the flood did not happen.




Yes, absolutely! Ice core samples show ANNUAL LAYERS from yearly snowfall.
And these same tests yielded results of hundreds of thousands of years when the known time span was less than 100 years.

Please provide a link to the evidence supporting your assertion. I have no idea what you are talking about. This page (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/) says that various ice core samples go back 110,000 years to 750,000 years.

I get the impression you reject any and all science that contradicts the pre-scientific mythology of the Bible. I can't think of anything more absurd.




There is good evidence that there have been supercontinents. But that doesn't help your theory at all because the supercontinents existed billions of years ago. They certainly did not exist in recent history!

How can you make that statement? You were not there. You cite Wiki as if they would ever support anything Biblical. Were the Wiki writers there to document this global catastrophe which would have disrupted the earths formations and transformed the entire planet. You cannot conceive of this event brought upon the earth by a Mighty God because your faith is in science. You simply elevate it above what God had revealed. None of these things are impossible with God, only with man, who prefers life without God.

How can I make that statement if I were not there? Man! You're really blowing my mind John. You exhibit RADICAL SKEPTICISM towards established science and no skepticism of any kind towards the Koran as the very Word of God! Oh ... excuse me, I meant "The Book of Mormon." .... Ooops ... I mean the Roman Catholic Bible! Oooops. I mean the particular religious book that you have arbitrarily declared to be the "Word of God." :doh:

And there you go again - FALSELY EQUATING YOUR uncritical belief in Bible mythology with my critical understanding of demonstrable science. This demonstrates how fundamentalist religion corrupts the minds of believers. I've corrected you on this error a dozen times now, but you refuse to learn. I do not have "faith" in science the way that you blindly believe whatever you read in the Bible! Man! Get with it! How can you repeat the same error time after time and time???




All science is contrary to the idea of a recent global flood.
Men are contrary to the idea that the Biblical God exists. That is the problem.

Don't be ABSURD John. You are a man. The world is filled with people like you who wish the Bible were true but they have INTEGRITY to admit the truth that the Bible says many things that contradict science and so are DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.




And you didn't answer my question (again!) - what did the carnivores eat after the flood?
Well, what do you think? The answer is pretty obvious to me. There would have been plenty of dead carcusses to feed on, including human remains not digested by sharks and other ocean predators, in fact there were probably even some large ocean creatures who found themselves trapped within the inland waters as the large body of water retreated. Yes, I suspect there was plenty of meat to go around.

OK - you found an answer. Congrats. But you seem to have forgotten about something called DECAY. If you want me to believe your little story, then all you need to do is go outside, shoot a cow, throw it in a pond for one year, and then serve it to your family. Then maybe I'll believe you really believe the ludicrous stories that you need to make up to salvage your religion.

And you still have not answered how all the animals, like kangaroos, got back to their native lands. There are unique populations of animals that evolved on isolated locations all over the planet. Like the Island Night lizard found only on the Channel Islands by California. And the unique animals on all the little islands dotting the world's oceans. Like I said, the flood is a scientific impossibility. It contradicts TEN THOUSAND facts, or more.




Don't you believe that God created something from nothing?
Of course, Who else could do it...

So now you say that something can come from nothing?




Don't be absurd. I do NOT "believe" in BB cosmology like you believe in the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Well, what do you believe in?

I believe in gravity, that I exist, that fire is hot ... The word "belief" is not very meaningful other than as a synonym of "opinion" or "think." I "believe" the sky is blue means I think the sky is blue means I am of the opinion that the sky is blue. The Christian doctrine that "belief" is required to get to heaven is perhaps the worst error in the religion. It has destroyed countless minds.

I wish you could see that your apologetic methodology is only convincing me that the best decision I ever made in life was to quit Christianity.




And I don't "believe" in the constancy of the speed of light. The evidence for any change is very weak and not conclusive, and I measured the speed myself and found it to be consistent with the established results. And even if it were changing, the change is very slight so it would not significantly alter the calculated age of the universe. You are just straining at gnats while swallowing the camel of creationist absurdities.

Your kidding about the absurdities right? We have enough of that from atheists in their attempt to escape God. Barry Setterfield could not get a paper published on his theory of the decreasing speed of light because it was deemed "unscientific" when in reality, Barry was a Creationist and his theory, if popularized would've undermined science at almost every level, which only proves to demonstrate the fragile sand upon which the science of man is erected. His theory by the way predicted a dramatic decrease in light speed from the time of original creation. It is important to consider the possibility of how much different things were before the fall. Light could have been "instantaneous".

I was not kidding at all. Creationists are the most blatant proof that fundamentalist Christianity corrupts both the minds and the morals of believers.

Your assertion that atheists are trying to "escape God" is one of the most ludicrous comments you have ever made. The reason I am an atheist is because all the evidence proves that the biblegod DOES NOT EXIST. So there is nothing for me to "escape from." Your religion is making you sound delusional. I can't relate to anything you are saying. It sounds utterly insane to me.

Barry Setterfield was ONE MAN who INVENTED a theory in his vain attempt to prove the Bible. Your assertion that his theory was rejected because it "would've undermined science at almost every level" only shows how ignorant you are of the CONSILIENCE of science. It is not "fragile" at all! That's the most absurd thing anyone could utter. Science is exceedingly strong and robust because it has been confirmed by millions of observations. It is your RELIGION that stands on "fragile sand." Again, you reveal that you don't care about science at all. You show no skepticism for wild claims if they are put forth by creationists whereas you reject established science for no reason other than your need to defend your fairy tale religion. This conversation is becoming grotesquely absurd.




I find it outrageously ironic that creationists lift themselves up in such ludicrous pride and think to challenge the results of 21st century relativistic cosmology (which they don't even understand) in their efforts to support their dogmas based on ancient religious texts written by men utterly ignorant of all science

Again, you insult anyone who disagrees with the direction that godless science is heading. I understand the premise of the Big Bang Theory and Quantum Theory, I just think they are both problematic when it requires inventions such as hyper-inflation, dark matter dark energy and multiple universes. These are hypotheticals, not science.

I insult no one. I am stating the facts. My statement stands. Creationists exhibit ludicrous pride when they challenge science of which they are radically ignorant.

There is evidence for inflationary cosmology. You simply do not know what you are talking about.




Your appeal to the 2nd law amplifies the absurdity of your war against science, truth, and reality beyond all measure. It is not an "excuse" when I EXPLAIN that the second law does not apply to an open system. If it did, you would be DEAD because your body fights decay ONLY by utilizing the low entropy food you take in. THE GROSS TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE and WILLFUL DECEPTION of creationists on this point really gets under my skin because my Ph.D. dissertation was on the topic of the 2nd Law in Quantum Systems. I know what I'm talking about when I tell you that corrupt creationists have made a FOOL of you and all Christians who have believed their lies.
The second law is skirted around for living things because it undermines evolutionary theory. Evolutionists need it to be this way. Things in nature do not assemble themselves, they degrade. Living forms survive because of genetically coded instruction, not because they are an exception to it. The debate over the 2nd law between evolutionists and creationists is nothing more than philosophical, not scientific.

What are you talking about???? No scientist "skirts around" the second law! It is FUNDAMENTAL to science. If it contradicted evolution, then evolution would be rejected in a heartbeat. Here is what real scientists say about the second law:
The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. ~ Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4

"If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

There is absolutely NO contradiction between evolution and the second law. You have been totally deceived by lying corrupt creationists. It sickens me to see you believe such lies.




You have CONSTANTLY implied that I "believe" in science in the same way that religious people "believe" in their religion. If you now say that you no longer believe that, then GREAT! I'm glad we finally destroyed that false characterization of my understanding of science.
Everything is of faith. EVERYTHING.

So now you pretend you don't even understand the difference between evidence vs. faith???? What then did Paul mean when he said "we walk by faith and not sight"? Your insistence on grossly irrational falsehood is becoming quite tedious. You have convinced me, and I presume every rational reader of this thread (for years to come) that Christianity is one of the primary enemies of all that is good and true. Congrats.




We are not talking about "miracles." If miracles happened that left no evidence, then neither you nor I have any REASON to believe in them.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear".

So Muslims have every REASON to believe that Muhammad rode a horse to heaven and the Koran is the Word of God. Great. Thanks.




Your have never given any reason for your outrageous presumption that the Bible is God's inerrant Word. What if you are wrong? If the Bible contains error and you attribute it to God, then you are calling God a liar. Doesn't this concern you at all?
Where else does one go when He has tasted that the Lord is good. When he, Whom to know is Eternal Life holds the keys to heaven and hell. When the debt you owe exceeds your ability to pay, and He steps in and covers it for you. All this and more give me every reason to trust Him completely and lean on His promises. I accept the Words of Scripture as His divine revelation to whosoever will, and if that one will, let him take of the water of life freely. These words are not cleverly devised fables designed to deceive, but are from Him, who cannot lie. You know the power of this sacred book, you have just set it aside for a while. You will return.

Says who? You? You are now the spokesman for God? The Bible does not even define the Bible, let alone say that it is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. So what? Everyone is supposed to take your word for it? You are the ultimate authority?




I'm very glad for that. But I do wish that you would work with me to get your feet on the ground of reality. I don't understand how you could base your eternal life on things that are demonstrably false. You have NOTHING to gain by aligning yourself with deliberately deceptive creationists.
Richard, don't worry about me, I'm in better hands than Allstate. It is my hope that one day you and I will reflect back on these exchanges and recognize how foolish we both were. God is Good.

My heart aches for you. I can't imagine how you could choose to write such absurdities and claim that they are God's own truth. You have convinced me that Christianity breeds a CONTEMPT for the truth. It is one of the the most corrosive and corrupting ideologies out there.



And to you too good friend.

John
Well, I'm glad we're still friends.

All the best,

Richard

duxrow
12-05-2012, 11:12 AM
:sEm_ImSorry:They went into the Ark by two's, and Jesus sent out the seventy by two's. Two brothers, two prophets (1K13), two Saul's, two Enoch's and Lamech's, Rachel & Leah, Mary & Martha, Peter & Paul, Elijah & Elisha, Esau & Jacob, Eldad & Medad, Jannes & Jambres, male & female, Old & New, Clean & Unclean, Good & Evil, Alpha & Omega, Theophilus-twice, the double portion, two-edged sword, and on and on and on...

2 pillars (Boaz & Jachin) on Solomon's Temple, and 2 on the temple that Samson pulled down -- now in the NT we are a temple! Walking on 2 legs! Anybody 'pulled your leg' lately??

Gen41:32 -- "By 2 it's established", BY GOD! ain't gonna be no more no more... :thumb:
:sos:The Two (2) Covenants (Jew first--then Gentile) of Gal 4:24, and the two (2) Witnesses and Olive Branches of Rev 11 should be included, doncha think?

Richard Amiel McGough
12-05-2012, 03:57 PM
:woah:Actually, 2 floods, when Peter speaks of the one prior to Day One... Gen1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.2Pet3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:The "replenish" in Gen 1:28 confirms this for me; likewise Jer4:23. No problem for dinosaurs and neanderthals to live in the pre-Adamic age. Right? :winking0071:



:sEm_ImSorry:They went into the Ark by two's, and Jesus sent out the seventy by two's. Two brothers, two prophets (1K13), two Saul's, two Enoch's and Lamech's, Rachel & Leah, Mary & Martha, Peter & Paul, Elijah & Elisha, Esau & Jacob, Eldad & Medad, Jannes & Jambres, male & female, Old & New, Clean & Unclean, Good & Evil, Alpha & Omega, Theophilus-twice, the double portion, two-edged sword, and on and on and on...

2 pillars (Boaz & Jachin) on Solomon's Temple, and 2 on the temple that Samson pulled down -- now in the NT we are a temple! Walking on 2 legs! Anybody 'pulled your leg' lately??

Gen41:32 -- "By 2 it's established", BY GOD! ain't gonna be no more no more... :thumb:


:sos:The Two (2) Covenants (Jew first--then Gentile) of Gal 4:24, and the two (2) Witnesses and Olive Branches of Rev 11 should be included, doncha think?

I think the symbolic meaning of the Number 2 is quite plain in Scripture. But I don't see how it could support your original comment that there were two floods. That idea simply is not in the Bible, and I see no value in making things up.

duxrow
12-06-2012, 08:41 AM
Making things up?
:hysterical:Considering that our Holy Ghostwriter included the part about "ribbing us", and about 'pulling our leg', and about the great mirth in Neh 8:12, don't you suppose the Two Floods 'theory' gives us reason to accept the scientific evidence of dinosaurs and other pre-Adamic life forms? :lol: