FooManChoo

quote:

---

Your entire framework is built on nothing but assumptions. If a scientific assumption is proven to be incorrect, science works around it. You just adamantly refuse to believe that your assumptions could be incorrect.

---

"Science" does the same thing by its very nature. It assumes naturalism and is limited by it. If there is a supernatural explanation for an event that science cannot account for, it will reject such an explanation outright, because such a conclusion doesn't "work" with science. It's why so many who make science as some sort of sacred cow scoff at even the idea of supernaturalism.

quote:

---

That land is already conquered. This land isn't completely conquered yet.

---

This. Their entire existence is predicated on conquering the physical world for Allah so they can have an eternity of sexual pleasure.

quote:

---

You and NC have pointed out why it’s so frustrating even having these discussions with Foo. He resorts to mental gymnastics. When you point out something that doesn’t make sense if you take it literally, he resorts to “well, that’s just poetic”. When you point out a discrepancy, he resorts to obfuscation about how they’re not really discrepancies if you look at them closely enough.

---

You assume a contradiction where I assume no contradiction. That's the difference.

I provide reasons for the explanations I give. I'm not arbitrarily picking a response out of a hat. The "well, that's just poetic" response is based on examining the style of the writing, not just an arbitrary counter. I provided specific reasons for why the language of the Psalms is considered poetry, for example. If you have any arguments why I'm wrong in that assessment, feel free to provide them, rather than just accusing me of arbitrary and irrational responses.

quote:

---

Age of the Earth vs man's appearance is about as close to Scientific Law as there is.

---

And yet it's a good thing that scientific consensus does not make something a law. There are quite a few assumptions built into historical science that lead so many to the conclusion of old ages.

Christian charity is a good thing, but the reason why it is charity is because it isn't an obligation. If it were an obligation, it would no longer by charity. It's like the difference between giving your money freely to a food bank, and having your money taken from you for food stamps.

Galatians 6:10 says, "So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith"

This has been interpreted historically as giving a priority status for the church. Along with other passages, there is a clear priority given. We all have limited time, money, and resources, and we cannot give it all to everyone equally, so we have to make decisions on how we use those things.

For the Christian, he is to first care for his own household, but then to care for the church, and then the society he lives in. This church has limited resources, like everyone else, and it must prioritize the care of its own people over the use of others. Our church is small and doesn't have the budget to open the parking lot to unlimited use to anyone who wants to use it, because we can't afford the upkeep for that sort of usage. We would be in the same position to deny regular use.

Bottom line: it's not unchristian to prioritize how we use our resources.

quote:

---

Of course you are, and in doing so you deny observations of "the work of his hands." In doing so, you're not supporting a Biblical position. You're supporting your own misdrawn position relative to it.

---

I believe you are misapplying that verse. It's merely drawing attention to the magnificence and beauty of creation as an evidence of the creator who created it. It isn't an umbrella to justify all contra-biblical interpretations made under the guise of "science".

It seems rather clear to me that you take "the work of his hands" in creation to be a supreme authority over the direct revelation of God in His word, interpreting the clear (or clearer) words of God by the less clear and fallible interpretations of man's reasoning.

This is also quite the slippery slope, as it can be--and often times is--used by those who want to force their own beliefs into the Bible to have the Bible justify their sin and misunderstandings rather than their thinking being conformed to God's thoughts, as clearly laid out in the Scriptures.

quote:

---

Heliocentrism was regarded as heretical until the last 200 years or so. After all, the Bible plainly states "The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (Psalm 93:1), "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."(Psalm 104:5), "The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (1 Chronicles 16:30).

---

Yes, man can wrongly interpret or apply the Bible. I believe those verses indicate a wrong application in regards to geocentrism, as the context of all of those verses do not have the earth as the object of the establishment, but of God's sovereign power.

Psalm 93:1 is speaking to God's sovereign power over all creation, so that nothing can be moved (it's referring to change or destruction apart from God's sovereign decree) without God's allowance. The verse starts speaking of God's sovereign reign, and speaks to the powerful waves and flood waters as being under His control. In the middle of it, it speaks to the "world" as being unmovable due to its being established by God. While I can see why some would interpret this as speaking to the place of the earth in the solar system and universe, this poetic language (the Psalms are poetry, which is different from historical narrative of Genesis) is speaking to God's upholding all creation by His power, as many other verses speak to.

Likewise with Psalm 104:5. The language is poetic. The prior verses provide poetic language, as well. Verse 3 says, "He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters; he makes the clouds his chariot; he rides on the wings of the wind". There is no evidence that the Hebrews or Christians that followed believed that God laid literal beams of a literal house or room on the waters of the earth, for instance. God is a spirit and doesn't reside in places made with hands, nor was there ever a temple created on the waters in or around Israel. The Scriptures use phenomenological language to describe God, and this is another instance. Yes, people can and have interpreted this literally, but that wasn't the point of the passage, whereas the creation story in Genesis was historical, chronological narrative, not poetry, by its very style.

1 Chronicles 16 is also poetic language by its very style. Immediately following the verse you cited, David speaks of the heavens being glad, the earth rejoicing, the sea roaring, the field exulting, and the trees singing for joy. This song of David is giving glory to God in His strength and majesty, like the two other Psalms you provided, and used poetic language to describe God's greatness and power. The earth being established and not moving again speaks to its being upheld by the power of God. David uses similar language throughout the Psalms, like how in Psalm 16, he says, "I shall not be moved". He wasn't talking about being physical moved there.

So no, it's not necessary to interpret those scriptures as teaching geocentrism, because the text, itself, does not lend itself to such a necessary interpretation. You can clearly see the context isn't talking about the physical attributes of the earth, but is speaking to the world being created and governed by the sovereign hand of God.

quote:

---

In the Biblical account of the Gibeon affair, Joshua ordered the sun to stand still. Galileo narrowly avoided being burned at the stake by "admitting" that if heliocentrism was accurate, Joshua would have ordered the Earth to stand still, not the sun. So he "recanted" his questions as to geocentrism. The clerics who would have lit Galileo on fire interpreted the Bible EXACTLY as it is written, even if that interpretation was at demonstrable variance with "the work of his hands." It was a mistake then. It is a mistake now.

---

What you are referring to is a mistake of humans in their own misunderstanding, not in the word of God. God uses phenomenological language regularly to speak to man's perspective. Whether the sun stood still or the earth, the result is that God extended the daylight in a miraculous way for Joshua and the people of Israel, and even if it only appeared that the sun stood still. The God who created the sun and earth could temporarily stop the spinning of the earth and halt the inertial force and all other effects of doing so, or even stop the light from the sun in some way to make it appear the sun stood still. Regardless, the account was that a miracle was performed to give Israel extra light for a short time, and how God precisely did it is only known to Him, just like God creating the earth in a short time is His knowledge to keep.

quote:

---

Issac Newton, who was first a phenom in Biblical scholarship (most folks don't know that), was pushed to science in part d/t his interest in Jeremiah's "fixed laws of heaven and earth." By definition, fixed laws of heaven and earth meant the universe was designed by a rational mind, it could be understood through rational study.

Francis Bacon, another man steeped in Biblical study, viewed science much as I do. It is a tool to fulfill providence and alleviate human suffering. For Bacon, studying nature was a religious duty. It complemented the Bible. "Test all things; hold fast what is good," (1 Thessalonians 5:21) was foundational to his construct of the Scientific Method.

God gives us the ability to observe, and further our understanding of existence and creation. Reliance on that ability is actually critical to Biblical understanding, not contradictory to it.

---

I agree with all of this. I don't have a problem with science per se, as it is just a tool used by humans to understand God's creation. However, I realize that all knowledge comes from God ultimately, and is granted and governed by Him. Our understanding of nature is not perfect and our study of the universe is not infallible, so we must make sure our assumptions are grounded in the infallible truth of Scripture, not make science separate and equal "revelation" that governs God's word.

quote:

---

For you, I'd point out again the Bible addresses the inconsequence of time as a thing with God -- a day is as a thousand years, a thousand years ia as a day. There could be but one witness to creation. That account could be related by but one source. It is a source unconcerned with limits or definitions of time, and then related to man who is time-obsessed d/t mortality.

---

You left off the second half of that verse. The full verse is: "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day". I know you are being selective with this verse, because you don't apply that to any other usage of the word "day" in the Bible. When the language is clearly poetic, you can interpret the word as the text requires, but God went out of His way in Genesis 1 to give all the markers of a literal 24-hour day.

quote:

---

I'm a Christian but it's undeniable that there are contradictions in the Bible.

---

I think you should consider what constitutes a true contradiction and then look into those alleged contradictions a bit more. The internet has made this a lot easier to talk about.

quote:

---

The widespread dogma of Biblical inerrancy is fairly new.

---

I think you should check your church history on that.

quote:

---

You think an imaginary bearded man in the sky runs the universe?

---

Speaking on behalf of all Christians: no, we do not believe in a God who is "imaginary", "bearded", or a "man". God is a spirit, but the second person of the godhead took on a human nature, so that He is both God and man (but not only a man).

God is omnipotent, so He does "run the universe" according to His will, and you would do well to submit to Him and trust in the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins before your end.

quote:

---

I just don’t understand being so tied to a literal reading of a religious text so much so that it will make someone reject categorically our understanding of the natural world.

---

First, our understanding of the natural world is changing and being corrected and refined all the time. Much of what was taught with confidence in schools 100, 50, and 25 years ago has changed and is no longer true, or is no longer accurate.

Second, I believe the Bible is the word of God, and since God cannot lie, the Bible must be true, in spite of what fallible men say.

Lastly, the Bible was not written to be interpreted any way we want. God has specific meanings for us to understand through that revelation. The book of Genesis, in particular, was not written as poetry or parable, but as history. The grammar and writing style point to this, as well as how the creation narrative is referenced all throughout the Bible. If the clear reading of Genesis is thrown out the window because it seems to be in conflict with modern scientific consensus, then the entire Bible is cast into doubt as being accurate and worthy of trust as God's word.

quote:

---

... and I am trying desperately not to be disrespectful in obliterating that "case."

---

Feel free to "obliterate" it. It's not disrespectful to disagree and argue for your position.

quote:

---

I like you as a poster.
I very much appreciate your contributions here.
When it's Foo against some """intellectual""" 'atheist,' I've been your deliberate and invertible ally, as I'll continue to be.

---

Appreciate the kind words :cheers:

quote:

---

But the Scriptures do NOT teach """young earth."""
The Scriptures do NOT REMOTELY teach that 'creation' was done in a short amount of time.

Sorry!
But I've cited MULTIPLE examples.

---

I'd like you to state your full case, then. I recall you mentioning Psalm 19. I agree that all of creation points to God and declares His presence and power. Romans 1 teaches likewise.

What I disagree with is that Psalm 19 is a proof text for trusting fallible man's interpretations of nature over the clear word of God.

quote:

---

PLEASE, do not perpetuate ignorance in the supposed name of misinterpreted scripture.

---

I'm not perpetuating ignorance to support a biblical position. The literal day position (and therefore short timeframe for creation) was the majority opinion throughout church history. The confession my tradition adheres to (Westminster Confession of Faith) also states that God made all things in the span of 6 days. It wasn't until the last 200 years or so that the winds changed drastically within Christianity in terms of interpreting the Bible about creation. The reasoning for the change was an attempt to interpret the Bible according to materialistic science.

A plain reading of the Bible will not get you to long ages for creation, as I've said many times at this point. The grammar won't get you there; the writing style of Genesis won't get you there; the interpretation and usage by Moses, David, and all the way to Jesus and the Apostles won't get you there; and the theology of the Bible won't get you there.

quote:

---

I remember being taught in junior high school that spontaneous generation (that living creatures could arise from non-living matter) had been proven to be false...yet atheists rely on a version of to to explain the beginning of life.

---

Very true. It's easier for some to believe that aliens visited us millions of years ago and planted seeds of life than that God created us.

quote:

---

As far as the supposed evidence that the earth is billions of years old...if you believe the Genesis account, if the day after trees were created you had cut one down, how many rings would you count? How old did the Earth appear to be?

---

Also true. God created with an appearance of age and maturity. Trees were created fully grown with fruit hanging from their branches. Grass was fully grown. Even man and woman were created mature.

The theory of evolution relies on unguided processes to produce irreducibly complex mechanisms and information akin to advanced computer coding for organic life to emerge and change into more complex body types over time without being killed off early on due to hostile environments. I find it as ridiculous to think that happened naturally as atheists think God is ridiculous.