Evidence for God from Science

FFC wrote:

August wrote:How was there day and night before there was a sun?

I don't know, you'll have to ask God. I'm just saying what I see in God's word.

We all see what is in God's Word, and we know that it cannot be false. Saying that we should "ask God" is a bit of a non-answer and may lead to controversy, because some may argue they did, and that you are wrong with your interpretation. If everyone argued your way, we would have no theology.

zoegirl wrote:Accepting old universe in no way means acceptance of a universe with no purpose or macroevolution or abiogenesis. Check out the parts of the webite addressing this issue.

The age question in no way compromises the role of God as omnipotent Creator

We meaning those Christians who think that Genesis and Scientific observation both agree that the universe is old.

There is no way short of the mental gymnastics provided by old earth creationsists to assert that Genesis supports a Biblical notion the earth is billions of years old.

Old earth creationism is nothing more than a rehash of various 'God of the Gaps' , day age or progressive creationsim. Again, only an agonizing presentation of Genesis can produce old earth creationism. It is nothing short of another attempt by those who want not to be ridiculed by mainstream science. Genesis is quite explicit; the evening and the morning...

hfd wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Accepting old universe in no way means acceptance of a universe with no purpose or macroevolution or abiogenesis. Check out the parts of the webite addressing this issue.

The age question in no way compromises the role of God as omnipotent Creator

We meaning those Christians who think that Genesis and Scientific observation both agree that the universe is old.

There is no way short of the mental gymnastics provided by old earth creationsists to assert that Genesis supports a Biblical notion the earth is billions of years old.

Old earth creationism is nothing more than a rehash of various 'God of the Gaps' , day age or progressive creationsim. Again, only an agonizing presentation of Genesis can produce old earth creationism. It is nothing short of another attempt by those who want not to be ridiculed by mainstream science. Genesis is quite explicit; the evening and the morning...

This is lauhable...so now we simply are trying to avoid ridicule....

If you truly think that by simply agreeing with them that the universe is old then somehow we avoid ridicule, then you have no sense of what the secular world wants us to confess. THey want us to confess that there is no God, He does no exist, He did not create the universe, no Jesus, no death, no resurrection, no sin....these are what they crave...not some agreement that the observations of the age of the universe is correct. "The fool says in his heart, there is no God"

I do not compromise on any of these issues, I simply agree that the universe is old.

To this the agnostic scientists would simply shrug their shoulders and say we have no way of knowing....

To this the atheist would still laugh and ridicule us for believing in a Creator.

OEC's think the universe is old because we have examined both the scripture and the universe and they are both in agreement, NOT from some pathetic urge to debase ourselves for atheist scientists.

August wrote:

FFC wrote:

August wrote:How was there day and night before there was a sun?

I don't know, you'll have to ask God. I'm just saying what I see in God's word.

We all see what is in God's Word, and we know that it cannot be false. Saying that we should "ask God" is a bit of a non-answer and may lead to controversy, because some may argue they did, and that you are wrong with your interpretation. If everyone argued your way, we would have no theology.

No, I don't think I gave a non answer at all. You asked me how was there day and night before there was a sun and I said ask God...inferring that I don't know. I do know what the bible says, and to me it indicates that each day was a 24 hour period.

"OEC's think the universe is old because we have examined both the scripture and the universe and they are both in agreement..."

Simply not true. The six days spoken of in Genesis were literal days...see James Barr et al. They were not presented as ages or any other convoluted time period.

Hugh Ross, of course, is the majordomo of OEC. He readilly rejects scripture to support his ideas. So as a Christian what parts of the Bible do you accept as 'The Word of God' and what part is merely alegory, myth or metaphor.

FFC wrote:

August wrote:

FFC wrote:

August wrote:How was there day and night before there was a sun?

I don't know, you'll have to ask God. I'm just saying what I see in God's word.

We all see what is in God's Word, and we know that it cannot be false. Saying that we should "ask God" is a bit of a non-answer and may lead to controversy, because some may argue they did, and that you are wrong with your interpretation. If everyone argued your way, we would have no theology.

No, I don't think I gave a non answer at all. You asked me how was there day and night before there was a sun and I said ask God...inferring that I don't know. I do know what the bible says, and to me it indicates that each day was a 24 hour period.

Gen 2:4?

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

There are a few such examples of "day" being something different than 24 hours.

I thought your answer "ask God" was a non-answer for the reasons I quoted. Many, including myself, will claim that they have faithfully and consistently looked at the original Scriptures, and can find no reason to stick to a strict translation from Aramaic or Hebrew that means 24 hours.

I know that you are just trying to be faithful to the Scriptures, and I admire that. In the same way, I am not trying to push science as the interpretive standard for the Bible, that would be illogical. Scripture needs to interpret Scripture. It needs to be internally consistent, or else it fails.

Do you think that Gen 1:1-2 was part of the six days of creation or not?

hfd wrote:"OEC's think the universe is old because we have examined both the scripture and the universe and they are both in agreement..."

Simply not true. The six days spoken of in Genesis were literal days...see James Barr et al. They were not presented as ages or any other convoluted time period.

Hugh Ross, of course, is the majordomo of OEC. He readilly rejects scripture to support his ideas. So as a Christian what parts of the Bible do you accept as 'The Word of God' and what part is merely alegory, myth or metaphor.

I accept it all....

August wrote:Do you think that Gen 1:1-2 was part of the six days of creation or not?

It was definately the start of it.

zoegirl wrote:

hfd wrote:"OEC's think the universe is old because we have examined both the scripture and the universe and they are both in agreement..."

Simply not true. The six days spoken of in Genesis were literal days...see James Barr et al. They were not presented as ages or any other convoluted time period.

Hugh Ross, of course, is the majordomo of OEC. He readilly rejects scripture to support his ideas. So as a Christian what parts of the Bible do you accept as 'The Word of God' and what part is merely alegory, myth or metaphor.

I accept it all....

Hard to do if one rejects the literal 24 hour day in Genesis.

hfd wrote:

zoegirl wrote:

hfd wrote:"OEC's think the universe is old because we have examined both the scripture and the universe and they are both in agreement..."

Simply not true. The six days spoken of in Genesis were literal days...see James Barr et al. They were not presented as ages or any other convoluted time period.

Hugh Ross, of course, is the majordomo of OEC. He readilly rejects scripture to support his ideas. So as a Christian what parts of the Bible do you accept as 'The Word of God' and what part is merely alegory, myth or metaphor.

I accept it all....

Hard to do if one rejects the literal 24 hour day in Genesis.

THose of us who are OEC's believe that the literal meaning IS that of old ages

Please provide links to support your position.

Here's one of mine.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm

" The Genesis creation account not only links each day to a sequential numeral but it also sets the time boundaries by "evening and morning" (vss.5,8,13,19,23,31). The rhythmic boundary phrase, "and there was evening and there was morning," provides a definition of the creation "day." The creation "day" is defined as consisting of "evening" and "morning." It is a literal "day."

The term for "evening" (Hebrew 'ereb)115 covers the dark part of the day in a pars pro toto (meaning that a part, in this case the "evening," stands for the whole dark part of the day) usage (cf. "day-night" in Genesis 1:14). The corresponding term "morning" (Hebrew bqer) stands pars pro toto (meaning that a part, in this case the "morning," stands for the light part of the day) "for the entire period of daylight."116 It is to be noted that the "evening-morning" expression must be understood to have the same signification in every one of its six usages.117
"Evening and morning" is a temporal expression which defines each "day" of creation as a literal day. It cannot be made to mean anything else"

Tell me this. Was Jesus in the tomb for three literal days.

Check the website out....plenty of support....you just won't agree with it...

Just what is your position here? In the aberrant theology thread you seem to imply that you think Christianity is in the same plane as other aberrant theology, and yet here you are arguing for a YEC position

zoegirl wrote:Check the website out....plenty of support....you just won't agree with it...

Just what is your position here? In the aberrant theology thread you seem to imply that you think Christianity is in the same plane as other aberrant theology, and yet here you are arguing for a YEC position

My point is quite simple.

1. I'm not arguing for any position. I'm merely pointing out the Genesis account is literal. It means a 24 hour day. Unless, of course, the earth's rotation was different then.

2. It's very difficult to find a 'Christin' denomination. All are heavily influenced by man made tradition. Most are disciples of Paul, not Jesus.

hfd wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Check the website out....plenty of support....you just won't agree with it...

Just what is your position here? In the aberrant theology thread you seem to imply that you think Christianity is in the same plane as other aberrant theology, and yet here you are arguing for a YEC position

My point is quite simple.

1. I'm not arguing for any position. I'm merely pointing out the Genesis account is literal. It means a 24 hour day. Unless, of course, the earth's rotation was different then.

2. It's very difficult to find a 'Christin' denomination. All are heavily influenced by man made tradition. Most are disciples of Paul, not Jesus.

You still have not answered the question...What do you believe....?

"You still have not answered the question...What do you believe....?"

Evidence supports the appearance of design.