Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Twinc wrote to Byblos:

that is according to you and others adrift - so come back home soon -

Byblos, come home soon, with me and twinc. We miss you!

I don't know Rick, I thought I WAS home. Evidently as per twinc I may need to reconsider .

Byblos, as long as you have faith in Christ for your salvation, you ARE home. What one believes about the age of the earth, isn't a salvation issue. Unless, twinc is referring to the YEC "museum", that Ken Ham runs, as being home.

While there are some doctrines that CAN lead one astray from Christ, I don't think Creation is one of them.
To believe that Jesus of Nazareth is Our Lord and Saviour and that in HIM we have our salvation, doesn't require belief that God created the universe in 144 hours.
I would think that many a pagan convert didn't know anything about Genesis or the Hebrew creation story.
Still, I think the issue for many is WHAT CAN we take as literal and concrete from the bible? How do WE decide what parts to take and which not to ?

PaulSacramento wrote:While there are some doctrines that CAN lead one astray from Christ, I don't think Creation is one of them.
To believe that Jesus of Nazareth is Our Lord and Saviour and that in HIM we have our salvation, doesn't require belief that God created the universe in 144 hours.
I would think that many a pagan convert didn't know anything about Genesis or the Hebrew creation story.
Still, I think the issue for many is WHAT CAN we take as literal and concrete from the bible? How do WE decide what parts to take and which not to ?

it seems you have not been told the rule for Biblical interpretation - obviously we cannot all interpret in any which way we wish - as for salvation Jesus did say if you do not believe what Moses wrote how will you believe me - twinc

twinc wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:While there are some doctrines that CAN lead one astray from Christ, I don't think Creation is one of them.
To believe that Jesus of Nazareth is Our Lord and Saviour and that in HIM we have our salvation, doesn't require belief that God created the universe in 144 hours.
I would think that many a pagan convert didn't know anything about Genesis or the Hebrew creation story.
Still, I think the issue for many is WHAT CAN we take as literal and concrete from the bible? How do WE decide what parts to take and which not to ?

it seems you have not been told the rule for Biblical interpretation - obviously we cannot all interpret in any which way we wish - as for salvation Jesus did say if you do not believe what Moses wrote how will you believe me - twinc

Twinc, nobody here is doubting what Moses wrote. Yom has more than one literal meaning.

Rick take your pick - are you going to accept the Fathers of the Church and the Faith of our Fathers or all this crazy,way out,weird and wacky modern stuff ad infinitum and ad absurdum - btw Modernism was foreseen and foretold and is a heresy and in fact the synthesis of all heresies with its chief doctrine of Evolution - look round see where you are and come home - so go once more and take everyone with you and see what yom realy means in its right place and right context at www.scripturecatholic.com under Science/Evolution - twinc

twinc wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:While there are some doctrines that CAN lead one astray from Christ, I don't think Creation is one of them.
To believe that Jesus of Nazareth is Our Lord and Saviour and that in HIM we have our salvation, doesn't require belief that God created the universe in 144 hours.
I would think that many a pagan convert didn't know anything about Genesis or the Hebrew creation story.
Still, I think the issue for many is WHAT CAN we take as literal and concrete from the bible? How do WE decide what parts to take and which not to ?

it seems you have not been told the rule for Biblical interpretation - obviously we cannot all interpret in any which way we wish - as for salvation Jesus did say if you do not believe what Moses wrote how will you believe me - twinc

Following that view, only Hebrew interpretation is correct.

twinc wrote:Rick take your pick - are you going to accept the Fathers of the Church and the Faith of our Fathers or all this crazy,way out,weird and wacky modern stuff ad infinitum and ad absurdum - btw Modernism was foreseen and foretold and is a heresy and in fact the synthesis of all heresies with its chief doctrine of Evolution - look round see where you are and come home - twinc

The issues with Genesis and how it describes creation (whether story or literal history) has been debated for centuries.
To try to pass it off as a "new thing" is not correct at all.
That the early Church fathers "fell back" on allegory ( for example) when faced with "issues" in the OT (usually when comapred to the NT) is a matter of record and one of the issues addressed my medieval theologians and even reformist ones.

PaulSacramento wrote:

twinc wrote:Rick take your pick - are you going to accept the Fathers of the Church and the Faith of our Fathers or all this crazy,way out,weird and wacky modern stuff ad infinitum and ad absurdum - btw Modernism was foreseen and foretold and is a heresy and in fact the synthesis of all heresies with its chief doctrine of Evolution - look round see where you are and come home - twinc

The issues with Genesis and how it describes creation (whether story or literal history) has been debated for centuries.
To try to pass it off as a "new thing" is not correct at all.
That the early Church fathers "fell back" on allegory ( for example) when faced with "issues" in the OT (usually when comapred to the NT) is a matter of record and one of the issues addressed my medieval theologians and even reformist ones.

in just a few short words this is bordering on Modernism a heresy and the synthesis of all heresies - stick with it or come back home - twinc

twinc wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

twinc wrote:Rick take your pick - are you going to accept the Fathers of the Church and the Faith of our Fathers or all this crazy,way out,weird and wacky modern stuff ad infinitum and ad absurdum - btw Modernism was foreseen and foretold and is a heresy and in fact the synthesis of all heresies with its chief doctrine of Evolution - look round see where you are and come home - twinc

The issues with Genesis and how it describes creation (whether story or literal history) has been debated for centuries.
To try to pass it off as a "new thing" is not correct at all.
That the early Church fathers "fell back" on allegory ( for example) when faced with "issues" in the OT (usually when comapred to the NT) is a matter of record and one of the issues addressed my medieval theologians and even reformist ones.

in just a few short words this is bordering on Modernism a heresy and the synthesis of all heresies - stick with it or come back home - twinc

No, its not.
The use of allegory to help interpret scripture was used by the likes of Augustine and Origen and other before them.
Nothing modernist about views that are over 1600 years old.
The fact that the early church fathers did use it to help "explain" some of the issues shows that these issues are nothing new and that they have never been "satisfactorily" resolved.
While I personally view the bible as infalliable, it doesn't change the difficulties that have been and continue to be debated.

the Bible is not infallible - it is inerrant - fallible or infallible depending on who is doing the interpretation and how - btw Augustine and Origen were not infallible - only the unanimous conclusions of the Fathers is acceptable - twinc

twinc wrote:the Bible is not infallible - it is inerrant - fallible or infallible depending on who is doing the interpretation and how - twinc

Depends on your definition of "inerrant".
If by that you mean without error in how it reveals God, then yes I agree.
If it means that ALL that is written is error free, then I agree only IF what is written is taken under the genre of HOW it was written.
When Jesus mentioned that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, was he in error?
When it is stated that the heavens are held up by pillars, is that an error?
When the bible says that hares chew their cud, is that an error?
When the bibel says that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots…” and then says :Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots…”
Is that an error?
Should we take the poetic language in Job and Pslams as to be literal and concrete and as such, error free?

PaulSacramento wrote:

twinc wrote:the Bible is not infallible - it is inerrant - fallible or infallible depending on who is doing the interpretation and how - twinc

Depends on your definition of "inerrant".
If by that you mean without error in how it reveals God, then yes I agree.
If it means that ALL that is written is error free, then I agree only IF what is written is taken under the genre of HOW it was written.
When Jesus mentioned that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, was he in error?
When it is stated that the heavens are held up by pillars, is that an error?
When the bible says that hares chew their cud, is that an error?
When the bibel says that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots…” and then says :Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots…”
Is that an error?
Should we take the poetic language in Job and Pslams as to be literal and concrete and as such, error free?

come home - come home - all these so called errors or contradictions are not so and have been refuted and rebuted - the yardsick is if it seems an error it is not and cannot be - the Bible is in errant in all its parts even those that touch on history and science certified by the creator of history and science - twinc

twinc wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

twinc wrote:the Bible is not infallible - it is inerrant - fallible or infallible depending on who is doing the interpretation and how - twinc

Depends on your definition of "inerrant".
If by that you mean without error in how it reveals God, then yes I agree.
If it means that ALL that is written is error free, then I agree only IF what is written is taken under the genre of HOW it was written.
When Jesus mentioned that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, was he in error?
When it is stated that the heavens are held up by pillars, is that an error?
When the bible says that hares chew their cud, is that an error?
When the bibel says that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots…” and then says :Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots…”
Is that an error?
Should we take the poetic language in Job and Pslams as to be literal and concrete and as such, error free?

come home - come home - all these so called errors or contradictions are not so and have been refuted and rebuted - the yardsick is if it seems an error it is not and cannot be - the Bible is in errant in all its parts even those that touch on history and science certified by the creator of history and science - twinc

I am sorry but you didn't understand what I wrote.
To claim inerrant you must DEFINE inerrant.

Paul - like many others it seems it is you who are confused and not God and the writer of Genesis[Moses] inspired by God "for if you do not believe what Moses wrote you and others cannot believe what Christ taught and this seems to be the case as proved by what you have accepted and written and have become as the pagans of old "sun worshippers"considering and accepting the sun as the source of light and life when Christ clearly told us "I am the light of the world and the life of the world"- He also told us where the light and life came from before the sun existed and where it will come from after the sun ceases to exist - not your fault since those who were supposed to inform you probably also did not know - check it out for yourself at Revelations/Apocalypse and come home now - all is forgiven and forgotten - twinc

twinc wrote:Paul - like many others it seems it is you who are confused and not God and the writer of Genesis[Moses] inspired by God "for if you do not believe what Moses wrote you and others cannot believe what Christ taught and this seems to be the case as proved by what you have accepted and written and have become as the pagans of old "sun worshippers"considering and accepting the sun as the source of light and life when Christ clearly told us "I am the light of the world and the life of the world"- He also told us where the light and life came from before the sun existed and where it will come from after the sun ceases to exist - not your fault since those who were supposed to inform you probably also did not know - check it out for yourself at Revelations/Apocalypse and come home now - all is forgiven and forgotten - twinc

First off, I agree with Genesis and ALL of the bible.
BUT even if I didn't, it would mean nothing to my faith in Christ.
You seem to imply that I MUST believe ALL the bible to be inerrant according to how YOU view it and if I don't then I can accept ANY of the bible.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
If all I had was the NT, for example, and in reading it I opened my self to the HS and accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour, all the while NEVER even reading the OT or even knowing ANYTHING about it, then how would that have affected my faith in Christ ??
What of all those that only had access to SOME of the NT books and letters BEFORE there was a "bible"?
God is not so weak that He NEEDS a book to reach those with faith.
The living WORD of God is Christ and HE is the Light of the world.
Some find Christ in the bible, some in the NT, some in the OT, some in the world that is before their eyes, some find Christ in the words (or writings) of Christians.
There is no containing The Living Word of God.