Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:
Yes, that is what many YECs do. But there are too many missing names. The genealogy is not meant to be a complete ancestry from Adam.

KBCid wrote:
This is an area that I intend to focus on at some point for better understanding. It is of course another big divisional issue among those who assert to be followers of Christ. The fact can only be that someone is wrong or both may be wrong. At this point I can only provide a perspective based on cursory understanding.

KBCid, in my experience(however limited it is), it's only a "big divisional issue" among those from the YEC camp(again, not all YECs). I've never seen it as being a divisional issue from OECs, nor Theistic Evolutionists.

RickD wrote:
KBCid, if you want to believe you have to do something other than have faith in the Jesus Christ of the bible, in order for you to be saved, then go ahead. If you want to believe that ussher's chronology is complete, and the earth began in 4004 bc, then that's your prerogative.

KBCid wrote:
Rick I don't want to simply believe something for the sake of taking a position. I want to believe what God intended me to believe in. So I must consider that every word that he inspired is important and I must do my best to make sure that uninspired doctrine is not a foundation that my belief is based on as no one here will be beside me when my maker considers my actions during judgement.
you will find that I use the bible to 'personally' validate or invalidate what any other creation asserts as a truth. So don't assume that a stance I take for the purpose of testing is the ultimate one I will choose. We are told to prove all things and I can't do that without testing.

Nothing wrong with testing. But, what do you mean, when you say "I must do my best to make sure that uninspired doctrine is not a foundation that my belief is based on"? Are you suggesting that I, or someone else here, hold to a foundation of our faith, based on something that disagrees with scripture?

Nothing wrong with testing. But, what do you mean, when you say "I must do my best to make sure that uninspired doctrine is not a foundation that my belief is based on"? Are you suggesting that I, or someone else here, hold to a foundation of our faith, based on something that disagrees with scripture?

One thing that I have learned in my theology studies is that in every debate about doctrine in church history both parties justified their belief via scripture, even when their beliefs were total opposites.
Why? How can that be?
Simple, we ALL interpret or follow an interpretation of scripture.
We tend to forget that ALL doctrines we have is based on interpretation of scripture.

KBCid wrote:Rick I don't want to simply believe something for the sake of taking a position. I want to believe what God intended me to believe in. So I must consider that every word that he inspired is important and I must do my best to make sure that uninspired doctrine is not a foundation that my belief is based on as no one here will be beside me when my maker considers my actions during judgement.
you will find that I use the bible to 'personally' validate or invalidate what any other creation asserts as a truth. So don't assume that a stance I take for the purpose of testing is the ultimate one I will choose. We are told to prove all things and I can't do that without testing.

RickD wrote: what do you mean, when you say "I must do my best to make sure that uninspired doctrine is not a foundation that my belief is based on"? Are you suggesting that I, or someone else here, hold to a foundation of our faith, based on something that disagrees with scripture?

Unispired doctrine is anything that doesn't come from God. Man by his nature has corrupted many of Gods inspired understandings. I would assume that you have seen the evidence of this being in this forum for as long as you have and seeing what newcommers say.
The fact is neither you nor I have any relible method of determining if what others say on any online forum is according to Gods intent other than by comparison to the biblical text. I don't assume that anyone is intentionally doing anything wrong. However, you must admit that for each and every Christian sect there are diehard believers that absolutely believe that their understanding is the only correct one. So how should someone such as myself (who has no wish to offend) views each of their claims? I find myself comfortable in assuming that others may have vital understandings and regardless of who it may be including parents and friends I will test it against the biblical text.

So the entirety of my suggestion is that I don't know if your foundations or others here are based on something that disagrees with scripture since scriptures have been interpreted in a variety of ways. This is why it must be tested. It would be terribly unfair to others and myself to presume that such was the case prior to performing the investigation that God has commanded. Wouldn't you agree? The most I would say to anyone who asks about whether I believe what they say is that my understanding post-investigation shows a tenative agreement or dissagreement with scripture. ultimately I have no authority to judge others, I can only judge concepts as God helps me to understand.

As an aside there will be positions I work with that I don't particulalrly think are correct but for the sake of better understanding I will persue them just to test how easily they crumble as others provide scriptural evidence against them. Eventually these positions end up in the growing heap of old files I have labelled corrupt views (mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholocism... etc.). On the other hand there are a few views from some sects that have survived testing on numerous ocasions that I was quite sure wouldn't make it. One of these of note is the conceptual view of Gen 1:1 not being a partial act of God but, in any event such a view has not yet made it to my foundational belief set.

PaulSacramento wrote: One thing that I have learned in my theology studies is that in every debate about doctrine in church history both parties justified their belief via scripture, even when their beliefs were total opposites.
Why? How can that be?
Simple, we ALL interpret or follow an interpretation of scripture.
We tend to forget that ALL doctrines we have is based on interpretation of scripture.

You sir are absolutely correct. The question then becomes how do you not offend someone that you scripturally don't agree with on some points they scripturally hold dear?
For myself I try to stick with investigating a subject as fully as possible then making an informed and hopefully logical arguement for the scriptures involved in the subject. It is to be expected though that there will be disagreements. However, there should still be one fact that we do share. We both still seek to become one with the same God we both know exists. Right?

KBCid wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: One thing that I have learned in my theology studies is that in every debate about doctrine in church history both parties justified their belief via scripture, even when their beliefs were total opposites.
Why? How can that be?
Simple, we ALL interpret or follow an interpretation of scripture.
We tend to forget that ALL doctrines we have is based on interpretation of scripture.

You sir are absolutely correct. The question then becomes how do you not offend someone that you scripturally don't agree with on some points they scripturally hold dear?
For myself I try to stick with investigating a subject as fully as possible then making an informed and hopefully logical arguement for the scriptures involved in the subject. It is to be expected though that there will be disagreements. However, there should still be one fact that we do share. We both still seek to become one with the same God we both know exists. Right?

What I have found is that the CORE doctrines are the same regardless of denominations or interpretations of LATTER doctrines.
What we have direct from God's Word ( Our Lord), pretty much every one agrees on, it is the implicit statements that have lead to interpreations than have lead to doctrines, that not all agree on.
We all are under the Grace of God through Christ, Christ is our Lord and Saviour and through the gift of the HS, we are brothers and God's children.
We are all the same under God, no one is better and we are all servants, humbled by His wonderful gift to Us.
We love because HE loves Us.
Beyond that, well...there is a beyond that simply because we are human and like to overcomplicate things, LOL !
Instead of leaving it in "God's Hands" we tend to want to "comment" on it.
It has been the case since Christ went away and will be the case till He comes back.