Jbuza wrote:First I will say that special creation by God by definition suspends the laws of physics, if you can't accept that then I'm not sure what else to say about that.
Secondly peer reviewers are not the determiners of truth.
Thirdly you seem to be doing an excellent job of trying to clense this website of any YEC thought.
IT appears the party line is, "since we know the earth to be old, anything suggesting the earth to be young must be foolishness."
I'm glad that science is a happy group that can live in harmony knowing there decrees to be enlightened and above alternative possiblities. Some of the acadmic robes are begining to smell rotted an putrid. Holding onto possiblities as if they are truth then demanding proof for alternative possiblities is well . . . FUNNY.
And lastly I am convinced that we know far, far less than we think we do.
What is science falsley so called, and why did God see fit to have it in his Living and Holy Word?
Jbuza,
Science falsely so called is gnosticism in the context of the passage referred to, and your use of it in this context is remarkably out of context.
A site you have referred to on other occassions appeals to YEC supporters to not use this type of misapplication of hermeneutics because they believe it damages their cause.
Here's the link and their admonition in this regard.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp
“The phrase 'science falsely so called' in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.”
To develop a scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated “science” is gnosis, and in this context refers to the elite esoteric “knowledge” that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word “science” originally meant “knowledge,” from the Latin scientia, from scio, meaning “to know.” This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as “knowledge” in this passage.
Of course AiG believes that evolution is anti-knowledge because it clouds the minds of many to the abundant evidence of God's action in creation and the true knowledge available in His Word, the Bible. But as this page points out, it is wrong to use fallacious arguments to support a true viewpoint. On a related matter, it is linguistically fallacious to claim that even now, “science really means knowledge,” because meaning is determined by usage, not derivation (etymology).
Aside from the fact that the science we are discussing here is not evolution, the point derived is still the same.
I'm very happy to have YEC supporters here. If I were to go on a YEC site I would expect to be vigorously challenged and I should be. This site unapologetically is an Old Earth Site and you should expect to be challenged on your claims.
Maybe others haven't been as strong on it in the past. I don't know. I've been asked to be a part of it as a participant and a moderator and I will ask hard questions without apology just as I expect you will in terms of your position.
I do not profess to know everything nor do I believe we can. I rather suspect many of my understanding will change as I grow and as more information becomes available.
I believe wholeheartedly in the Bible and I believe it to be in harmony with all Truth including the truth of the natural world as explored and interpretted in science.
Science is not infallible and it often wrong. Sometime spectacularly so.
The Bible is infallible but theology is not. Theology is man's interpretation of that scripture and I think everyone, YEC and OEC included needs to have some humility and be able to admit to being wrong in their interpretation of something without equating their belief as the Bible itself.
I'm kinda hoping you may do that in terms of your use of this passage in a manner that even YEC proponents have come to rcognize as a misuse of Scripture.
That's up to you however.
I have been rough on you.
Frankly, I have some respect for you verses some of the other drive-by types we see here who cut and run when asked the tough questions.
I don't question your faith or your sincerity. I hope you don't mine either, but that is up to you.
It's a risk you take when you mix things up in this field. It can be an emotional experience.
Blessings,
Bart