Philip wrote:Neo: Poisoning the well is not going to help your case, Phil, something that you repeatedly do.
No, Neo - I just like to point out that you appear to find various miraculous parts of Scripture untrue, and you do so because you think it is scientifically proven to be so. And in such situations, you don't merely assert something in Scripture can't be possible in some unknown way or that it's just impossible for it to be true in a literal way, or that we just can't know. Its that you just categorically dismiss it as not being true AT ALL, even though Jesus authenticated the entire OT as truth. And, your explanations have rarely made those of us who've read them over and over have a clear understanding of what you believe or why. But you appear to believe God to be mostly hands off, as you apparently see much of what would be miraculous - or even just the normal, everyday miraculous (that things keep functioning as designed, etc. - per God's enabling it) as God micromanaging things. But then you strangely latch on to certain aspects of the miraculous. But it's clear that you think that what science asserts - a science of which understandings are progressive and always changing - that what you think it has proven negates various Bible passages. You've said so repeatedly about various things. That's all I'm pointing out, is you cherrypick what to believe can be true in God's Word - which is different than affirming it to SOMEHOW be true, perhaps in ways we cannot understand them - which is a very different thing. And it just appears your greatest measure of truth is always
current science - an immensely prideful thing when one contemplates that God is unlimited in His abilities, against the thin backdrop of what man can know (compared to God, Who has no limitations).
Let me reiterate:
1. God can do anything.
2. I believe in miracles.
3. There is evidence that certain things like Adam and Eve being the couple that populated the world as we see today, is not true. So then I conclude that it wasn't a miracle. The difference is, I am not negating miracles. I am simply saying this didn't happen as such. Now as I have said before if tomorrow we find Jesus' body then the miracle of resurrection is false. Evidence, then, is important.
Science simply doesn't assert, it has data and evidence to show for it. To offhandedly ignore it, is intellectually dishonest in my opinion.
So, God can do miracles and has done miracles. It's not a question of whether God can do miracles, but did he at certain points?
I can totally believe that God seeded the first couple to raise all mankind, however, the evidence suggests he didn't do it that way.
Now, Jesus' resurrection can't be explained by any known laws or mechanisms of nature, therefore it indeed is a miracle.
Especially, since TOE explains it, you don't need a miracle to get to Adam and Eve. And at this point, I believe many OEC's insist on the miracle angle needlessly, despite their obvious acceptance of other substitutions they have made in the Bible, like day being ages and accepting the age of the universe is billions of years.
If anything I should say you are the one who doesn't believe the Bible obviously. You insist that creation didn't happen in 6 days. Why? because you also hold scientific data sacred and understand that if the data shows the earth is old then obviously this must mean the scriptures 6 days can't be true. But you cherry pick where you regard data and where you don't. In the matter of days being ages, you do that because of scientific evidence but strangely don't accept other evidence which flies in the face of your belief.
I have clearly stated before that the evidence doesn't match the bible and therefore I give up inerrancy. I can't make any sense of it. When you take TOE you can't be selective about it as to which parts you agree with and which you don't.
Then what is happening here? Pot calling the kettle black?
I can see that scientific evidence is the backbone of OEC. Yet you call me out for regarding the same evidence. The only difference here is, I am taking the evidence completely and I can see it doesn't fit the biblical narrative. You choose the parts that fit well and disregard those which may cost you inerrancy, which is wrong and ends up in a patchwork that just isn't very convincing.
I was beyond stupified when you said the sun and moon didn't stop still. The bible clearly says it did. And you were adamant that God can do anything in your own words from your posts "
God is unlimited in His abilities" yet you don't believe that happened. Why? Are you saying that this is as impossible as saying that all mankind came from Adam and Eve?
Clearly, you have different standards. Whereas scientifically both are equally impossible.
I have been clear enough in stating in what I believe and why, so if you still have questions you can ask me why. I hope that helps you clear things up as you don't seem to understand it per your own admission.
Neo: Also Phil, since we'd be diverting the thread anyway, have you decided on the Sun and moon stopping still passage? I remember the last time we talked about it, you called it a literalism that no serious theologian would take seriously. And later that you haven't given it much thought and would like to revisit it. So I'd be curious what your position now is.
I will address my thoughts on that - but not in this thread. I'll open another - please give me some time.
Sure.