Job 9:6 is declaring that which God can do. It may or may not be referring to an earthquake. Maybe it is. Look at Judges 5:4.
But these verses have nothing to do with what God has told us. He is describing His power. in this.
James said faith is shown to be by how you live. Not alone by what you say.
Christ said if you love me keep my commandments. He did not say, if you love me, think about keeping my commandments.
So if you believe in a risen Christ, you will live as He has determined you should live. And believe in what He said.
The fountains of the deep is talking about fissures opening up and water being forced upward. And the windows of heaven were opened is referring to rain.
Why would this not true?
It is completely natural to assume that if the Bible used terminology for one, that this does not mean that there are not other words that couldn’t be used for that same thing.
The Bible mentions that if we give a faithful tithe, God will open the windows of heave to pour out blessing on us.
Why the understanding is obvious.
Job 9:6 is declaring that which God can do. It may or may not be referring to an earthquake. Maybe it is. Look at Judges 5:4.
But these verses have nothing to do with what God has told us. He is describing His power. in this.
It doesn’t matter that you didn’t put specific names next to it. As @Bill_II pointed out, you are participating in a conversation with Christians who “believe science” “seek truth from those who reject God’s word,” “assume this idea” [there was no global flood], and you have repeatedly equated that with not being real Christians. Stop doing that. If you can’t figure out how to stop implying that you and people who think like you are the only real Christians in the conversation, (or if you can’t in good conscience refrain because you see yourself as bringing a prophetic word of the Lord) you can’t participate here.
4 Likes
That’s exactly right: He’s describing His power to rattle the pillars of the earth.
Now can you please address the question and tell me what geophysical structures are referred to by the pillars of the earth?
That’s a reasonable interpretation. Water being forced out of a fissure would look like a fountain.
But in this you are making God’s perfect, inerrant Word fit in with man’s science. Genesis 7:11 clearly states that windows were opened. Sure, the water falling from above the windows would have looked like rain. But the Bible does not merely describe rain. The Bible describes the opening of the windows of heaven, from which rain resulted.
Why are you twisting the Scripture to fit with man’s science? Why can you not accept the truth of what the Bible says?
Because when I apply your method of interpreting the Bible in its own language, rather than imposing man’s science on it, I reach a different result.
Yes; your understanding is obviously based on man’s science.
If you want to be faithful to the Bible in a fashion consistent with your hermeneutical method, stop preferring the science of man over God’s revealed Word. Forget what man’s science says–as you repeatedly tell us to do–and show us how God’s perfect Word reveals things about how the air above is structured into windows. Why should I prefer the understanding of man’s imperfect science over God’s perfect and inerrant Word?
2 Likes
Do you realize that you are using science to inform how you interpret Scripture? To you it may just be “obvious”, but that is what you are doing. When others do the same thing you get upset to the point of doubting they are Christians. I believe this is called “the pot calling the kettle black”.
From A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture by Keith A. Mathison. I am pretty sure this is a conservative approach to this issue. Would you agree?
3 Likes
You fail to realize that Christ is the One who decides who are real Christians. He does this by letting us know what a real Christian is. I am not offering my standards. I have provided you with scriptural references as to know where you, I or anyone stands with Him.
And He says that if we don’t believe in what He says, than we are not His children. John 10:27-30.
Now, please provide scripture showing that what I have provided has been wrong or taken out of context.
First off I doubted no one. I simply showed that we should believe what God says. Adam and Eve did not and sin entered into the world. Please check out 2 Chronicles 20:20.
This should be very clear that we should believe what God has said through His prophets.
If you do not, it tells us what we will be missing out on.
Now if I am drawing the wrong conclusion, please provide scriptural evidence of this and the conclusion you wish for it to say.
Now, I have asked questions that no one has bothered answering. Why would you believe those who believe in what God’s Word says and who offer scientific evidence that contradicts what the scientists of the world says points to evolution?
Why is it that you believe that the scientists who say that the evidence points to what the Bible has said, are lying to you and not the scientists who are atheists?
This is a false dichotomy, as has been explained to you repeatedly. There is not a nice little dividing line grouping “scientists of the world” separate from “those who believe what God’s word says.” Being Christians does not prevent most Christian scientists from affirming an old earth or a local (rather than global) flood.
1 Like
The interpretation of God’s Word is not of any private interpretation. We are to use God’s Word to interpret God’s Word. And then any interpretation from a person, or from any other writings, that contradicts what the Bible says, is not of God.
Isaiah 8:20.
Now, please tell me if I have drawn the wrong conclusion from the verse mentioned.
So if I may. God told His prophet how He created the Universe and the earth. And according to 2 Chronicles 20:20, we should believe this. And if this is not clear enough, maybe we can get some support from other prophets who have been used by God to tell us what He “meant” to say.
How about other prophets who mentioned the flood. How about Isaiah 54:9; 2 Peter 2:5; 2 Peter 3:6-7; 1 Peter 3:20-21
How about if the Lord Himself verifies the flood? Look at Matthew 24:36-44: Luke 17:26-27.
Now is this enough proof for you to believe the prophets of God?
Please clarify. How am I using man’s science, over God’s Word?
You have lost me.
Again, please make note of this, there are plenty of scientists who are Christians that believe in an old earth. I could turn this around and ask you why you don’t believe the Christian geologists who have a ton of evidence on their side.
Yes. I think you have the reference wrong. And even the correct reference doesn’t say what you think it says.
Sorry but that is not what it says. “Put your trust in His prophets and succeed.” Why does this say we have to believe your interpretation of Genesis? Now if you want to claim status as a prophet then yes it might apply but only if you stretch it. And to be honest you sometimes sound like you believe you are a prophet. In context, it is talking about repelling an invasion.
He doesn’t. He uses the story of the flood to make a point. The point is not about the flood but the suddenness of His return. Just as He used the story of the prodigal son to make a point.
Hi Gerald,
You need to realise that there are specific criteria that claims must meet before they can be considered to be honest. For example:
-
They must critique what real scientists believe and teach about evolution or the age of the earth, and not an inaccurate cartoon caricature of it. Anyone who talks about evolution in terms such as “a cat turning into a dog” or a “crocoduck” for example, or comparing it to Scrabble tiles falling on a table to produce Shakespeare, or to a tornado in a junkyard producing a jumbo jet, is not debunking evolution; they are debunking a straw man. The technical term for debunking a straw man is “lying.”
-
They must describe the raw evidence accurately. There are many young-earth claims that do not do this. For example, Answers in Genesis’s claims about rock formations in the Grand Canyon being folded without fracturing is contradicted by photographs on their own website. Similarly, just about every time I’ve seen YECs bring up soft tissue in dinosaur bones, they grossly exaggerate and misrepresent the state of preservation of what Mary Schweitzer found, implying if not outright claiming that she found actual red blood cells and actual osteocytes. She found nothing of the sort.
-
Their descriptions of how scientists interpret the raw evidence must be accurate. Again, this is much the same as point 1. Claiming that “fossils are used to date rocks and rocks are used to date fossils,” or that radiometric dating makes assumptions that it does not, or that the assumptions that it does make are not testable when in fact they are, is simply not getting one’s facts straight. Historical assumptions can be tested without having “been there” simply by cross-checking different methods whose assumptions are independent of each other.
-
Any quotes that they cite must accurately reflect the context from which they were taken. Quoting people out of context in ways that misrepresent them is called “quote mining,” and it is almost universally considered to be a form of lying. One notorious example is Darwin’s quote about the evolution of the eye being “absurd in the highest degree.” If you read the entire paragraph from which that particular quote is taken, it becomes clear that he is not saying anything of the sort. Rather, he is saying, “The evolution of the eye is not as absurd as it first sounds.” They may think that the evolution of the eye is absurd, but to claim that Darwin himself thought the same is simply not honest.
-
The information that they cite must be up to date and accurate. Haeckel’s drawings have long since been replaced by photographs in every biology textbook that matters. Piltdown Man went out in the 1940s, and Nebraska Man was retracted in the 1920s. These particular issues are to all intents and purposes irrelevant in any discussion about creation and evolution in 2019.
-
They must fully obey the basic rules and principles of mathematics and measurement. This is a requirement that comes straight from the Bible: see Deuteronomy 25:13-16 for example, which demands honest and accurate weights and measures. This means, for example, that they must favour high-precision measurements over low-precision measurements. The YEC claim about the amount of salt in the sea is a case in point here: one single data point of this nature with enormous error bars is no justification whatsoever for claiming that hundreds of thousands of high-precision radiometric measurements, that in some cases can be as tightly constrained as one part in six thousand, must be out by factors of up to a million. Another example is the claim about radiocarbon in ancient coals and diamonds. The measured quantities are at levels indistinguishable from contamination, but YECs dismiss contamination as a “rescuing device.” If you dismissed contamination as a “rescuing device” in any other area of science, you would kill people. (The pharmaceutical industry is one particular example that comes to mind here.)
Gerald, I appreciate your desire to see the Bible upheld as the Word of God. I understand that you may have a struggle to reconcile geologic time and common ancestry with Genesis 1-11. However, whatever conclusions you come to in the end, it is essential to make sure that any evidence you cite in support of those conclusions is based on honest reporting and coherent interpretation of accurate information. I’ve given a (non-exhaustive) set of criteria here that young-earth arguments must meet in order to be considered honest, but time and time again I see them falling far, far short of meeting those criteria.
2 Likes
“This is a false dichotomy”. It was used before, but not explained how.
Yes, there is a “nice” dividing line. It is called the Word of God. By it we know what God said. What He is saying. And what He is going to say.
And so when what WE think, believe or accept is not being supported by what God has declared, then quite simply my friend WE are wrong. Not God’s Word.
1 Corinthians 3:19 gives it to us straight as an arrow. Our wisdom is foolishness to God.
How do we know what is our foolish wisdom? Because it contradicts what God has declared.
Isaiah 5:21. Romans 1:21
All of what you offer is your criteria. Do you want to be the judge of what is or isn’t the truth. Or are you willing to allow the Bible to do what God intended it to?
Your statement although moving is unwarranted and a bit misguided. “I understand that you may have a struggle to reconcile”. I don’t have a struggle. I know that what God has said is right. And all the scientists who have sided with God, are right because of what God has declared.
The ones who have a struggle, (one that they don’t realize as a struggle), are the ones who refuse to accept what God has declared, in favor of what the wisdom of this world is saying is truth.
An observation about your “dismiss contamination”. Who is saying that there is contamination? Those who declare the earth to be old? They are looking at the evidence and placing their spin on it. The tests have been run over and over again and the radiocarbon dating results have been the same.
Your number 5, where you state the lies and misleading fake science back then are still being taught in school books.
And they point to the fact that the evolutionists are willing to make up evidence to support their lies. It also goes to support that they are desperate and will grasp at anything to keep from going under. Even lies.
Your number 4. Who is to decide when something is taken out of context? You, or the person who gave the quote. The Creationists have found numerous quotes from many scientists who say the same thing. Evolution is not supported with evidence. They have said this many times in many different ways. We don’t have to take anything out of context. All we have to do is supply what they said and allow all to make up their own minds.
As for your number three, please elaborate on your “historical assumptions”
You are dismissing God’s Word in favor of mans. This is dangerous to the Christian.
Now, you see you are just throwing out what you want it to mean. He does verify the flood. He referred to as it had occurred.
He said, “as it was in the days of Noah”, Matthew 24:37-39. Just what does “as it was” mean to you. Noah entered the ark. And then He, He meaning Jesus, said, the flood took them all away.
God has verified His Word over and over again. And to try to miss one, you will hit two.
Are you still going to resist the truth? Or are you going to submit to God’s truth. Ask for forgiveness and walk anew in His grace?
Okay @Gerald, enough uncalled for sermons for this month. We’re going to silence your account temporarily, which means you will be unable to post publicly.
No Gerald, they are not “my” critieria. They are everybody’s critieria. They are criteria that we should all agree on no matter how old we believe the earth to be, or who or what we think did or did not evolve from what, or what we believe about the Bible. They are statements of what honest and accurate weights and measures look like, it’s as simple as that.
No, those who study possible contamination vectors and measure the size of the effects. For example, by processing a sample twice and calculating the difference. There is no “spin” involved in that whatsoever. It’s how measurement works in every area of science.
Gerald, before you accuse “evolutionists” of “making up evidence to support their lies,” you must make sure that your own claims meet the criteria for honesty and factual accuracy. Accusing other people of lying when your own facts are not straight is hypocrisy.
Gerald, Deuteronomy 25:13-16 says this:
¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
If there is one non-negotiable that we all need to have in discussions about creation and evolution, it is this. Honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information. If you are dismissing honest and accurate weights and measures as “dismissing God’s Word in favor of mans” then further discussion is pointless.
4 Likes
When you say world wide, do you mean just the land and not the oceans? When you say ocean as in plural are there multiple oceans? It is the land that is plural, but 1 ocean. At least today. Now the Bible seems to indicate that there was one landmass and one ocean from day 1. I think that even most theories agree that land has come together a few times into a single continent. The theories claim that over the time frame of billions of years this has happened several times. The Bible states the earth was only divided once. Asking the question if the Bible means the “whole earth” after the point the earth was divided seems to be begging the question. If you accept or believe the earth has formed multple single landmasses, which time do you think the Bible is referring to in your given examples?