Is Science and scientific theory against God and Theology? Is it God versus science?

Well said.

In wading through Theo’s Theo-book posted above, I had multiple flashbacks to the pseudo-exegetical nuggets promulgated by The Way International on university campuses in the 1970’s. The misuse of terminology and the copious misunderstandings of articular and anarthrous phenomena—often accompanied by yellow highlighter Greek-English Interlinear justifications—claimed conclusions that virtually all Bible translators were allegedly conspiring to hide from the Christian world. There was also a lot of strained applications of MONOGENES and LOGOS. At the time it was gaining followings on many state university campuses (probably about 1974 to 1977??), it brought to my mind the Gnostic movement in the early Church, claiming to have a “secret knowledge” that, if fully embraced, would allegedly unlock “the truth” which most Christians knew nothing about.

Does anyone else here have these Seventies flashbacks of familiarity?

1 Like

@BeagleLady, based on your Like vote of my post about reminders of the strange teachings and pseudo-exegesis of The Way back in the 1970’s on many university campuses, do you perhaps have similar memories of them? I never investigated how pervasive they were on campuses outside the Bible Belt and perhaps overseas but I’d love to hear the observations and memories of others on this topic. My impression was that The Way recruited “lone wolf” types who were very committed and energetic—but I never saw groups of them. The actual numbers on campuses may have been negligible, but their influence was quite impressive.

Oh my gosh, my sister got messed up with The Way when she was in high school. It was just a cult, teaching that the church has been wrong all these years and The Way was, well, the way. Their founder was Victor Paul Wierwille, who actually burned his theological library when he went off the rails. I remember my sister paid $80 to join the group, and all she got was several paperback books and the chance to listen to some audio tapes. Back then, $80 was a lot of money, and the faithful were told that coming up with the cash was a sign of “right believing.” Fortunately, my sister got out.

Anyway, thanks for the bad memory! Speaking of charlatans, I just watched a documentary called “Marjoe” about Marjoe Gortner the Evangelical revival preacher. Highly recommended! I actually blame his parents for the way he turned out.

@Beaglelady, you brought back two names I hadn’t heard mentioned in decades: Victor Wierwille and Marjoe. I remember how Marjoe was able to leverage his 15 minutes of fame into some TV show hosting gigs and general celebrity. I should investigate what ever happened to him.

I’m struck by Theo’s quirky but strangely familiar “exegesis”. The similarities to The Way’s favorite topics makes me extremely curious: sheer coincidence or something else at work?

1 Like

See The Marjoe Documentary which you can stream from Amazon for a few bucks. Eventually, his conscience got to him and he gave up his scam and turned to acting in movies. It would be inaccurate to say that he went into acting since he had been putting on an act for his entire life!

I have nothing to say about Theo. Did you know that Joseph Smith obtained an Egyptian papayri, decided that it was by Abraham, and proceded to “translate” it? Trouble is, scholars eventually translated it and said that Smith was full of it.

Smith translated his Book of Mormon by putting a “peep stone” in a hat and then sticking his head inside the hat to get the right translation.

It is very easy to decide which translation applies in the case of prophecy, simply by eliminating the one that responds to doctrine or creed, instead of to prophecy .It cannot be used to prove a pre-existent Christ did anything, because the only place Christ “pre-existed” was in prophecy. Therefore, you simply apply the usage what responds to prophecies of his death. Because “His goings forth” is a reference to pre-existence, which did not happen…

[quote=“Christy, post:22, topic:5323”]
So what leads you to accept that the Church father’s were led by the Holy Spirit to discern the canonical Scriptures, but reject that they were led by the Spirit to accurately formalize the apostles’ teaching in the creeds? It seems to me they are either trustworthy or they aren’t. If they aren’t trustworthy on the creeds, how do you trust their discernment on the canonicity of the Scriptures?[/quote]

Why would I trust the ECF to get ANYTHING right? They were the ones who concocted Trinity doctrine, in spite of what scriptures had to say to the contrary. In fact, some of the Early Church Fathers (ECF) even resorted to using an Egyptian myth as a proof for the resurrection; they used the “Phoenix” - a mythical bird which supposedly died every 500 years, was burned, and rose from its ashes, I seriously doubt THAT was by inspiration.

Then they messed up the “Canon of scripture” so badly nothing is understood as it should be, because once you get the books of the New Testament out of chronology, everything is changed. 'The logos of God" is just one example of how messed up the “canon of scripture” has become.

Everyone begins the story of Christ with John 1:1, which was the LAST book written, not the first. So the “canon” misfired. If truth is ever to be gleaned from scripture, begin with Paul’s identification and definition of “THE LOGOS OF GOD” wherein he explains how there is a plan in the mind of God, which is given a name “THE LOGOS OF GOD;” which tells how when a Christian is conformed to the image of the son of God, CHRIST liveth in that Christian, in such a way others will observe and see a change and see glory as of another son of God. THAT is where John joins Paul in declaring to the saints what “THE LOGOS OF GOD” is.

And I do not trust the ECF for the canon, I trust God who inspired it to be able to keep it straight.

[quote=“Christy, post:22, topic:5323”]
Proof-texting is a notoriously bad way to do theology.[/quote]

I do not “do theology by proof-texting.” I destroy doctrines and creeds by debunking THEIR proof-texting.

Then I look at the way the scholars continue to contest with each other to see who can come up with a new and different category of classification for Verbs, or some important segment of grammatic principle. The latest nonsense is labeled “Historic present” which completely alters the design of language by interpreting instead of translating.

I have offered two scriptural references where the translators have used “was” where there is no justification for it in the GREEK. And It was suggested “Historic present” in koine Greek would make it all clear.

It is one thing to apply “historic present” to a Greek verb; it is quite another to invent a verb where it does not exist, and claim “Historic present” ffor what “should have been in the GREEK.” In other words, the scholars supply what God SHOULD HAVE SAID, then apply a nonsensically invented category to explain how it works.

In just two examples John 1:29-42 & John 20:1-18, a total of 43 words have been declared “Historic Presents.”
Of those 43 words,
11 AORIST ACTIVE = VIAA
2 IMPERFECT ACTIVE = VIIA
2 PLUPERFECT ACTIVE = VILA
21 PRESENT ACTIVE = VIPA
4 PRESENT MIDDLE +VIPN - (+ OR PASSIVE DEPONENT)

No one has explained how a “Present” Active verb becomes a “Historically” present active. Isn’t “past, present. future” already a reference to historical time? Is there any time that is outside of Historical reference? Even ETERNITY is recognized as a time prior to when time was measured by sun, moon, and stars. It is “Historically eternal time before chronos time.”

And how does a Greek word that does not reference time, but activity, suddenly become “Historic present” which most definitely abandons the Greek reference to activity, to present a proof-text in English translation, to time?
AORIST ACTIVE , IMPERFECT ACTIVE, PLUPERFECT ACTIVE,
PRESENT ACTIVE.PRESENT MIDDLE +

Then when I question the insertion of “Was” into John 17:5 and Philippians 2:5 I am told to study koine “Historical present.” The problem is three-fold; 1st) “Was” is not “Present” it is “PAST” - 2nd) even “Historical Present” requires a Greek word for justification and 3rd) The Greek verb “eimi” is NEVER used as an historical present in all of Greek literature.; And “Was” is another form of “eimi;” The Greek form of verb meaning “To Be.” (I AM).

So that argument has no merit whatsoever. It is simply a doctrine displayed as a translation.

You don’t understand Greek grammar. You don’t understand translation. I have zero interest in continuing a conversation with someone whose stated goal is to “destroy doctrines and creeds.” I reject all of your premises as based on ignorance. Go ahead and count this in your mind as another “debate” you won. Peace, out. :relaxed:

3 Likes

It is not God vs science, but God vs an evolutionist interpretation of creation…errrr…I mean Actually evolution has no beginning :slight_smile:

What do you mean by this? No scientist I have ever heard claims evolution has no beginning.

1 Like

Did you mean "The debate we never had? Because Debates have rules. And premises. And evidence.

I’m very saddened by your post. Not because of your jaw-dropping ignorance of the fundamentals of language and translation but because you appear to be proudly and deliberately immune to learning from the scholarship of others.

You “destroy doctrines and creeds”? Hardly. Yet in the process, I suspect that there is much that you have destroyed.

Even this statement alone convinces readers that you’ve not a clue as to what a translator must understand in order to convey meaning in another language.

Frankly, I tried very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. I actually still wish I could suspect that I was being pranked. If not for gaper’s block, I would already have moved on.

So am I to understand you enjoy the doctrinal creed that teaches that God
is three inseparable but separate persons? How is that not a contradiction? And God is not a contradiction.

How can Jesus be God and Man such that the God nature is separate from the Man nature, but the two natures are not mixed, yet cannot be separated? Another contradiction made up by scholars.

And No, I am not against scholars. They are necessary and to be commended for all the good that they do. But not all the mischief they concoct. And no, I do not believe they are the same scholars doing both. There are serious scholars, and there are Theologian mischief makers, hiding among honest Scholars and teachers, some of whom are Theologians.

And yes, I will work to destroy the ignorance that permeates the doctrines and creeds that control Men’s minds and makes them subservient to MEN that Lord it over the flock of God.

I don’t recall studying any creed which claims that God is “three inseparable but separate persons?” Sounds like a straw man argument.

BioLogos affirms the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. About BioLogos | Science and Faith Working Hand in Hand - BioLogos

This forum is designed for discussions of the intersection of faith and science, not for debating basic tenets of orthodox Christian creeds.

1 Like

O.K.

So how can people fail to understand God is everything found in Nature, because He is BY NATURE, GOD.

When God said - “Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods”[Gal 4:8] If the false Gods are “by nature” no gods, God is then claiming to be “By Nature, the only true God.”

So if God is “By nature, The Only True God” then there is no conflict between God and Nature, other than either misinformation or misunderstanding on the part of Men.

What say you?

Wow! My head just exploded from the Equivocation Bomb.

Run-away pantheism alert!

2 Likes

I say panentheism is not compatible with Christianity, and I feel no need to defend such a basic premise of orthodoxy here.

2 Likes

I think this is a good time to add that God is NOT in physical objects. I think this poses a real problem though, because how can physical objects exist APART from God? What is there substance if nothing exists apart from God?.. Good thing physical objects don’t exist. And thanks for correcting my spelling :smiley:

5 posts were merged into an existing topic: Proof Of God’s Existence

May I see your example of demonstrating Trinity Theology without use of any “Proof-Texts?”

And I did not say “I do Theology by proof-texting.” I said I found that 'Trinitarians “Proof-texts” do not prove.