I do not assume that you do not give the bible a high priority. I assume correctly that you do not hold the bible to the utmost authority.
The conflict is with 11 chapters, 11 chapters that Jesus believed in also. I think I will go with Jesus in the reality department.
o reality is secular and you live in a fantasy?
Secularist view does not necessarily equate reality. You are conflating beliefs/best guess with reality.
How can you say that it’s a presupposition? I have seen the YEC “evidence” And it was the reason i stopped accepting the YEC view. It’s the same for you though, Your default position is what the people at AIG,CMI,ICR say.
My default position is what the bible says. My authority is not AIG. It’s scripture.
Everything you are saying I do, can be said for you as well.
I will readily admit that I have a presupposition, but my presupposition is guided by a higher view of scripture than your presupposition.
Perhaps I am not making myself clear. When I say, “bible” I mean scripture. Everything you just said is from scripture. Scripture is the foundation of our faith.
I did know that, but that doesn’t constitute as a “different” bible. I am talking about differences such as the bible as oppose to the new world translation etc…
The issue at hand is that we don’t accept your interpretation of the Bible as the highest authority.
Then show how the scientific view is wrong instead of just hand waving it away. Show us how it does not equate to reality. Until you do, we will continue to have the impression that you are only ignoring the facts because they contradict your interpretation of the Bible.
You claim that your interpretation of the Bible is trustworthy, yet it requires you to ignore 200 years of science, including science done by millions of Christian scientists.
Just repeating this over and over again is not an argument. No one disagrees that we know what we know about Christ from Scripture (though I would argue how we think about that testimony has been shaped by centuries of Christians thinking about it and passing on a heritage and a tradition, not simply the text itself.).
I do not know how many times I have said this. I am not dogmatic on what the age of the earth is. What I am dogmatic about, is that scripture does not in any way or form when taken into it’s proper hermeneutical context support billions of years.
well-intentioned but badly informed brothers and sisters in Christ bringing God’s Word into disrepute by attempting to defend it with demonstrably untrue claims that do nothing whatsoever other than to showcase complete ignorance
I would say the same to you in the egregious manner you and others have handled God’s word by twisting and misapplying scripture.
Basically, as I’ve repeatedly said, if you’re going to try tackling creation and evolution, you need to make sure that you know what you are talking about and that your facts are straight.
I do not have to know the ins and outs of evolution (nor do I care) to know that evolution violates the very character and nature of the God of the bible. Evolution causes people such as yourself to take scripture out of context, misapply or delete altogether. i.e. 2 Peter 3:8 explains God’s use of time in creation, when Genesis clearly spells out how long it took God to do. Yet you jettison Genesis 1-11, not based on scripture but your trust in secular science. If you do not see a problem with that, then only the Holy Spirit can.
No, the issue at hand is that you use science as a hermeneutic to interpret scripture.
Then show how the scientific view is wrong instead of just hand waving it away. Show us how it does not equate to reality. Until you do, we will continue to have the impression that you are only ignoring the facts because they contradict your interpretation of the Bible.
You have me confused with AIG. I do not care about the science of evolution. I only care about the truth. My truth comes from God’s word, and if a science designed to eradicate God, as evolution was, conflicts with the first 11 chapters of God’s word. It will be spiritually mature on my part to go with God’s word.
You claim that your interpretation of the Bible is trustworthy, yet it requires you to ignore 200 years of science, including science done by millions of Christian scientists.
Hmmmmm…God’s infallible, inerrant word vs 200 years of fallible human beings who do not have a belief in scriptural authority…Hold on a minute…This is a tough one.
I thought this was a brilliant point, actually. You attempted to say “The Bible is primary, because without the Bible, we wouldn’t know about Christ.” Korvexius one-upped you by saying, “Christ is primary, because without Christ, there would be no Bible (or, at least, no New Testament).”
@Wookin_Panub What differences are you talking about? The New World Translation is just a different English translation, of which there are legions, of the original sources. The translators used Westcott and Hort for the NT for example. When you say “bible” exactly what do you mean by that?
It is not coherent, since that doesn’t prove that scripture is not our foundation. Furthermore without scripture you wouldn’t have anything to base off of. Even if the “Christ” did exist, and performed miracles, even rising from the dead, that in no way will prove He is the Christ, because there would be no scripture for which to fulfill proving who He was…
What’s wonderful, dear brother, is that most of us on this Forum do not “jettison” the first 11 chapters of the Bible. We just read it differently than you do.
That which makes the Bible the Bible is Jesus Christ. That is what we have been telling @Wookin_Panub and all who will listen. It is Jesus Who makes the Bible the Word of God, not the words found in the Book.
The Bible has to be “translated” from the Logos into the meaning of the Book by the Holy Spirit working through human wards. Then the human words in the Book need to be translated by the Holy Spirit back into the Logos in our hearts and minds. Since the Logos is built into the universe Jesus can be revealed through science. (John 1:1-3)
…except that it does. If there’s a structure underneath the foundation, then by definition it’s not the foundation. Unless there’s a nonstandard definition of “foundation” you’re using that I’m not familiar with?
I keep trying to parse this last sentence. It’s hard to follow as it’s not really grammatical. I actually don’t enjoy being a grammar Nazi but I honestly don’t understand in this case. Could you rephrase?
Don’t you? Don’t you interpret the Bible as speaking about the Earth moving about the Sun because of science?
The theory of evolution was designed to explain how life changed over time. That’s it. It seems that you have paranoid dreams of scientists coming after you.
You are the one who interprets God’s word so that it is shown to be false.
How about if Jesus existed and the Bible existed, but the Church did not exist. Let us say that all the Bibles existed unread in museums somewhere. Let us say that no one printed Bibles, preached the Word, and gathered in community to worship and serve Jesus Christ.
How could the Bible be the foundation of our faith if it were not read? If it did not exist does that means that Jesus was not the Christ?
The hypothetical, if we did not have the Bible, how would we know About? is absurd because God arranged so we do have the Bible, but this does not change the fact that the Bible says that Jesus is the foundation of our faith, the Alpha and Omega. Please do not say you believe the Bible if you do not believe it when the Bible says that Jesus is the Word.
