Really? You have a divine-o-meter that can tell that?
Claiming that “all evidence would suggest” that God’s control “does not exist” is an atheist argument! And the scriptures are against it.
1 Like
Of course you can: God runs the world according to the “preset principles” He selected. It’s an elementary logical conclusion from the statement that God creates everything, that nothing exists that He did not create.
2 Likes
“Hevel hevalim” is the theme, and underlies the final conclusion: “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.”
It strikes me as much like the plaint of Peter, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” – hardly a ringing endorsement! though it arrives at a point higher than Qoheleth: “You have the words of eternal life”.
1 Like
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
Matthew 10:29-31
That’s Jesus, and he’s talking about our Father’s obtuse providential malarkey. Why is he talking about sparrows? Because he is in charge of the weather, and a few other things.
I somewhat agree with this but i think that perhaps Solomon is trying to make the point (as a man who was given wisdom by God), that worldly wisdom, worldly possessions, worldly riches, are all for nothing. We all end up the same way anyway. I think Solomon realised that the goals of the worldly are futile and useless at the end of the day and that we should look to heavenly wisdom and riches instead.
I am not of the opinion that one can extrapolate from an earthquake in Phillipi releasing the apostle from prison may be represented by a persons experiences today. The divine interventions in the bible had a specific purpose in furthering the knowledge of the plan of salvation and the gospel. I do not think that is still the case today…we have been given the bible canon and i dont think much else is coming our way in terms of enlightenment…i think we already have all we need.
Then you do not understand.
Some provinces are more spectacular than others, but that does not change how my Father works in his providential interventions into his children’s lives yesterday, today and tomorrow. And I don’t need to extrapolate because I have plenty of data points in my own life.
If he’s comparing frequency of evident miracles, I’d say he’s right: from the accounts in the Bible, evident miracles pop up when God is doing something especially significant redemptively.
1 Like
He was doing exactly that in Maggie’s case, and if people would pay attention and understand the significance of all the other data points, that would be redemptive too.
I get it … beneficial variations are favoured by selection. But that tells me nothing about how mammals actually evolved from fish … information which no one can possibly provide … which is my point.
No one knows, or will ever know, how mammals evolved from fish … and ditto for every other change in life-forms evident in the fossil record.
Speculation is one thing … presenting it as fact in a scientific paper is quite another matter. That amounts to pseudo-science. The scientific paper in question commits the offence of pseudo-science at least twice, imo.
But what else is new? Evolution science has been serving up pseudo-scientific stories in the form of untestable hypotheses for more than 150 years.
“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.”
Dr. Colin Patterson
There are genetic ‘bread crumb’ trails that validate nested hierarchies in addition to fossils, so all you have to do is connect the dots, so to speak. Arguments against nested hierarchies boil down to arguments from incredulity, “The gaps are too big for evolution to have overcome!” “It’s irreducibly complex!” “Evolution cannot produce new information!” Been there, done that.
1 Like
Only if God is as directly at the helm as you believe Him to be, and that is not TOE
Richard
You are imposing Scripture onto reality And justifying certain key events in your life (et al) with scripture.
And as such it is almost impossible to argue against. Not because it is right, but because it relies on your views of both scripture and reality.
Suffice it to say that I do not agree with either of your understandings.
IOW I do not accept your insistence that Scripture claims the control you see
And I do no see God controlling reality in that manner either.
ECCL 3 is not a description of true reality, it is a rejection of that viewpoint.
So from then on your viewpoint fails.
Richard
i still have a huge problem with the Scientific approach being placed in front of Biblical inerrancy and authority and this goes to the heart of the refusal by TEists to believe in a global biblical flood…
If sin corrupted mankind and the earth…i would argue that surely we must agree that this means of our reality, that it would be a very sound assumption (personally id say a tenet but lets leave that for the moment), that everything we see around us from a scientific perspective is only of the corrupt and from a corrupt mind?
How can one possibly claim steady state or uniformitarianism (whatever) if we only see the corrupted (defiled) side of creation and the universe through corrupt minds? I would challenge anyone to produce a theology that supports the idea that Gods inspired word is corrupt, because it must be if its not authoritative over and above science (which is mankinds corrupt construct not Gods)…if we make that claim, surely we are also claiming God is corrupt? That would be a disastrous position for both the Jewish and Christian religions.
The claim “oh but we have scientific evidence”…YEC has historical biblical evidence from people who actually lived thousands of years ago and whos existence supports the genealogies…i dont see that the scientific evidence argument counters the issue of sinful corruption of our reality, our entire existence.
(sorry it takes me a while to finish these posts and im editing them on the run…i have a wrist brace on one hand which makes typing difficult, and kids to attend to)
But he does not have a scientific approach as you understand science. For Him science is the hand of God. That changes everything
His view is as much biblical as yours. But from a different understanding of what Scripture is teaching.
Richard
So scripture is not about reality and we cannot trust our Father to care for us. That is very sad. And there is nothing about scripture that is real in your life either. More sadness.
I am happy with the illusion that my Father loves me and intervenes in my reality, even if you think it is fiction. You may keep your religion.
ok so lets run with that for a moment…i will concede that i clearly am not on these forums to have my own theology or world view changed. But i am absolutely wanting it challenged. As a YEC, I am trying to make sense of the opposing arguments (i do struggle with the TE logic of that i must be honest)
Im not sure how to go forward here…if i try to simply ask questions leading me to conclusions…ill probably forget why i went down that pathway in the first place 
umm…hmmm…
Is God science or is science a revelation of God according to TEism? oh…
and are there bible references TEists use to decide the above?
Scripture (at least the OT) is about God nurturing of Israel. That care does not include the Babylonians, or the residents of The land that God gave Israel. Unless I am mistaken you are not a Jew. The providence you claim is in Scripture is for the Jews alone.
Scripturally God’s providence is biased. It is for Israel alone. All the scripture you quote is about God’s relationship with His people. If you wish to think that care has been transferred to you then so be it.
I think the same for you.Actually I would go further. I do not want the sort of manipulation that Scripture claims. (or at least you claim)
Richard
Im finding this position rather confusing…Are you really claiming that the O/T lessons regarding “Gods people” were support for a kind of Nazi type arian race? If so, I do not see the bible Old Testament theology supporting that view. The point of the narrative as i understand it is that God would have a special people for Himself yes, but that these people were supposed to be a witness to the rest of the world and that these people (the Israelites) failed in that duty given to them.
They were supposed to preach the coming of the Messiah…this is the crux of the gospel, the entire bible story is about salvation and redemption…this was Christs ultimate mission…but they [Gods chosen people] did not fulfill their promise and obligation (the first Mosaic covenant). Hence he gave the responsibility of spreading the gospel to the Gentiles and from that day forward the Holy Spirit took the responsiblity for convicting the hearts of men (the second covenant)
As support for my view above, note what is prophesied in the following text… John 12: 32And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw everyone to Myself.” 33He said this to indicate the kind of death He was going to die.
We just need the genetic advantages that people around Nepal apparently got from Denisova people. A slight genetic modification or selecting candidates among these peoples to Mars.
Another trick that might help is to get rid of males. Females need, on average, less oxygen than males. That is a significant detail if we are speaking of Mars. Long-term stay in Mars is another question because a population consisting only from females does need some external contribution for reproduction. Even if they would manage to reproduce without males, the lack of genetic variation would become a problem after some generations.
1 Like
OK then. Give me another reason for the disputes over the Gazza Strip and the West bank? The disputes between the Palestinians and the state of Israel. Israel claims Divine rights.
God literally tried to wipe out the Caananites because they were living in His promised land.
God hardened the heart of Pharoah so that He could kill all the first born sons. He then wiped out the Egyptian army in the red sea.
God fought the Philistines on behalf of His people.
In Judges There is a cycle whereby Israel deserts God. God sends a nation or group to punish them and then raises up a judge to redeem them again.
itis all about Israel. It is all about the Jews. Even Christ is born a Jew and claims to be for them and them alone. It is Paul who claims dispensaion not Christ.
Scripture is biased toward God’s people. That is the whole point of the Old Testament. God’s realtionshiip with His people
The New Testament opens up God as the God of all. But it took a vision on top of a house in Joppah to convince Peter of it.
Richard