-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Bowman,
I think we agree. The point is, anytime we only gather the things we can "use" to prove our beliefs true, and the things we can "use" to prove all opposing beliefs False, and interpret everything in the light of our beliefs, the target is not truth. The target is to hold fast to our beliefs. We don't want truth. No one EVER alters their beliefs using this methodology. All we do is harden ourselves into our beliefs.
I did exactly that from an Atheists perspective, and when all of the other "facts", "data", "Information" that didn't fit with my gathered data was presented, I was willing to carefully consider the meaning of ALL of it, with ALL of it "cut-straight", not cut to make it fit my beliefs. It cost me my beliefs. I love truth, not my beliefs, and I try to examine ALL of the data that might apply, on all sides, and objectively determine what fits best with everything. Atheism doesn't fit. Evolution doesn't fit. At least not so far. LOL
I think we agree. The point is, anytime we only gather the things we can "use" to prove our beliefs true, and the things we can "use" to prove all opposing beliefs False, and interpret everything in the light of our beliefs, the target is not truth. The target is to hold fast to our beliefs. We don't want truth. No one EVER alters their beliefs using this methodology. All we do is harden ourselves into our beliefs.
I did exactly that from an Atheists perspective, and when all of the other "facts", "data", "Information" that didn't fit with my gathered data was presented, I was willing to carefully consider the meaning of ALL of it, with ALL of it "cut-straight", not cut to make it fit my beliefs. It cost me my beliefs. I love truth, not my beliefs, and I try to examine ALL of the data that might apply, on all sides, and objectively determine what fits best with everything. Atheism doesn't fit. Evolution doesn't fit. At least not so far. LOL
C
I actually strongly disagree with this. If by science you mean the scientific method and things we've gleaned from it, there are some very obvious instances where science and the Bible are at odds—most notably in the area of miracles. Miracles must be precluded in scientific investigation, particularly in areas of forensic or historical science. This is sometimes referred to as 'methodological naturalism.'
Medical science has established though years and years of observations that men don't rise from the dead after being dead for 3 days. Men can't walk on water. Fish and bread don't just multiply and water cannot turn into wine.
What you might be saying is that logic and the Bible are in harmony, and with that I would agree. Theology is about thinking logically from God's revelation. That's why we must always be theological in our thinking. But if you're going to buy into the 67th book concept, then you're actually going from thinking theo-logical to theo-scinetific, which is a grievous error.
Medical science has established though years and years of observations that men don't rise from the dead after being dead for 3 days. Men can't walk on water. Fish and bread don't just multiply and water cannot turn into wine.
What you might be saying is that logic and the Bible are in harmony, and with that I would agree. Theology is about thinking logically from God's revelation. That's why we must always be theological in our thinking. But if you're going to buy into the 67th book concept, then you're actually going from thinking theo-logical to theo-scinetific, which is a grievous error.
J
There's much interesting about this subject, but theoretical reasoning, or even evidence and simply rationality, don't really help, arguing over some things, if the goal is to show the atheist where he's wrong. You can show God in the Bible, quite scientifically and by historical and evidentiary standards, but people believe what they want to believe, first. Only by the Holy Spirit can one even understand the Bible, only by repentance and coming to the Lord for salvation and that baptism are eyes opened. Otherwise, one can raise from the dead, which He did, yet there remained those who refused to believe even then. You'd be surprised how many so-called atheists really simply reject the God of the Bible, and they blindly cling to their beliefs, whether in blind ignorance or rejection, as we cling to God,
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Luke 16:30-31 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Don't expect answers to difficult questions refuting evolution or to get anywhere, back and forth with an atheist.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Luke 16:30-31 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Don't expect answers to difficult questions refuting evolution or to get anywhere, back and forth with an atheist.
C
Actually this passages goes a lot further than you might think. For when Paul quoted it he said prior that he was speaking spiritual things from the Holy Spirit and the natural man still rejected it. IOW's Paul was saying nothing can affect the natural man—not love, not scripture, not hospitality, not truth, nothing.
1Cor. 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
The problem is, when people quote 14 they're usually doing so to say that you don't need to try to persuade people through various forms of reason, but that's not what Paul is saying. Do we cease to show hospitality? Do we cease to speak words from the Holy Spirit? Of course not. The same is true with apologetics. Just because the natural man can't respond, doesn't mean we cease to use them. We just need to rely on God to open ears to understand. God's sovereignty should not discourage us from reasoning, but rather encourage us to. Paul understond sovereignty more than any of us and spent his life reasoning and persuading unbelievers.
You may find this article helpful in understanding this.
Should Christians engage in creation apologetics?
1Cor. 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
The problem is, when people quote 14 they're usually doing so to say that you don't need to try to persuade people through various forms of reason, but that's not what Paul is saying. Do we cease to show hospitality? Do we cease to speak words from the Holy Spirit? Of course not. The same is true with apologetics. Just because the natural man can't respond, doesn't mean we cease to use them. We just need to rely on God to open ears to understand. God's sovereignty should not discourage us from reasoning, but rather encourage us to. Paul understond sovereignty more than any of us and spent his life reasoning and persuading unbelievers.
You may find this article helpful in understanding this.
Should Christians engage in creation apologetics?
Last edited by a moderator:
C
Do they? We actually aren't told in scripture either way, in fact, Solomon described it as a mystery. But that's all beside the point. Genesis very clearly refers to animals and soul creatures (nephesh chayyah). They have the breath of life, and originally they were designed to eat plants (Gen. 1:29-30)
And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.
you can believe this or reject it, but I choose to believe. And Isaiah speaks of a restoration where carnivores will go back to eating plants.
Is. 11:6 “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
Is. 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
The lion shall eat straw like the ox,
And dust shall be the serpent’s food.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,”
Says the LORD.
Why would God bring and end to predation if it was very good from the beginning? What you're advocating is that animal suffering is very good, so you can fit millions of years into the Bible.
I would just ask, why not trust the Bible and the order of events that it indicates? The only thing I can come up with is you're trusting modern scientists more that God's revelation.
And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.
you can believe this or reject it, but I choose to believe. And Isaiah speaks of a restoration where carnivores will go back to eating plants.
Is. 11:6 “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
Is. 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
The lion shall eat straw like the ox,
And dust shall be the serpent’s food.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,”
Says the LORD.
Why would God bring and end to predation if it was very good from the beginning? What you're advocating is that animal suffering is very good, so you can fit millions of years into the Bible.
I would just ask, why not trust the Bible and the order of events that it indicates? The only thing I can come up with is you're trusting modern scientists more that God's revelation.
Last edited by a moderator:
J
Or, there's the other extreme, they spend their entire lives bickering, with those who defame and never even wanted any ears to hear or eyes to see?
Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Mark 4:8 And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.
Remember, they are responding or not responding to the word of God, the Spirit of God, not you.
Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Mark 4:8 And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.
Remember, they are responding or not responding to the word of God, the Spirit of God, not you.
C
It would actually make a difference in the gospel. The current gospel is that God made a very good world which become corrupt through the sin of the first Adam. God then sent the last Adam (Christ) into the world, who atoned for the world, and gave us access to the coming new world.
But all this assumes, as Christ said, that man was made at the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6). But if man was made at the very end of creation, and was preceded by millions of years of death and suffering and cancer and cannibalism, etc. the gospel gets very confusing. Sin and death are the reasons for the Cross, and if we become confusing on what those are, we affect the gospel very negatively, and IMO, turn people off to it. Why should the next generation what to believe the gospels when their parents don't believe the Genesis account which made the gospels necessary?
But all this assumes, as Christ said, that man was made at the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6). But if man was made at the very end of creation, and was preceded by millions of years of death and suffering and cancer and cannibalism, etc. the gospel gets very confusing. Sin and death are the reasons for the Cross, and if we become confusing on what those are, we affect the gospel very negatively, and IMO, turn people off to it. Why should the next generation what to believe the gospels when their parents don't believe the Genesis account which made the gospels necessary?
C
But again, look at the verse you quoted in 1Cor. Paul was not coming to them with apologetics but the word of God, and the natural man still rejected it. Do we then cease from sharing the gospel? Of course not. Nor should we cease from apologetics.
What I'm trying to do you keep you from going to the other extreme. While I don't want you to bicker about everything, i also don't want you to ignore Peter's admonition.
1Pet. 3:15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answera to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hopeb that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
If you go the other direction and disobey this command, you're no better than the guy the bickers about everything. The devil doesn't care where you exit the path, he just wants you off of it. I'm arguing against both extremes.
What I'm trying to do you keep you from going to the other extreme. While I don't want you to bicker about everything, i also don't want you to ignore Peter's admonition.
1Pet. 3:15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answera to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hopeb that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
If you go the other direction and disobey this command, you're no better than the guy the bickers about everything. The devil doesn't care where you exit the path, he just wants you off of it. I'm arguing against both extremes.
As long as you mentioned it, and even mentioned scripture, I will turn you on to this thread and one of my posts concerning the gospel and creation as needed to be seen. Yes, we are to understand fully that God created things as they are for us to know the process of events. I believe we have enough information in the Bible that centers around the plan of salvation when studying it, and comparing spiritual with spiritual. The post begins with addressing another, but the first scripture mentioned is in Acts 17:15-33 with the poets and Paul. That's where I would like you to begin. Thanks
please see this post
please see this post
Last edited:
False. Speculation is to form an opinion that is not based on evidence. Evolution is based on evidence. Your claim that anything outside the Bible is speculation is not only false, but hypocritical since belief in the Bible requires faith, or the acceptance that something is face despite either lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary.
If you want to skim through a website that's backed by evidence, please go to the following. You may not believe it, but at least you'll know it's not just "speculation".
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
There is zero scientific evidence to support this.
This is an oxymoron. You're essentially saying, "Can people use the method of accepting the truth to not accept the truth?" The answer is, if they do, they're wrong.
Science.
Science doesn't do this. Whenever it does, it's always corrected by future scientists. This is why science relies on double blind studies. Scientists don't sit around thinking, "Hmm, I wonder how we can use this to verify evolution to be true..." No, scientists evaluate the data and come to the conclusion evolution is true because that's precisely what the evidence leads to. It literally doesn't lead anywhere else.
There have been frauds in the past who have submitted false claims and had it pass as fact for years. But the beautiful thing about science is that these claims are challenged by other scientists and re-evaluated so that they may later be corrected. And before you talk about how unreliable this method is, accepting something as true without ever questioning it is not a better method.
You were an atheist who concluded evolution to be false. Was this before or after you became a Christian?
If you want to skim through a website that's backed by evidence, please go to the following. You may not believe it, but at least you'll know it's not just "speculation".
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
There is zero scientific evidence to support this.
This is an oxymoron. You're essentially saying, "Can people use the method of accepting the truth to not accept the truth?" The answer is, if they do, they're wrong.
Science.
Science doesn't do this. Whenever it does, it's always corrected by future scientists. This is why science relies on double blind studies. Scientists don't sit around thinking, "Hmm, I wonder how we can use this to verify evolution to be true..." No, scientists evaluate the data and come to the conclusion evolution is true because that's precisely what the evidence leads to. It literally doesn't lead anywhere else.
There have been frauds in the past who have submitted false claims and had it pass as fact for years. But the beautiful thing about science is that these claims are challenged by other scientists and re-evaluated so that they may later be corrected. And before you talk about how unreliable this method is, accepting something as true without ever questioning it is not a better method.
You were an atheist who concluded evolution to be false. Was this before or after you became a Christian?
C
JIA, think about what you're doing. You're using this verse in Phil. to dispute with me. But if you're disputing with me, aren't you yourself violating this passage? Or maybe, you're just misunderstanding the application of that passage? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the latter is true.
I would submit that the Genesis record is not foolish material we can just toss aside, and I know for certain Paul would agree. Paul actually quoted from Genesis often in sharing the gospel in his letters. It was Paul who called Christ the last Adam. It was Paul who when back to the creation story in Genesis when he ran into the skeptics on Mars Hill (Acts 17).
Grace and peace.
I would submit that the Genesis record is not foolish material we can just toss aside, and I know for certain Paul would agree. Paul actually quoted from Genesis often in sharing the gospel in his letters. It was Paul who called Christ the last Adam. It was Paul who when back to the creation story in Genesis when he ran into the skeptics on Mars Hill (Acts 17).
Grace and peace.
C
Ouch, brother, I'm disagreeing with everything you've said here. Evolution is based on the evaluation of evidence through a specific set of presuppositions—particularly naturalism and uniformitarianism. And it is based on the assumption that the miraculous events described in Genesis did not happen (methodological naturalism).
I also disagree with your definition of faith. You've adopted the mark twain definition, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." Biblical faith, pistis, is more akin to trust, and there is nothing in scripture to indicate God wants blind trust from us. God has filled the world with indications of his existence, and the accuracy of His word. We are truly without excuse if we trust man's word over His.
I also disagree with your definition of faith. You've adopted the mark twain definition, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." Biblical faith, pistis, is more akin to trust, and there is nothing in scripture to indicate God wants blind trust from us. God has filled the world with indications of his existence, and the accuracy of His word. We are truly without excuse if we trust man's word over His.
Speculation LOL 
I have read of occasions where atheists did all they could to prove the Bible wrong and in so doing realized the truth of the Bible. That truth caused them to believe in the word of God, and then they were given the faith justifying their comprehension that caused them to come to that conclusion. I would say Calminian concluded evolution was false before he became a Christian. My sister said once to her evolutionist teacher "maybe you evolved from a monkey but I didn't!" She was in 5th grade.
Speaking of science to confirm the truth. What happens to a seed after it's planted?
Yes, indeed! I tell you that unless a grain of wheat that falls to the ground dies, it stays just a grain; but if it dies, it produces a big harvest. This is proven science from the Bible. (John 12:24)
This is also science. Cross a horse with a donkey and you get a mule. Try breeding a mule with another mule and look for its offspring forever cause it won't happen.
but God gives it the body he intended for it; and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 1 Corinthians 15:38
I have read of occasions where atheists did all they could to prove the Bible wrong and in so doing realized the truth of the Bible. That truth caused them to believe in the word of God, and then they were given the faith justifying their comprehension that caused them to come to that conclusion. I would say Calminian concluded evolution was false before he became a Christian. My sister said once to her evolutionist teacher "maybe you evolved from a monkey but I didn't!" She was in 5th grade.
Speaking of science to confirm the truth. What happens to a seed after it's planted?
Yes, indeed! I tell you that unless a grain of wheat that falls to the ground dies, it stays just a grain; but if it dies, it produces a big harvest. This is proven science from the Bible. (John 12:24)
This is also science. Cross a horse with a donkey and you get a mule. Try breeding a mule with another mule and look for its offspring forever cause it won't happen.
but God gives it the body he intended for it; and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 1 Corinthians 15:38
Last edited:
C
My salvation actually came even though there was much confusion about this issue. As a child I was totally indoctrinated in evolution, and absolutely believed it. Then I accepted the gap theory, as a way to reconcile scripture with millions of years. Then I moved to the day-age theory, as the gap theory wasn't compatible with Ex. 20:11. Then, finally, someone showed me the biblical case for creation, and returned me to the plain reading of the text. I've stayed there ever since.
C
Indeed, it was developed by many bible believing theists. But the method itself does not allow for the existence of miracles, in that they need to be precluded before an investigation starts.
I don't believe the fathers of science ever intended it to be a means to prove miracles like the Resurrection. What they believed was that miracles by a theistic creator were vastly rare, and that naturalistic processes to be vastly normative. Thus, the method would virtually always work. But on the issue of origins, where countless miracles took place, science becomes a very limited tool, as its starting premises are compromised.
I don't believe the fathers of science ever intended it to be a means to prove miracles like the Resurrection. What they believed was that miracles by a theistic creator were vastly rare, and that naturalistic processes to be vastly normative. Thus, the method would virtually always work. But on the issue of origins, where countless miracles took place, science becomes a very limited tool, as its starting premises are compromised.
Last edited by a moderator: