Jump to content

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Bawcash said:

WOW!....just...:mellow:...wow. :huh:

Let me guess. Home schooled?

You can find out by reading his biography

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Still Alive said:

I'm not saying it supports the bible. I'm saying that at a high level an argument could be made that they are saying the same thing. It's just that one is coming from a late 20th century scientific perspective and the other is coming from an early civilization perspective from thousands of years ago in the "pre-science" period.

And you have already said that it doesn't.

Make up your mind, does science confirm what Ken Ham and other say or is the bible strip mined of meaning so it agrees with what atheists say is how creation happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Who me said:

And you have already said that it doesn't.

Make up your mind, does science confirm what Ken Ham and other say or is the bible strip mined of meaning so it agrees with what atheists say is how creation happened.

I'm not really a big fan of Ken Ham. I'm not a detractor, either. I'm mostly neutral. I did enjoy visiting the Ark Encounter and was shocked and pleased to see that they used the word, "catastrophism". But Ken is not God. He's a guy with opinions. There is no man alive that I agree with on every single point, except for Jesus. Frankly, that includes the dead as well. Yes, even the apostles. They were, after all, just men. Inspired by God, of course, but also FLAWED men. 

I don't know what you mean when you say I've already said that it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Who me said:

And you have already said that it doesn't.

Make up your mind, does science confirm what Ken Ham and other say or is the bible strip mined of meaning so it agrees with what atheists say is how creation happened.

Ken Ham and AIG have a pretty good argument against evolution, but their young earth arguments are week and ever changing. T-Rex blood found in fossilized bones!...oh wait that wasn't right. Ica stones prove that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time!...Oh wait they were a hoax. Well, I still believe all of creation is only 6000 years old... uh... The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!

I pretty much stopped taking AIG seriously at that point.

I am pretty sure that Sir Isaac Newton was intelligent enough that if he had access to todays telescopes and an extra 300 years of discoveries to build on, he would not ignore the obvious and at the same time still believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. He would most likely be an old earther.

Edited by Bawcash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Bawcash said:

...and at the same time still believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. 

If he knew that much about the bible, he wouldn't see it as the inerrant word of God either. It definitely contains the word of God, but there is plenty of thoughts of mere men in there. In fact, if you have an english bible it's even worse. Lots of translation/interpretation in all of them.

Check out Deuteronomy 32:8. The masoretic text says "sons of Israel" while the dead sea scrolls say "sons of God". And israel did not exist at the time. Most of our english bibles use the Masoretic text for the OT.

The ESV actually says "sons of God". It's one reason I like the ESV. It seems to be more accurate.

 

Edited by Still Alive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

If he knew that much about the bible, he wouldn't see it as the inerrant word of God either. It definitely contains the word of God, but there is plenty of thoughts of mere men in there. In fact, if you have an english bible it's even worse. Lots of translation/interpretation in all of them.

Check out Deuteronomy 32:8. The masoretic text says "sons of Israel" while the dead sea scrolls say "sons of God". And israel did not exist at the time. Most of our english bibles use the Masoretic text for the OT.

The ESV actually says "sons of God". It's one reason I like the ESV. It seems to be more accurate.

 

Interesting. This warrants deeper investigation. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Bawcash said:

Interesting. This warrants deeper investigation. Thank you.

Just wait until you see Psalms 82 and 89 from that perspective. ;)

 

Two completely different perspectives (I'm ad adherent to Heiser's viewpoint - the second one below):

https://www.bible-studys.org/Bible Books/Psalms/Psalm 82.html

https://drmsh.com/the-plural-elohim-of-psalm-82-gods-or-men/

Edited by Still Alive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink:Cosmology Scientist are very educated people intellectually. Very smart but their mind is so dim.    So some one says they can't believe in something you can't see so  ask what is holding them down on the ground. What keeps us from suffocation. there are more unseen things also  Like the Father Son and the Holy Ghost.

Ask  one if he has a brain because I can't see it. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 12:45 PM, Who me said:

No. because string theory is an attempt to explain why there is auniverse without the need for a creator.

You may gain insights into Christianity, God etc from science but any insights will have to be checked against what scripture teaches.

 

Any science that does not start by recognising God as creator and susatainer is going to produce errors when it moves beyond what can be measured, recorded and repeated.

So this is somewhat inaccurate from what I know of string theory. I'm a chemist but several of my friends are in physics so I have some knowledge of this area although I am by no means an expert. String theory does not make an assertions regarding the origins of the universe. It mostly seeks to unify quantum mechanics and Einstein's theories. While both of these systems work well and are acceptable, the rules that they establish seem to break down in certain rare cases (black holes, etc.). String theory seeks to unify these. The goal of some is to get a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) which accounts for both Einstein's equations and quantum mechanics. In the simplest terms, string theory wants to clean up the math and find a more elegant way of describing physics.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By Schouwenaars
      While i already know this theory, it might be new for you guys. It's about a theory who suggests that there are many more universes outside ours. i just want to know what you think about it. and i guess it is not in contradiction with god who created the universe(s), because then heaven might be the perfect universe, the other ones the sinfull ones. You can give your own interpretation to it. 
       
      This  might explain the theory.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#M-theory
       
      And this is a article about it.
      http://www.space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html
×
×
  • Create New...