Four questions for YECs - (and a little history of creationism vs evolution)

[teddyv]

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, teddyv.

When the Grand Canyon was cut in the months following the year of the Flood, that plateau wasn't "consolidated," yet, either! This is evidenced by the BENDING of the layers in places. If the rock had completely solidified, they would have broken under the pressure instead of bending.

And, Mt. St. Helens DOES contain solid basalt recently formed that was also cut by the runoff water. 

Right.

Okay, thanks.

I understand, but one should note that we HAVE such evidence WORLDWIDE! The limestones and sandstones are seen in the white cliffs of the southern coasts of the British Isles. They are seen in the United States in several places, and in the Middle East, and in parts of Africa, and in Asia, and ....

Then, there is the red sandstones that exist in about two thirds of North America, both in the US and in Canada! There are shale deposits the size of Montana! (And, they have UPSIDE DOWN strata, btw, according to the presumed geologic column!)

We had deep water all over the continental USA and when the "dam broke," the runoff cut the Grand Canyon, forming the Colorado River, until it is now the trickle of what it used to be.

Just know this: The RELIGION of secular, humanistic atheism that regulates what passes for "science" these days SUPPRESS the truth of this evidence, because they don't WANT people to know the truth and critically investigate the claims that have been fabricated as "science" to confuse people - students and faculty and lay people alike - and BLIND their eyes to the truth of God's Word. Why? Because they don't want to think about being held accountable to God!

Not really. One just has to know where to look.

Psalm 104:1-10 (KJV)

1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.
10 He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills.

Translators have mistakenly thought of this as referring to the Creation account of Genesis, but actually, this is talking about the aftermath of the Flood.

Verse 3 mentions clouds which didn't exist before the Flood.
Verse 4 talks about God's "messengers" being WINDS, and His "servants" being VOLCANIC FIRE!
Verse 5 tells us that the foundations, THIS time, have been established that they should NOT be removed forever!
Verse 6 talks about how the continent (which was one continent at the time) was COVERED with water, and the water stood above the mountains.
Verse 7 talks about the Flood waters receding.
Verse 8 tells us about the mountains rising and the valleys sinking, making the ocean trenches.
Verse 9 talks about the continental shelves being put in place to protect the land from being washed over by waves, and 
verse 10 talks about springs forming in the valleys, like artesian wells!

This is another good reason to learn the original languages of the Bible, like Hebrew!

Yes, there was SIGNIFICANT heat in the tropics! So much so, that coal deposits became diamonds! And, in contrast to that, the arctic zones were so cold that they FLASH-FROZE animals in the ice of the falling rains and surging oceans of the Flood! This cold was also the reason for the ice age to follow the Flood.

Why are there coal deposits and subtropical plant fossils under the ice in Antarctica?

There was a WIND - a JET STREAM - that swept over the earth and pulled the floating ark along in its path, keeping it in the moderate zone - away from the heat at the equator and the cold of the arctic.

Genesis 8:1-3 (KJV)

1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; 2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; 3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

If one would investigate the Bible for the evidence as much as he or she listens to the fables of humanistic scientists, it would all begin to make sense to him or her.

I agree that the heat was a great problem for most of the earth during that year and afterward; however, I think they are neglecting to consider the ice age that spawned from the temperature imbalance. Only in the temperate zones, would the temperatures be balanced to a livable fluctuation. Also, one must remember that ALL of the earth's water was in its ocean at the time! This was SIGNIFICANTLY more water than is normally in the earth's oceans today.

Perspective is key. Why should ANY true Christian shy away from the TRUTH of God's Word?!

@Retrobyter

As long as...

"Just know this: The RELIGION of secular, humanistic atheism that regulates what passes for "science" these days SUPPRESS the truth of this evidence, because they don't WANT people to know the truth and critically investigate the claims that have been fabricated as "science" to confuse people - students and faculty and lay people alike - and BLIND their eyes to the truth of God's Word. Why? Because they don't want to think about being held accountable to God!"

...remains your general attitude, then I don't think it will be possible for us to dialogue on these matters. The waters are completely poisoned. Suffice it to say, this is not my experience within the field of geology, though I am not in the academic realm. My interactions with academics does not comport to your view, at all.

I know Christians, agnostics and atheists in this business. None of them are involved with it because they wish to suppress the truth or wish to lead people from the truth. I suppose these is someone, in someplace, sometime that had such a motivation, but it would be a vanishingly small subset of the geological community. My colleagues and I are in the business to discover and develop mineral deposits utilizing the best scientific methods we have. As a professional, I am bound by a code of ethics as well, which do not make any religious claim or test.

I believe you are making a fundamental error in attributing motives that stem from a person's philosophical or religious position that might be influenced by the  sciences, rather than addressing the actual scientific evidence itself.

[Retrobyter]

8 hours ago, teddyv said:

@Retrobyter

As long as...

"Just know this: The RELIGION of secular, humanistic atheism that regulates what passes for "science" these days SUPPRESS the truth of this evidence, because they don't WANT people to know the truth and critically investigate the claims that have been fabricated as "science" to confuse people - students and faculty and lay people alike - and BLIND their eyes to the truth of God's Word. Why? Because they don't want to think about being held accountable to God!"

...remains your general attitude, then I don't think it will be possible for us to dialogue on these matters.

Shalom, @teddyv.

That's entirely up to you.

8 hours ago, teddyv said:

The waters are completely poisoned. Suffice it to say, this is not my experience within the field of geology, though I am not in the academic realm. My interactions with academics does not comport to your view, at all.

I know Christians, agnostics and atheists in this business. None of them are involved with it because they wish to suppress the truth or wish to lead people from the truth. I suppose these is someone, in someplace, sometime that had such a motivation, but it would be a vanishingly small subset of the geological community. My colleagues and I are in the business to discover and develop mineral deposits utilizing the best scientific methods we have. As a professional, I am bound by a code of ethics as well, which do not make any religious claim or test.

Let me ask just one simple question: What do you believe about the Scriptures, particularly Genesis? that is, can we accept it literally?

8 hours ago, teddyv said:

I believe you are making a fundamental error in attributing motives that stem from a person's philosophical or religious position that might be influenced by the  sciences, rather than addressing the actual scientific evidence itself.

The actual scientific evidence is INTERPRETED through one's worldview. The evidence doesn't change, and both camps use the SAME EVIDENCE in their respective worldview's philosophy. The motives may not be in you or in your colleagues. All the same, it IS bound in the philosophical approach of those who teach evolution or evolutionary origins regarding three fronts: microbiological origins, geological origins, and cosmological origins.

If you're not among those numbers, I say GREAT! Nevertheless, it's truly astounding how ingrained this fiction has become. Most don't even realize the extent to which this teaching is prevalent! One might say something or make a decision based upon a commonly taught fiction, and not even realize that they've said anything that was against the Scriptures! It may be as inadvertent and innocent as a child saying something he overheard his parents say, but one can barely get away from it these days. I'll make no apology for what I believe about the Scriptures. I'll still go with ...

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

and 

Romans 3:1-4 (KJV)

1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles (sayings) of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

I will continue to believe,

Romans 1:16-32 (KJV)

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error (venereal diseases, AIDS, etc.) which was meet (fitting).

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication (sleeping around), wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God (hardcore atheists), despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them!

I will continue to believe what Yeeshuwa` ("Jesus") said,

Mark 10:2-9 (KJV)

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him,

"Is it lawful for a man to put away (divorce) his wife?" tempting him. 

3 And he answered and said unto them,

"What did Moses command you?"

4 And they said,

"Moses suffered (allowed one) to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away."

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them,

"For the hardness (fierceness) of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 

7 "'For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain (two) shall be one flesh': (Genesis 2:24).

"so then they are no more twain (two), but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder!"

I'm going to stick with Yeeshuwa`s understanding of Genesis 1 and 2.

[teddyv]

13 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Let me ask just one simple question: What do you believe about the Scriptures, particularly Genesis? that is, can we accept it literally?

The Scriptures are trustworthy as God's revelation to Himself to humanity and the story of His working to redeem and restore  his creation, among other things. 

 I have no problem with one accepting Genesis 1-11 in particular as a literal rendering of Creation and the early history of humanity if you are theologically compelled to, and as I have said elsewhere so many times, there are powerful transcendent truths to Genesis beyond a simplistic narrative of the creation. 

Perhaps that's what bothers me most - that YEC (i.e. Ken Ham) tend to overlook the important things rather than focussing on their narrow absolutist view.

13 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

The actual scientific evidence is INTERPRETED through one's worldview. The evidence doesn't change, and both camps use the SAME EVIDENCE in their respective worldview's philosophy. The motives may not be in you or in your colleagues. All the same, it IS bound in the philosophical approach of those who teach evolution or evolutionary origins regarding three fronts: microbiological origins, geological origins, and cosmological origins.

That's reasonable. The question then becomes that why can I, who presumably holds a Biblical worldview, have no issues with geological timescales or evolutionary processes? Does that negate my salvation?

13 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

If you're not among those numbers, I say GREAT! Nevertheless, it's truly astounding how ingrained this fiction has become. Most don't even realize the extent to which this teaching is prevalent! One might say something or make a decision based upon a commonly taught fiction, and not even realize that they've said anything that was against the Scriptures! It may be as inadvertent and innocent as a child saying something he overheard his parents say, but one can barely get away from it these days. I'll make no apology for what I believe about the Scriptures. I'll still go with ...

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

and 

Romans 3:1-4 (KJV)

1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles (sayings) of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

So you are a liar too then? Why should I trust your interpretation? Since it is just that - an  interpretation rooted in a very modern counter-reaction to scientific discoveries.

You see we can go back on forth on this easily enough.

13 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I will continue to believe,

Romans 1:16-32 (KJV)

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error (venereal diseases, AIDS, etc.) which was meet (fitting).

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication (sleeping around), wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God (hardcore atheists), despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them!

This sounds defamatory to claim to any brother or sister who simply has different views on creation. Or are intentionally putting stumbling blocks in front of others. Or are you the final arbiter of what the right truth is? I hope not, because you have not demonstrated any practical knowledge for what you decry.

13 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I will continue to believe what Yeeshuwa` ("Jesus") said,

Mark 10:2-9 (KJV)

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him,

"Is it lawful for a man to put away (divorce) his wife?" tempting him. 

3 And he answered and said unto them,

"What did Moses command you?"

4 And they said,

"Moses suffered (allowed one) to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away."

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them,

"For the hardness (fierceness) of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 

7 "'For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain (two) shall be one flesh': (Genesis 2:24).

"so then they are no more twain (two), but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder!"

Not sure why you bring Jesus' point about marriage into the mechanics of Creation. Rather specious argument.

13 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I'm going to stick with Yeeshuwa`s understanding of Genesis 1 and 2.

A rather arrogant presumption.

Edited May 26, 2023 by teddyv
spelling, missed word

[BeyondET]

On 5/24/2023 at 6:34 PM, Daniel Marsh said:

 non Biblical sources are quoted in the Bible, that does not make them a book of the Bible.

Show me non Biblical sources quoted in the Bible. If it's in the bible it's Biblical. The bible can't be part Biblical and part non Biblical that doesn't even make sense.

Edited May 27, 2023 by BeyondET

[ChristB4us]

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

Show me non Biblical sources quoted in the Bible. If it's in the bible it's Biblical. The bible can't be part Biblical and part non Biblical that doesn't even make sense.

The Book of Jehu was cited for those who want to know the other accounts done by jehu.

2 Kings 10:34Now the rest of the acts of Jehu, and all that he did, and all his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Chronicles 20:34Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the kings of Israel.

Scriptures are supposed to testify of the Lord and His dealings with men.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Otherwise, why don't the Jews consider the Book of Jehu as scripture?

Edited May 27, 2023 by ChristB4us

[BeyondET]

4 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

The Book of Jehu was cited for those who want to know the other accounts done by jehu.

2 Kings 10:34Now the rest of the acts of Jehu, and all that he did, and all his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Chronicles 20:34Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the kings of Israel.

Scriptures are supposed to testify of the Lord and His dealings with men.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Otherwise, why don't the Jews consider the Book of Jehu as scripture?

Jehu had done what was pleasing to the LORD earlier. Until he made a pack with the king of Israel. 

Jehu was untroubled when he heard what happened, he wasn't an enemy of Israel.

why the jews didn't consider it probably same reason they didn't except the stone being moved.

I don't hear or read this being reported among jews today. Could they not want to talk about a book of yesterday.

Matthew 28:19

So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

 

2 chronicles 20

27 The terror of God seized all the kingdoms of the lands when they heard that the LORD had fought the enemies of Israel. 

28 The kingdom of Jehoshaphat was untroubled, and his God granted him respite on all sides.

30 He followed the course of his father Asa and did not deviate from it, doing what was pleasing to the LORD. 

 

The John 5:40 you posted is basically this as well in 2 chronicles 20.

31 However, the shrines did not cease; the people still did not direct their heart toward the God of their fathers.

 

I think jehu was they are they who did testify, John 5:39

Those books mentioned in the OT are of the many things done that the world couldn't contain all the books but that certainly doesn't mean they didn't exist or are not still around.

 

Edited May 27, 2023 by BeyondET

[ChristB4us]

6 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Jehu had done what was pleasing to the LORD earlier. Until he made a pack with the king of Israel. 

Jehu was untroubled when he heard what happened, he wasn't an enemy of Israel.

why the jews didn't consider it probably same reason they didn't except the stone being moved.

I don't hear or read this being reported among jews today. Could they not want to talk about a book of yesterday.

Matthew 28:19

So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

 

2 chronicles 20

27 The terror of God seized all the kingdoms of the lands when they heard that the LORD had fought the enemies of Israel. 

28 The kingdom of Jehoshaphat was untroubled, and his God granted him respite on all sides.

30 He followed the course of his father Asa and did not deviate from it, doing what was pleasing to the LORD. 

 

The John 5:40 you posted is basically this as well in 2 chronicles 20.

31 However, the shrines did not cease; the people still did not direct their heart toward the God of their fathers.

 

I think jehu was they are they who did testify, John 5:39

Those books mentioned in the OT are of the many things done that the world couldn't contain all the books but that certainly doesn't mean they didn't exist or are not still around.

I would fathom that if there be any worth in that Book of Jehu that testify of the Lord, it would be considered scripture.  Since scripture in Kings & Chronicles did specify as the acts & account of a man for referencing the Book of Jehu, is probably why it is not considered scripture but a historical reference about the man in question.

Can you think of a Book in the Bible that did not testify of the Lord and His dealings with the main person cited in that Book that it was just about that person?

I cannot recall if the Songs of Solomon would be considered such a book but some conveyed that the love in that Book mirrors the Lord's love for His people.  What do you say?  Or is there another Book in the accepted Bible that is a better example of just writing about that person as a historical account with no reference to the Lord's dealings or His saying or His intervention in it?

[Retrobyter]

36 minutes ago, teddyv said:

The Scriptures are trustworthy as God's revelation to Himself to humanity and the story of His working to redeem and restore  his creation, among other things.

Shalom, teddyv.

That's good. Just remember, though: However literal you make God making all things in Creation will be how literally you interpret how God will restore His Creation. If one believes in an almighty God for Creation, he or she will be more likely to believe in an almighty God for the RE-Creation. 

36 minutes ago, teddyv said:

I have no problem with one accepting Genesis 1-11 in particular as a literal rendering of Creation and the early history of humanity if you are theologically compelled to, and as I have said elsewhere so many times, there are powerful transcendent truths to Genesis beyond a simplistic narrative of the creation. 

See, these "transcendent truths," IMO, lead one to a more allegorical interpretation, which I believe leads one to a more nebulous system that depends largely on one's OPINION of Scripture taking precedence over God's grammatical-historical rendition of history.

36 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Perhaps that's what bothers me most - that YEC (i.e. Ken Ham) tend to overlook the important things rather than focusing on their narrow absolutist view.

Well, that's one way of looking at what YEC scientists, like Dr. Henry Morris, Sr., Dr. Henry Morris, Jr., Dr. Dwayne T. Gish, Dr. Ken Ham, Dr. Jason Lisle, Dr. Jake Hebert, and a HOST of others are trying to teach. Actually, @believeinHim has the right idea. 

She started reading the book Evolution's Achilles Heels, written by ...
Dr. Donald Batten, Ph. D.,
Dr. Robert Carter, Ph. D.,
Dr. David Catchpoole, Ph. D,,
Dr. John Hartnett, Ph. D.,
Dr. Mark Harwood, Ph. D.,
Dr. Jim Mason, Ph. D.,
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph. D.,
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Ph. D., and
Dr. Tasman Walker, Ph. D., edited by Dr. Robert Carter. [Copyright (c) 2014 by Creation Ministries International (US), Inc., P.O. Box 350, Powder Springs, GA, ISBN: 978-1-921643-82-8].

These nine scientists, experts in their respective fields, speak on these 8 topics:

Natural Selection, Genetics and DNA, The Origin of Life, The Fossil Record, The Geologic Record, Radiometric Dating, Cosmology and the Big Bang, and Ethics and Morality, and they show how the Theory of Evolution fails miserably in all these categories.

In the foreward to the book, Dr. Carl Wieland, M. D., writes:

'It is fitting, then, that these eight areas of knowledge and enquiry are more or less those which most people think display evolution's greatest strengths. It is these which supposedly provide the grounds for its illusion of seeming invicibility.

'The illusion is particularly powerful, by the way, because of its inherent circularity. It is true that the way the data are interpreted and presented seems to reinforce this dominant paradigm of our culture. But this is largely because of an unspoken rule, one that is often unsuspected by even its staunchest adherents. This rule is that the data may only be understood and interpreted within the presuppositions of the paradigm itself. This includes the assumption of strict naturalism when it comes to origins. For example, a well-known evolutionist professor (actually an immunologist) at an American University wrote:

'"Even if all the data point to an inteliigent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

'Here, he is admitting that explanations outside nature are automatically ruled out; only natural causes are permitted. This, therefore, excludes a priori as impermissible anything that might lead to a conclusion on origins other than a world that made itself, with no divine assistance either needed or apparent.'

One should be able to see, just within these few paragraphs, the circular reasoning inherent in this theory!

36 minutes ago, teddyv said:

That's reasonable. The question then becomes that why can I, who presumably holds a Biblical worldview, have no issues with geological timescales or evolutionary processes? Does that negate my salvation?

How one could see things this way with a Biblical worldview, only that person and God would know. However, from my experience, a person who has a Biblical worldview in church and a humanistic worldview outside in one's occupation will likewise be disjoint on other matters. It is NOT a matter of one's justification by God (one's "salvation"), but it may determine whether one who is lost ever finds the Messiah in the first place.

36 minutes ago, teddyv said:

So you are a liar too then? Why should I trust your interpretation? Since it is just that - an  interpretation rooted in a very modern counter-reaction to scientific discoveries.

Of course I'm a liar; I'm HUMAN. I try not to be, though, and I do that by taking the Bible literally, using the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. I let the Bible SPEAK TO ME, and I consciously make the effort NOT to inject my personal beliefs into what I am reading!

36 minutes ago, teddyv said:

You see we can go back on forth on this easily enough.

Sure, but one should try NOT to allow it to fall into the "he said ... he said ..." trap. No one person's opinion is better than that of another. On the other hand, what does GOD say about a matter? We should all be working TOGETHER - COOPERATIVELY - toward seeking the mind of God on the issue!

36 minutes ago, teddyv said:

This sounds defamatory to claim to any brother or sister who simply has different views on creation. Or are intentionally putting stumbling blocks in front of others. Or are you the final arbiter of what the right truth is? I hope not, because you have not demonstrated any practical knowledge for what you decry.

Romans 1:16-32 would only be "defamatory" to one who was thinking that it would be okay to think and act as these verses decry. Unfortunately, these verses are VERY descriptive of what we are seeing in our society today! If one is guilty of any of this, that person SHOULD feel guilty! However, if one is NOT guilty of the sins listed in these verses, then it's "water off a duck's back."

I'm no expert in any of these fields of study; however, I LISTEN to others who are. I READ what they write, and I consider what they say, and for myself, I've come to the conclusion that anytime the secular, humanistic scientists speak about ORIGINS, they are inherently wrong PURELY on the fact that they leave God out of their equations.

36 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Not sure why you bring Jesus' point about marriage into the mechanics of Creation. Rather specious argument.

I brought up Jesus' point about marriage beause He acquired (or WROTE about) it in Genesis 2! Therefore, Yeeshuwa` ("Jesus") understood this to be an accurate history of the Creation, and in particular, the Creation of mankind.

36 minutes ago, teddyv said:

A rather arrogant presumption.

It's only "arrogant" if Yeeshuwa` ever telegraphed that He somehow didn't agree with Moses' writings; however, it's obvious to most readers that He DID agree with Moses, particularly on the marriage between a man and a woman.

[BeyondET]

1 hour ago, ChristB4us said:

I would fathom that if there be any worth in that Book of Jehu that testify of the Lord, it would be considered scripture.  Since scripture in Kings & Chronicles did specify as the acts & account of a man for referencing the Book of Jehu, is probably why it is not considered scripture but a historical reference about the man in question.

Can you think of a Book in the Bible that did not testify of the Lord and His dealings with the main person cited in that Book that it was just about that person?

I cannot recall if the Songs of Solomon would be considered such a book but some conveyed that the love in that Book mirrors the Lord's love for His people.  What do you say?  Or is there another Book in the accepted Bible that is a better example of just writing about that person as a historical account with no reference to the Lord's dealings or His saying or His intervention in it?

Scripture says jehu did what was pleasing to his God. The saying his God is similar to the saying of my Lord said to your LORD.

Even though it's not available I can't see it not having worth. It was worthy enough to mention so it appears to have some worth.

Edited May 27, 2023 by BeyondET

[ChristB4us]

11 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Scripture says jehu did what was pleasing to his God. The saying his God is similar to the saying of my Lord said to your LORD.

Even though it's not available I can't see it not having worth. It was worthy enough to mention so it appears to have some worth.

Since there is no Book of Jehu available to read, the issue is moot, is it not?