Jump to content


Photo

6 Days Or Billions Of Years?


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#41 Nexys

Nexys

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Astronomy, Education, Media, Politics, Psychology, Sociology
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Indiana

Posted 30 August 2013 - 04:38 AM

 
You were a Christian and yet you say there is ZERO evidence for Christianity??? That doesn't quite add up. Something tells me that you have emotional issues with Christianity rather than evidential, but even if you don't, saying that there is no evidence at all for Christianity is evidence that you are tangled up in a web of denial.
 
One of the strongest objections against Christianity is the fact that it makes the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, which is often sneered at by atheists because it is "unscientific" and bizarre. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof we are told and yet when this is given people like you use the wiggle room you have to make the claim that it doesn't even count as evidence!
 
Calypsis4 submitted a video that gives clear evidence and extraordinary proof that the claims of Chistianity have in fact been verified, and guess what, only yesterday in the Swedish press (which in itself is almost a miracle) the following video was published:
 

 
So if this is not evidence that the claims of Christianity then please explain why it is not. Simply saying the it might have a naturalisic cause does not do that. I could just as easily turn around and say that there isn't evidence of ANYTHING AT ALL using that gigantic loophole!


I was a Christian because, like many, I accepted and believed what I was taught. It was blind faith, and nothing more. That changed when I began to examine things on my own. So, yes, it is a matter of evidence.

Now, as to your "proof," I am beginning to feel neither you nor Calypsis truly understand what that term means. All you have is faulty syllogism.

Your argument:

Premise 1: A man was clinically dead and was revived.
Premise 2: Christianity teaches that God can resurrect people from the dead.
Conclusion: God resurrected that man.

The problem here is that you see no issue with your premises leading to that conclusion. It seems self-evident to you when, in fact, it is not. I have seen elsewhere on this forum where Christians get rather annoyed by the evolutionist argument that, when presented with an event for which there is no hard and fast data, people instantly assume "evolution did it." Yet, you are doing the same. Simply because your religion teaches that resurrections can occur via your god does not mean that, and that alone, is proof that the people in question WERE resurrected by your god.

Proof requires more than "it could have occurred this way." I doubt you would accept an Atheist or evolutionist using that line of thinking, so it seems tremendously hypocritical of you to use the same argument yourself. When one does not have hard data and evidence to answer a question, it is intellectually dishonest to run straight to "my god did it."

You have provided some interesting case studies that are worth looking at, for sure. Personally, I am fascinated by them. However, it will take a lot more than a bunch of Christians assuming and claiming their god did it for me to count those videos as anything more than a starting point for further research. But, just remember, you won't accept "it could have natural causes" as an argument and I won't accept "it could be the Christian god" as an argument either. There is not enough data out there on these situations to truly say what did or did not happen. All we have right now is a situation which raises a bunch of questions - questions, it should be understood, for which there are not hard answers just yet.

#42 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 30 August 2013 - 05:22 AM

But my main problem is, I don't understand how God being manifest, even the eternal consequences of sin being manifest, could rob anyone of the freewill to be a Christian. On the contrary, I would say that expunging all doubt would leave a person with nothing but a freewill choice to make.

 

I don't think God is merely interested in getting us to use our freewill to acknowledge him for the sake of it. It would be child's play for God to get someone to use there freewill in a situation where a carrot, or a whip, or both, are employed for that purpose alone.


The million dollar question is: what IS the purpose?


The scriptural evidence that God wants us to follow him of our own accord can be found in Psalm 32:9:


"Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you."


But again, what is the purpose?


I don't think God merely wants us to use our freewill. I think he wants us to use our freewill for the right reasons. Using our freewill to escape the whip is not what God is trying to achieve. Using freewill to gain a carrot is also not what God is trying to do with us. Even though both whips and carrots can be employed for the purpose of bumping us in the right direction, it think there is much more to the picture than that.


I think the people that are most skilled at painting pictures or writing novels are usually the one's who are careful not to be too obvious. A painting that is too realistic is often analyzed for a few seconds and then forgotten in about the same amount of time whereas a few simple strokes leaves standing there trying to reconstruct in our own minds what is missing and what the painter is trying to portray. Similarly, a writer doesn't normally start his novel by telling us "who did it", but leaves us a trail of bread crumbs so we can do our best to figure it out for ourselves.


The best works are art are those that draw something out of us. They make us think, they make us use our power of imagination, and if we see what the artist is trying to "hint" at, it causes us to share in the same creative process as the artist does.


I think that faith works in a similar manner. It draws something out of us that God desires. If God was "too obviuos" then we would not share in the same creative process that God uses when he creates a new man within us. We would be like the man who "looks at his face in a mirror  and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.  (James 1:23-24)


But I know I'm not a Christian, since I don't show any fruit. Today I love the things of the world and seek them just as much as did before I thought I was saved. If tomorrow some agent of God appeared and told me to drop what I was doing and go with them for Christ's sake, and to not even go home and say goodbye to my family (Matt 10:37) or attend my father's funeral, I'm not sure I could do it.

 

You certainly are not alone in that respect, so please do not judge your own fruit too harshly. One thing that I find comforting when overcome with guilt about sin, and disappointment over my own shortcomings, is the understanding that we have a new identity in Christ at the same time as we have sin working in our bodies. If we understand this then we also understand that "if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it" (Rom 7:20). I think all Christians recognize the situation. We sin even though our primary desire is to live in a way that is righteous and pleasing to God. But I think the main thing is to continue seeing ourselves as God sees us "in Christ". We are not to be idenitified by the sin working in us which belongs to the "old man" who was crucified a long time ago, but rather, through faith, acknowledge our identity as being the new man in Christ.


 



#43 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 30 August 2013 - 05:36 AM


Now, as to your "proof," I am beginning to feel neither you nor Calypsis truly understand what that term means. All you have is faulty syllogism.

Your argument:

Premise 1: A man was clinically dead and was revived.
Premise 2: Christianity teaches that God can resurrect people from the dead.
Conclusion: God resurrected that man.
 

 

Well I think your argument here is itself "faulty". My point, which I think would have been obvious given what I have alread said about faith, was not that these videos prove that God resurrected anyone at all, but that the claims of Christianity (obviously not ALL of the claims of Christianity) can be supported by observable evidence. My belief, of course, is that God resurrected these men, but I think you will be hard pressed to find me asserting that he did so. That would clearly contradict what

 

Btw, you still haven't explained why you don't think this should be counted as evidence.



#44 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 30 August 2013 - 05:52 AM

P.S. I think you yourself have unwittingly given us even more evidence for Christianity than we might have hoped for:

 

"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' " ;)


  • Calypsis4 likes this

#45 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 30 August 2013 - 07:26 AM

Did you ACTUALLY read the hypothetical scenario I presented? Because, your cut and paste job here skipped over the entire point I was making. So, why don't you go back, read what I wrote, and actually address the point instead of taking this obvious copout by trying to shift the discussion?

 

Yes, i did. But your point is a very poor one. You started by the assumption that there are no 'monsters'...the Bible calls them 'demons/devils' and I have much evidence both from scripture and actual experience that they exist. But skeptics like yourself think that your own natural logic determines truth and you folks never learn that that just isn't so.
 

Try

researching "burden of proof." If you are so hopeful that I will believe the claim that the doctor resurrected a dead man by praying, then provide some sort of evidence beyond a video of people saying "Yeah, it really happened that way, honest!" Anecdotal evidence isn't worth the air it's breathed in to.


 

That is so much baloney. You were given evidence of an actual resurrection from the dead ...with witnesses and the very testimony of the man who died. Yet because of your deeply held prejudcies you just arbitrarily chose to reject it.


Again, anecdotal evidence. Try something more substantial, or concede that you can't.

 

Again, baloney. I'll say it again, the witnesses were professional people in a professional setting but that doesn't seem to make one bit of difference to your prejudiced mind.
 

Thank you for the ad hominem attack. I believe those are against forum rules, are they not?

 

You don't like being told the truth, do you? Then again perhaps it just hurts to much to be told the truth, only God knows. If I violated the rules then turn me over to the board administrators and let them deal with it.

 

 

When I offered my apology for misrepresenting your stance, if I had indeed done so, I was being sincere. But, I suppose sincerity isn't appreciated when it comes from a skeptic, huh?

 

Then you show us your 'sincerity' & stop dissing solid evidence for the biblically miraculous occurrences that were given you and pretending that it is not actual evidence. Good grief, friend, I could hardly do better than the two accounts I laid before you. The pastor from Africa had been dead and in the morgue for over two days!

And, for the record, I was talking about proof of the resurrection of Jesus here. I moved on past the aforementioned doctor. Do try to keep up, okay?

 

Hmm, shall I regard that as an insult? Shall l turn you over to the board admins? Shall I be super-sensitive about such remarks like you are? I think not.  No, I move on.
 

Again, I was talking about the spread of Christianity. Again, please, try to keep up with the debate.

 

Ditto my statement above.


If "living in denial" means that I don't accept anecdotal evidence simply because it conforms to my biased worldview the way you do, then I guess I will wear your attack as a badge of honor.

 

But before Almighty God on judgment day that will be a badge of shame. I would not wish that for you.

And do you have any ACTUAL evidence that Jesus died and was resurrected three days later? If so, please, provide it.


Yes,the multiple witnesses whose testimonies all agree that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, bodily, and physically.Without which there would be no salvation nor eternal life. 

 

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty." I Peter 1:16.

 

Now we have a choice: we can believe YOU (& those of your persuasion) or we can believe Peter...one who(along with all the other witnesses) saw Jesus Christ personally both before and after His resurrection from the dead. And me personally, after having seen the Lord do a number of supernatural things (all in the name of Jesus) I can assure you I trust Peter's word over yours. 


I have no trust in your reasoning on this matter either. It is pure confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

 

But you are eventually going to learn that I told you the truth...and even much more importantly, that the gospels told the truth about Jesus Christ and His resurrection from the dead.

Are you quite through with the ad hominem attacks? If so, I will be happy to continue to discuss things with you rationally and calmly. If not, well then I will simply move on. I, for one, am trying to be intellectually honest here and discuss things like an adult. But, all I am greeted with in response is insults and attacks for not accepting your word or your clips of anecdotal evidence as hard and fast truth.

 

You haven't had any 'ad hominem attacks' upon you. The truth is you don't like being told the truth. Uppsala said it best:

 

"Calypsis4 submitted a video that gives clear evidence and extraordinary proof that the claims of Chistianity have in fact been verified, and guess what, only yesterday in the Swedish press (which in itself is almost a miracle) the following video was published...."

 

If you can't handle the heat then perhaps you should stay in out of the weather.



#46 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 30 August 2013 - 09:19 PM

You have provided some interesting case studies that are worth looking at, for sure. Personally, I am fascinated by them. However, it will take a lot more than a bunch of Christians assuming and claiming their god did it for me to count those videos as anything more than a starting point for further research. But, just remember, you won't accept "it could have natural causes" as an argument and I won't accept "it could be the Christian god" as an argument either. There is not enough data out there on these situations to truly say what did or did not happen. All we have right now is a situation which raises a bunch of questions - questions, it should be understood, for which there are not hard answers just yet.

 

Hi Nexys.  Just wanted to say, that while there may not be enough data for you, I think what many are saying to you here is that there definitely is enough data for them.  I certainly have way more data than I need to believe in the God of the Bible, and believe every last word of the Bible.  

 

For instance I'm reading a book called "The Genius of Ancient Man" right now, and am marveling at the technology ancient men possessed.  Some of these megalith structures around the world are utterly astounding, especially the ones found underwater.  It shows me that very intelligent men lived prior to the Ice Age, and built along the coasts before the water levels rose when the Ice Age came to an end.  These stories may be perplexing to some, even cause them to speculate about alien visitors, but for one with a biblical world view, it's no mystery at all.  The builders of the structures were the early descendants of Noah, and I would expect them to be very advanced. 

 

Legends and myths are also something that make a great deal of sense when looked at from a biblical perspective.  The flood legends around the world all share similarities with the Genesis Flood account, and other legend speak of similar creation accounts and dispersion accounts.  Evidence shows that monotheism was the belief of the earliest civilizations, even Egypt which a hymn was found to the creator of all the other gods.  

 

Then there are these legends about very human looking gods who were like immortals.  Just about all these ancient gods were human in appearance.  Yet, if the bible is true, early descendants of Noah after the flood lived extraordinarily long (by today's standards) outliving several of the own generations.  I would expect legends to arise about these seemingly immortal men.  

 

Then of course there's the great legal mind of Simon Greenleaf, who was an authority in america on the methods of evaluating testimonial evidence.  He was an atheistic jew who was convinced of Christianity by the testimonies of Matthew Mark Luke and John.  You may want to check out his book, Testimony of the Evangelists.  

 

Now that's among some of things God used to draw me to HImself.  That's not to say they will draw everyone.  Everyone is different with different questions and concerns, and different attitudes.  But it seems everywhere I now look, I see the imprint of Biblical history. This time may come for you, it may not.  Hopefully you'll stay open.  But I"m merely saying, that for me and countless other careful thinkers, it actually would take mountains of blind faith not to believe. 



#47 Hesbehindyou

Hesbehindyou

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • UK

Posted 31 August 2013 - 01:39 AM

I don't think God is merely interested in getting us to use our freewill to acknowledge him for the sake of it.

 

I agree. And I don't think anyone's been saying those are His reasons.

 

The million dollar question is: what IS the purpose?

 

What is the purpose of God wanting us to choose to follow Christ? That's a good question, but it isn't the one we were addressing before. The earlier question was the classic: why doesn't God just prove his existence to everyone, rather than only providing hints/evidence and leaving room for doubt? Your response (I think), was that if God did so it would remove freewill.

I responded by saying that I don't think it would because A] doubt isn't per se the result of a freewill choice and B] even if God's existence is proven to a man he still then has to choose. The rich young ruler didn't walk away bevause he had doubts about God's existence.

 

The scriptural evidence that God wants us to follow him of our own accord can be found in Psalm 32:9:

"Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you."

 

Good verse--thanks.

 

But again, what is the purpose? I don't think God merely wants us to use our freewill. I think he wants us to use our freewill for the right reasons. Using our freewill to escape the whip is not what God is trying to achieve. Using freewill to gain a carrot is also not what God is trying to do with us. Even though both whips and carrots can be employed for the purpose of bumping us in the right direction, it think there is much more to the picture than that.

I think the people that are most skilled at painting pictures or writing novels are usually the one's who are careful not to be too obvious. A painting that is too realistic is often analyzed for a few seconds and then forgotten in about the same amount of time whereas a few simple strokes leaves standing there trying to reconstruct in our own minds what is missing and what the painter is trying to portray. Similarly, a writer doesn't normally start his novel by telling us "who did it", but leaves us a trail of bread crumbs so we can do our best to figure it out for ourselves.

The best works are art are those that draw something out of us. They make us think, they make us use our power of imagination, and if we see what the artist is trying to "hint" at, it causes us to share in the same creative process as the artist does.

I think that faith works in a similar manner. It draws something out of us that God desires. If God was "too obviuos" then we would not share in the same creative process that God uses when he creates a new man within us. We would be like the man who "looks at his face in a mirror  and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.  (James 1:23-24)

 

You seem to be saying here both that God doesn't want us to come to Him simply out of fear of Hell, or desire for blessings, and also that God doesn't render himself "too obvious" in order to make discovering him a process/journey by which we'll learn about him more deeply. Do I read you right?
 

You certainly are not alone in that respect, so please do not judge your own fruit too harshly. One thing that I find comforting when overcome with guilt about sin, and disappointment over my own shortcomings, is the understanding that we have a new identity in Christ at the same time as we have sin working in our bodies. If we understand this then we also understand that "if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it" (Rom 7:20). I think all Christians recognize the situation. We sin even though our primary desire is to live in a way that is righteous and pleasing to God. But I think the main thing is to continue seeing ourselves as God sees us "in Christ". We are not to be idenitified by the sin working in us which belongs to the "old man" who was crucified a long time ago, but rather, through faith, acknowledge our identity as being the new man in Christ.

 

Ok but that verse has to be considered alongside the very many that speak to the cost of discipleship.



#48 Hesbehindyou

Hesbehindyou

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • UK

Posted 31 August 2013 - 01:50 AM

P.S. I did finally respond to you on the other thread, UD.



#49 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 31 August 2013 - 04:55 AM

Your response (I think), was that if God did so it would remove freewill.

 
Well not really. I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make in my previous post, but I know, I have to work harder at expressing myself better.
 
Just as you pointed out, God proving his existence would by no means remove freewill. But what I was trying to get across was that is would remove the likelyhood of us using our freewill to approach him for the right reasons.
 
The analogy I used about the artist was intended to illustrate this. Lets say that the purpose and desire of an artist is to make you use your imagination. If he was to paint an incredibly detailed picture then he would be doing all the work himself and his painting would fail to do what he wanted it to do. As we commonly say, "nothing is left to the imagination."

 

If on the other hand he simply draws a few suggestive lines on his canvas he is forcing the beholder to become active in using his imagination. This creative activity that the artist is trying to provoke in the beholder is similar to the fruit that God is trying to produce in us. In a scenario where bearing good fruit is essential for salvation, what we would expect God to do is to provoke the reactions in us that produce such fruit. Simply believing in God because you have seen him, or have undeliable or miraculous proof, does not necessarily cause you to produce good fruit. Consider what James had to say about this:
 
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder." (James 2:19)
 
And consider the 10 leppers that were miraculously healed by Jesus in Luke 17. Only one of the ten responded favorably:
 
"He threw himself at Jesus' feet and thanked him--and he was a Samaritan.  Jesus asked, "Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?" (Luke 17:16-18)
 
Now it might sound strange, but I don't think that the account of Jesus healing these 10 leppers was given primarily for the purpose of producing good fruit in the leppers themselves. Instead, what I think God's intention was when he provided us with this story, was to produce good fruit in US. We weren't there to see the miracles, but instead are given the option of believing them without seeing, which is the greater blessing according to Jesus. He is not putting on display an overworked and meticulously detailed picture that leaves us passive and uneffected, but is making us "participate" through faith. Walking by faith is the strong foundation we need in order to producing good fruit.
 

You seem to be saying here both that God doesn't want us to come to Him simply out of fear of Hell, or desire for blessings, and also that God doesn't render himself "too obvious" in order to make discovering him a process/journey by which we'll learn about him more deeply. Do I read you right?

 
Yeah, that's basically correct, although, obviously, fear and rewards are initially very important. They are necessary ingredients in making us repent (otherwise no one would!). However, after repentence I think God wants us to lose the fear, store up our rewards in heaven, and be driven and motivated by love.

 

Ok but that verse has to be considered alongside the very many that speak to the cost of discipleship.

 
Very true. But bear in mind that the cost involved is faith-based, rather than performing legalistic works. We no longer need to follow a book of rules in order to please God, but rather to follow the Spirit of God wherever his Spirit urges us to go.



#50 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 31 August 2013 - 05:15 AM

P.S. I did finally respond to you on the other thread, UD.

 

Yeah, sorry about that Carl. As it is I am struggling a bit with time, because these are such an enormous topics with so so many ifs and buts, and it is frustrating to know what direction to take because everything continuously branches off. Some people have quite the nack of expressing themselves clearly and always seem to keep on a consistent track whereas I have to work really hard to figure out how to do the topic at hand justice. I will try to get back to you though! smile.png



#51 Hesbehindyou

Hesbehindyou

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • UK

Posted 31 August 2013 - 05:37 AM

Your original post on this tangent was in response to Nexys, who was obviously questioning why God doesn't make Himself more obvious to unbelievers. Your response to him was summed up by Calminian as, "seems there's just enough evidence for the seeker, but not quite enough for the resister," and you replied with words to the effect that this was a good summation of your point.

So yeah, I did think this conversation was about the process of the conviction of unbelievers, not the growing in Christ of believers, which you've said just now is what you were actually always talking about.

 

So you're saying that less join-the-dots detail encourages stronger faith in believers, which is important for growth in Christ and producing fruits of discipleship. If that's what you're saying, I'm fine with that and actually it is a good explanation of John 20:39.



#52 Hesbehindyou

Hesbehindyou

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • UK

Posted 31 August 2013 - 05:38 AM

Yeah, sorry about that Carl. As it is I am struggling a bit with time, because these are such an enormous topics with so so many ifs and buts, and it is frustrating to know what direction to take because everything continuously branches off. Some people have quite the nack of expressing themselves clearly and always seem to keep on a consistent track whereas I have to work really hard to figure out how to do the topic at hand justice. I will try to get back to you though! smile.png

 

Absolutely no rush! Just didn't want you to think I hadn't seen or hadn't replied to your post.



#53 Hesbehindyou

Hesbehindyou

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • UK

Posted 31 August 2013 - 06:00 AM

Btw that should have been John 20:29 two posts up.



#54 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 31 August 2013 - 08:26 AM

So you're saying that less join-the-dots detail encourages stronger faith in believers, which is important for growth in Christ and producing fruits of discipleship. If that's what you're saying, I'm fine with that and actually it is a good explanation of John 20:39.

 

Yes, that a very good way of putting it - joining-the-dots. It is often in that light that I view the OT prophecies concerning Jesus. They are not condensed into an easily understood prediction that everyone can read and understand, but rather are sneezed all over the place. While this might seem to be a weakness, leaving some of the prophecies open to the criticism of being ambiguous and out-of-context, it is absolutely brilliant in a way that few people realize.

 

What better way to verify that the Bible was written by the finger of God that to scatter the pieces of the puzzle beyond boundaries that no man can cross. Most of the OT authors lived in completely different times and places having no means of collaborating on a consistent story. If there was only one author, or even a group of authors that could communicate with each other, then it could be assumed that they somehow could have "synchronized" their stories in some way, but even then it would be an incredible stretch for them to make it tie together in the way it did.

 

Not only that, they had no idea what future event, or events, their prophecies were pointing towards. God kept them in the dark because by doing so their own thoughts could not distort or interfere with what God through his Spirit was inspiring them to write. The apostle Peter expressed it like this:

 

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.  For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

 

And:

 

"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.  It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things." (1 Peter 1:10-12)

 

Finally, it was only much, much later, when Jesus was crucified, that any of it made sense. And even if Jesus would have had the power to manipulate some of his actions to match the Messianic prophecies, such as riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, there are others that were beyond his ability to influence, such as the fact that his legs were not broken to speed up the crucifiction, which is one of the things that was normally always done.

 

No other book of prophecies known to man can make such claims. Here, for example, is a link to a page that lists the "fulfilled" prophecies in the Quaran:

 

http://www.alislam.o...prophecies.html

 

Look at them. There is absolutely nothing that ties them together. They are all incredibly ambiguous - with one notable exception!

 

The exception, funnily enough, is the only one that coincides with Biblical prophecy, namely "The Establishment of Isreal". That prophecy was definitely fulfilled, but it was already written as a prophecy in the Bible hundreds of years earlier on!



#55 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 October 2013 - 02:51 AM

I was a Christian because, like many, I accepted and believed what I was taught. It was blind faith, and nothing more. That changed when I began to examine things on my own. So, yes, it is a matter of evidence.

 

If you accepted and believed on "blind faith" alone, then you must not have studied the scripture at all, because it isn't scriptural to accept Christ on "Blind Faith". In fact, as a Christian, you are to study the evidences (of the eye-witnesses to the teaching of Jesus) to insure what others tell you are in-line with said teachings! In fact, Jesus put himself on display for His disciples to physically test Him (“put your finger in the holes on my hands, and your fist in the hole in my side”) empirically (after His resurrection) so that they would KNOW that He was who he said He was.
 

It was a study of the historical evidences that convinced me to no longer be a hedonistic atheist!

 

So, yes indeed, it IS a matter of the evidences.
 



#56 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 01 October 2013 - 05:51 AM

If you accepted and believed on "blind faith" alone, then you must not have studied the scripture at all, because it isn't scriptural to accept Christ on "Blind Faith". In fact, as a Christian, you are to study the evidences (of the eye-witnesses to the teaching of Jesus) to insure what others tell you are in-line with said teachings! In fact, Jesus put himself on display for His disciples to physically test Him (“put your finger in the holes on my hands, and your fist in the hole in my side”) empirically (after His resurrection) so that they would KNOW that He was who he said He was.
 

It was a study of the historical evidences that convinced me to no longer be a hedonistic atheist!

 

So, yes indeed, it IS a matter of the evidences.
 

 

Yes, and the evidence of the highest order: from God the Creator Himself.

 

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is..." Exodus 20:11

 

There is also a very good reason why the Lord inspired Moses to write, "and the evening and the morning was the ______ day" in Genesis one six times. That was meant to leave the reader no doubt about the time frame of creation.



#57 Dredge

Dredge

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 29 April 2017 - 09:08 PM

Okay, I know this topic has been brought up before and I wanted to start a separate thread as some threads were going off topic discussing this issue.
 
As a young earth creationist, I believe that God created in 6 literal days, not periods of time.  Here are a few of my reasons.
 
In the very beginning of Genesis, starting with chapter 1, vs. 3, God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.  God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.  God called the light "day," and the darkness "night."  And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
 
Now, without getting into the literal meaning of the word 'day' (yom), if you were to simply read this passage, do you interpret this as a day like we know it or some unknown period of time?  It should be very clear that 'day' means a literal 24 hour day (And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day).
 
What does God say about the 7th day?  In Genesis chapter 2, vs 2, it states:  "By the seventh day God had finished the work He had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.  Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
 
God rested on the 7th day.  Did he rest for billions of years?  Did God bless the billions of years and make those billions of years holy? 
 
I've read other posts where some individuals believe the New Testament made the Old Testament obsolete.  This is far from true.  There are some excellent articles here:
 
http://www.answersin...ted-in-six-days
 
http://creation.com/...tament-creation
 
http://www.icr.org/article/2031/
 
If you believe God used evolution during creation, why?  Forget man and the theory of evolution.  We all know man is fallible.  The theory of evolution is constantly changing.  The bible has not changed in 1000s of years.  The book of Genesis is no exception.  There are some very strong verses that support creation.  I urge you to read all of these and again, forget the evolutionary mindset and attempt to read these passages as if evolution wasn't a contender.  What part or parts of the bible support God using evolution? Are these verses null and void because man and evolution have trumped scripture?  I've bolded a few key parts of some of the verses:
 
Revelation 4:11
 
“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”
 
Hebrews 11:3
 
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
 
John 1:1-3
 
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
 
Colossians 1:16
 
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
 
Genesis 1:24
 
And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.
 
Exodus 20:8-11
 
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
 
2 Peter 3:3-6 (Note there is a reference to Noah's flood in the last sentence)
 
Knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
 
John 5:46-47
For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”
 
I would like to avoid using evolution in this thread, i.e., "Well, according to the theory of evolution, 1, 2, and 3 occurred because of X, Y, and Z".
 
What is your biblical support for an old earth and evolution?  Where and how did God use evolution? Do you believe we (humans) evolved from apes and if so, why?  Again, biblical support only please. 
 
I would like to see a theistic evolutionist or someone that doesn't believe in a literal 6 days post a timeline of events from the beginning to present, i.e. Discuss the 6 days and what happened on those days to the best of your ability. How many years ago was it?  When did Christ come into the picture?  How many years ago was it?  Did dinosaurs exist with man?  Once again, biblical support only please.
 
As Christians, we must always continue to strive to learn the truth.  God and His Word are truth.  Man will constantly try to sway us from God and have us believe we space dust.  Man will tell us the bible isn't true and science can explain everything.  Who's word do you chose?



#58 Dredge

Dredge

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 29 April 2017 - 09:25 PM

Not taking the six days of creation in Genesis literally leads to all manner of theological chaos. Consider, for example, the beliefs of Cardinal George Pell, a Catholic theistic evolutionist who believes that humans evolved from Neandethals and that Adam and Eve were "certainly not" real, historical people: Pell's beliefs creates massive problems for the authenticity of Scripture. For startes, there are several references to Adam and Eve in the New Testament, all of which are rendered laughably meaningless if Adam And Eve didn't exist.
Then there are the two geneologies in the Old and New Testaments that go all the way back to Adam. If Adam didn't exist, these geneologies are not merely false, they are fabricated lies.

So, the moral of the story is, thesitic evolution is poison and a demonically-inspired heresy.

#59 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 April 2017 - 10:03 PM

Hi Dredge, Welcome to the forum. 

 

I see that you are an OEC, but you also take the six days of creation literally. Does this mean you are a gap theorist? 



#60 Dredge

Dredge

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 01 May 2017 - 12:10 AM

Hi Dredge, Welcome to the forum. 
 
I see that you are an OEC, but you also take the six days of creation literally. Does this mean you are a gap theorist?


Firstly, thank you for your welcome.

No, I'm not a gap theorist.  I believe in six consecutive days - no gaps - as in Monday to Saturday.  In effect, I believe in two stages of creation - the earth was in existence before the famous "six days" of creation.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users