I did some research into old earth Christian beliefs and I found it rather interesting.
There are three views that I know of:
1.Gap theory
2.Progressive creationism
3.Theistic evolution
I see any of these views as possible, they do not effect my belief in God. Although I remain an un-believer in evolution..that is macroevolution. I do not have a complete understanding of each of these views but I will learn.
Gap theory and Progressive creationism tend to be more strict in following the literal Genesis account of creation but theistic evolution possibly take Genesis a bit more figuratively.
The Gap theory is where there were two creations. The first was in verse 1 of Genesis 1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The second was from verse 2 onwards. In this gap a history is not exactly told and is omitted from the Genesis account. God destroyed the first creation and re-made the second. Gap theorists also have arguments from other areas of scripture. For a little more information check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_Creationism.
Also the famous "Dake" commentary accepts the Gap theory.
The Progressive creationism is one I am more interested in. I am still looking into what it holds.
I recommend "Reasons to Believe" at http://www.reasons.org/. They are scientists who are of the "progressive creationism" view as far as I understand. This means they accept an old earth but reject macroevolution. They write several posts on evolution as a myth. Here are the links:
1.The theory of evolution is a myth:
http://www.reasons.org/evolution/macro-vs-micro-evolution/
evolution-mythology-part-1-5-theory-evolution-myth
2.Evolution is not a scientific theory:
http://www.reasons.org/evolution/macro-vs-micro-evolution/
evolution-mythology-part-2-5-evolution-not-scientific-theory
3.The myth of abiogenesis:
http://www.reasons.org/evolution/macro-vs-micro-evolution/
evolution-mythology-part-3-5-myth-abiogenesis
4.The myth of macro evolution:
http://www.reasons.org/evolution/macro-vs-micro-evolution/
evolution-mythology-part-4-5-myth-macroevolution
5.Conclusion:
http://www.reasons.org/evolution/macro-vs-micro-evolution/
evolution-mythology-part-5-5-conclusion
Also: This is what they think Genesis means in relation to old earth
thinking.
http://www.reasons.org/does-old-earth-creationism-contradict-
genesis-1
Hey Dan,
ReplyDeleteI'll stick with 'Reason to Believe' as their position appears to be the most rational and the one that you appear to be leaning towards, ok?
1.The theory of evolution is a myth
Rhetoric. Pure and simple rhetoric.
Not only to they equate abiogenesis with evolution, but they make these sweeping assertions (Darwin is a prophet?!!) without actually backing them up. They don't even define the theory accurately.
They talk about scientists being denied tenure for holding views in opposition to evolution, but they don't cite any actual cases of this happening.
Apparently quoting Darwin is analogous to quoting the Bible. Though, I don't remember reading any present-day Christians saying; "We now know that the Bible was mistaken when it said..." This frequently occurs in reference to Darwin's work - hardly similar.
They fail, completely, to characterize evolution as a myth because they don't address evolution - they address abiogenesis and naturalism.
Not impressed....
2.Evolution is not a scientific theory:
ReplyDeleteYou only need to look up the scientific definitions of 'evolution' and 'theory' to see that it is a scientific theory.
Their whole argument seems to be that you can't predict mutations and therefore it's unfalsifiable.
The nested hierarchy of life that was proposed by Darwin could have been shattered by the onset of genetics. If DNA sequencing had shown that chimps were more closely related to dogs or dolphins than humans, evolution would have been thoroughly falsified. But, in fact, genetics completely supports Darwin's predictions about the inter-relatedness of life.
The finding of Tiktaalik is good confirmation of the theories ability to make predictions.
The complete absence of any 'out of place' fossils that would destroy the theory is further support that the theory is sound.
Note that they do not propose any tests or possible falsifiers. They just assert that it is the way they say.
And it's very easy to dispute Henry Morris' charge about never seeing evolution happen because we've seen it many, many times!
Carrying on...
3.The myth of abiogenesis:
ReplyDeleteI'll happily admit that I have no idea how life got started on this planet. No idea at all. But I wouldn't trust these guys.
Here's why;
"Richard Dawkins admits “the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard.”".
What is it with these guys and lying about Richard Dawkins? In the very article they lifted this quote from, he continues by saying;
"But how much more improbable is the idea of an intelligent designer capable of taking all that scrap and turning it into a 747? After all, that intelligent designer, a far more complex entity than a Jumbo Jet, had himself somehow to be created."He was using the well-know Jumbo Jet argument as a jumping-off point to talk about how complexity arrives late in the universe.
By quote-mining him here to make it look like he disagrees with his own position, they are doing serious harm to their credibility.
They may be right. Maybe God started life on earth, maybe not. But why do they have to use such dishonest tactics to make their point.
3 down...
4.The myth of macro evolution:
ReplyDeleteCan I just point you to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Which has 29+ evidences for macroevolution if you can find the time to read it.
The argument against macroevolution is like saying; 'you can walk 20 paces but you can't walk 20 miles'.
There has never been an observed 'barrier' to what they call microevolution and there is no reason to think that sub-species cannot evolve away from each other so much that they, in term, begin giving rise to sub-species of their own.
Last one!
ReplyDelete5.Conclusion:
Well, they just sum-up what they discussed in the past articles, so not much to comment on here.
I will have a look at their references though.
'evolutionary zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé' who they quote several times was a proponent of Lamarckism. He didn't think that external forces brought about evolution by natural selection, he thought organisms decided for themselves that they were going to evolve!
I don't have a clue what Wolfgang Smith is talking about on his Wiki page; very confusing!
I know they reference Michael Behe a number of times and being as he said that intelligent design was science (along with astrology, alchemy and taro cards) I'm not sure I trust his opinion on what constitutes good science.
Gavin de Beer is a staunch evolutionist, but they quote him (from 1971!) as if he doesn't believe it.
They quote Steven M. Stanley's "Macroevolution: Patterns & Process" from 1979 as if he doesn't accept macroevolution but his book is about explaining that very process!
I don't really want to continue any more. It's just a mess or poor scholarship and empty rhetoric.
They may be right. God may be responsible for everything. Evolution might be false. But if they wanted to demonstrate these things, they went about it in the wrong way (in my opinion).
No need to respond to all/any of these points, I just thought I'd toss a few ideas out there to keep you on your toes!
Let me know how your continued research goes.
Regards,
Matt
Hey ya Matt,
ReplyDeleteThere are many points you have brought forward. I'll stick with what you are saying here..defending Dawkins.
"I'll happily admit that I have no idea how life got started on this planet. No idea at all. But I wouldn't trust these guys."
Wow, thanks for that. Alot of the time atheists smudge over that one.
"Here's why;
"Richard Dawkins admits “the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard.”".
What is it with these guys and lying about Richard Dawkins? In the very article they lifted this quote from, he continues by saying;
"But how much more improbable is the idea of an intelligent designer capable of taking all that scrap and turning it into a 747? After all, that intelligent designer, a far more complex entity than a Jumbo Jet, had himself somehow to be created."He was using the well-know Jumbo Jet argument as a jumping-off point to talk about how complexity arrives late in the universe.
By quote-mining him here to make it look like he disagrees with his own position, they are doing serious harm to their credibility."
I don't think they were saying that he disagrees with his own position.
Stop jumping to conclusions and always heading on witch hunts regarding creationists.
Here is the paragraph they talked about him in "These probability arguments are irrefutable. Some evolutionists offer hand-waving contrary arguments, but even Richard Dawkins admits “the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard.”
They are saying that even atheists are accepting that aboigenesis is improbable and the probability is not in favour of life forming itself. And they were right to do so.
If Richard Dawkins is saying what he actually is saying there, he is mis-representing God and is dis-honest to say the least. He compares God with nature...no Christian believer in God does this that I know of!
Christians view God as an axiom. Not a substance that can be calculated.
Cya,
Dan
By the way,
ReplyDeleteYou recommended Reason's to believe to me... didn't you?
You said:
"But I wouldn't trust these guys."
I recommend Reason's to Believe because the alternative is Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, et al.
ReplyDeleteCompared to them, the RtB guys are awesome!
I still wouldn't trust them to honestly present science though...
Now, where's my pitchfork and flaming torch?
;)
LOL
ReplyDeleteHey there DB :) Would you believe that evolution is a lot of macro evolution? I don't know if I understand the real difference between the two... I'll have to check out a few of your links :)
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to science, I like to keep an open mind. I like the theory; I think it's very interesting. I can see how some form of change in life has happened; I don't like to say I "believe" in it, because science to me isn't something you have to believe. They could have got it wrong, God could have done things in that way for a reason, I mean there are so many possibilities and I don't see a need to choose really. I find it hard to believe in some big conspiracy like you hear about at Rays.
I think fossils are cool though, I just watched a TV show on how whales evolved a couple of weeks ago, I was disappointed that they didn't show a whole lot of fossils in it though. They showed one that was HUGE, but apparently it went extinct, couldn't handle the deeper oceans or something like that. Apparently the whales survived by a really interesting circumstance. They had a big shark that was quite quick and gave them a real fight for survival but as the oceans cooled, the whales could go north into the colder water and the shark couldn't... that sounds pretty neat to me. Apparently they have teeth and legs as they develop in the womb but then they are absorbed because they aren't needed, I wish they had pictures instead of computer generated graphics for that. Almost all of the show was like that, though they did show a few of the actual fossils. I think whales had some kind of evolution going on. My fav is the Narwhal, it has a huge horn (tooth actually) like a unicorn and I used to love unicorns as a kid.
I think the technique of rebuilding on skeletons is really cool. When they take a skeleton and use it to show what the animal should look like. That's quite an art in itself, I've seen it on some Crime shows, they can take a skull for example and they know how to build up the muscles and stuff from the bones and at the end they have a face and apparently it's quite accurate :)
I also don't see why everyone gets so insulted by thinking that we have ape "cousins"... I think they are wonderful creatures and they are somewhat a reminder of what we could be without the gift of our "higher intellect" :) Maybe that's why God created them, I mean they look so much like us, why not think they are somehow related, just looking at them makes me it might be true... and that doesn't bother me at all. I don't think it makes us any less gifted or any less children of God, he created us both right? If you take the definition of the word “ape” we both fit the definition but some people act as if we’re saying we’re related to the scum of the earth or something, as if we should be ashamed of one of God’s creatures which is just silly in my opinion. I’m sure if God exists, he loves all the apes, since he created them and us, maybe we're related so we can see what we might look like if we weren't created in "God's Image" which I always thought meant our ability to reason and not our actual body image.
I really wish Ray would stop talking about evolution though... there are some really weird things being said because of it. I mean to think that females and males would "evolve" separately and "somehow find each other against all odds", I mean that's just an insane comment... insane being a figure of speech of course but for some I really wonder if that might fit little too closely.
I think it just makes Ray look well, dumb really and I don't like to think that, I find it very uncomfortable (and as I typed that I realized the bad pun...sorry) I don’t see why he feels it’s necessary to call people idiots for thinking it might be true. If I think evolution makes sense, does that mean I’m hell bound for it? He makes it sound that way…
Anyway, thanks for the links, I’ll check them out tomorrow :)
Hey Kerri Love,
ReplyDeleteYeah I just don't know what to think about evolution. As I have told ExPatMatt...I have people with PHD's all around me telling me different things, I am no scientist, I have not gone and done all the tests that these guys do and I am not likely to be able to.
With my own reasoning and understanding at the moment I cannot see it as probable unless God guided it. It's a big story to tell and will need to be well confirmed before I could accept it. Although I have not done much study regarding it.
I am more interested in what is more important...God. The Creator before the creature and creation. There are Christians who believe in evolution, as far as I know it is not a salvation requirement to dis-believe evolution. Don't get me wrong, creation is awesome! Any sane person will admire it.
"Apparently they have teeth and legs as they develop in the womb but then they are absorbed because they aren't needed, I wish they had pictures instead of computer generated graphics for that".
Yeah, I remember some people saying once that human embryos (spelling?) had gill slits. Apparently they actually had nothing to do with breathing, they developed into the thymus gland, parathyroid glands and middle ear canals.
Narwhals are interesting creatures ay!? I remember studying them for school (I was homeschooled). I studied Robert Peary aswell and his adventures...
Well Cya,
Dan
Oops just saw your question,
ReplyDelete"Would you believe that evolution is a lot of macro evolution? I don't know if I understand the real difference between the two... I'll have to check out a few of your links :)"
I think you may have meant a lot of micro-evolution.
Micro-evolution means: the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.
Macro-evolution means: Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution.
I don't know about your question...it could be possible. Though it would take alot of accidental mutations (if God didn't direct it) in the right direction to form exciting new benefits for a creature. Eg. the eye.
“Yeah, I remember some people saying once that human embryos (spelling?) had gill slits. Apparently they actually had nothing to do with breathing; they developed into the thymus gland, parathyroid glands and middle ear canals.”
ReplyDeleteI read about that too, I think it was corrected later on. I can understand why people might have thought a human embryo would need them though so I think it would have been an honest mistake to make since they are surrounded by fluid :)
Yes sorry I meant micro… thanks for noticing what I meant. I think it would take a very long time for any form of evolution to occur, it’s too bad we can’t go back and actually see it, then again we might get the chance after we die… I hope so!
I like to think that any mistakes in the world could be allowed by God. We learn from mistakes right? So maybe God is teaching us with what we might call his “mistakes” of course I think he did it purposely so it’s not a mistake at all. That’s the way I like to look at the other apes. They look a lot like us, and in a way they show us what our existence could have been like if we had not been “made in his image” and given the gift of higher reasoning. I don’t think the other apes can “sin” for example, so maybe the way they live is something like the way we could have lived in Eden. They have no shame for nakedness for example. They’re lives aren’t perfect like ours is said to have been in Eden, but I think it gives us a little bit of an idea.
God has a purpose for why things are the way they are, I just don’t think we really know what his purpose was. I like to think of it as a learning tool for us, but the reason we need to learn it is not yet revealed. Maybe when we finally figure it out, we’ll know why we were supposed to.
We were given great curiosity about our world and the universe around us, I’m sure there is a reason for that. I don’t think we have all the answers, but the answers we do have are fascinating, and with science it’s possible to change those answers with further understanding and God does tell us in the Bible to seek that understanding out and not just be ignorant fools so I think there is a place for evolutionary studies, I think we are supposed to try and figure it out.
I’m not worried that it might be wrong, I’m just glad they don’t claim to know they are positive about it and have stopped looking. I would be worried if they said they knew 100% for sure and stopped looking for evidence, which I haven’t seen them say or do yet so I think we’re ok. So I do agree with you, I don’t think that believing it or not believing it has much to do with our salvation. I think it's fun to think about it though :)
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteI missed this one from an earlier post;
"If Richard Dawkins is saying what he actually is saying there, he is mis-representing God and is dis-honest to say the least."I am willing to admit that Dawkins is being dishonest regarding your God.
Are you willing to admit that preachers like Comfort, Ham & Hovind repeatedly mis-represent science and are therefore dishonest, at the least?
It's exactly the same thing, but I've yet to see a Christian call out people like this when they tell blatant falsehoods and it bugs me.
"Macroevolutionary studies" You say this as if there is a field of science with this name. Real scientists make no distinction between micro and macro, all evolutionary change is driven by the same processes.
A single species splits into sub species, when they can no longer breed, you have a speciation event (we've directly observed this). This process just repeats and repeats and repeats. It's only when you look at the big picture that you see how far removed some species have become from the parent population and even further from their cousins.
You should check out Thunderf00t's YouTube videos, his 'Made Easy' series for schools is brilliant.
Hello KL,
ReplyDelete"God has a purpose for why things are the way they are, I just don’t think we really know what his purpose was. I like to think of it as a learning tool for us, but the reason we need to learn it is not yet revealed. Maybe when we finally figure it out, we’ll know why we were supposed to."
I suppose you are talking about evolution?
I have wondered about why God would use evolution if He did. My only thought would be that God wanted everything to be as free will as possible, it would be His free-willed creation :). His creation would even have the ability to create, understand things and have fellowship with Him. But He made us human with the ability to make mistakes and have an animal body to keep us humble. God is always talking about how high His thoughts are above us...and how right He is to say so!
DB
Hey Matt,
ReplyDeleteThose meanings I got straight from wiki. Unless they are wrong aswell and I am being mislead as to their meanings :)
If I take Ray Comfort's dsecriptions literaly such as a dog developing eyes, I would say yes Ray would be lying, because that is not what evolution would say happened. However I see Ray's principle that he is trying to get across.
Naturally I would like to defend people of simliar views just as you would like to defend Richard Dawkins as you have done in the past.
You are right, we should probably be more honest about others. As long as we first remove the plank from our own eye before we remove the speck from our brother's. Jesus said that... He is very wise. Hypocracy is not a nice thing.
Thankyou you two for your comments!
God Bless!
DB
I suppose you are talking about evolution?
ReplyDeleteI have wondered about why God would use evolution if He did. My only thought would be that God wanted everything to be as free will as possible, it would be His free-willed creation :). His creation would even have the ability to create, understand things and have fellowship with Him. But He made us human with the ability to make mistakes and have an animal body to keep us humble. God is always talking about how high His thoughts are above us...and how right He is to say so!
Not just evolution, I’m talking about everything… the universe, germs, cruelty, love, everything. So I think you understand what I mean :) A free-willed creation could be a very good way to describe it. Like if the big bang is true, he could have a reason for using that method to create the universe for some purpose we might not understand. I like to think that God could use any way possible to create existence and the way existence works. Maybe we’ve unlocked some of the secrets but I think we are barely scratching the surface. The law of Gravity for example, we thought we had it pretty much figured out, but there have been new discoveries in space that are making people realize there might be more to it then we thought. That doesn’t make what we’ve learned to far to be dishonest, it’s just the best we’ve come up with the evidence we’ve found so far.
The mysteries are far from being solved and I don’t think we can understand why without understanding the mystery it self. This would be why I don’t say I “believe” in evolution. What we understand so far could only be a small part of much bigger picture. I think they have a lot of evidence to support their theory, but yes, it’s still a theory just a very well researched theory. The things they are finding still support the theory, but they might find something that blows the theory away, no one knows what the future will bring :) So I don’t think it’s wrong to teach it, to show the evidence as to why it is thought to be a good theory and how everything has supported it so far, I just like to add that we don’t know everything.
I don’t think God would give us all the answers, that would be too easy and we wouldn’t learn anything from it. I think he may have created us to love him, but I don’t think that is the only reason. Maybe he takes great joy in watching life, how it evolves and learns and adapts. This is his creation after all, so in a way he’s kind of like a scientist, he’s watching his creation grow and maybe he finds it as fascinating as we do. When we have children, we can have hopes about how they will grow and the adults they become, but we still have to watch them grow. They have free will and the ability to make mistakes and learn from them. A parent can find great joy in watching their child figure things out, so I think God could be doing the same thing. We can’t teach our children everything, but we can tell them what is right and wrong and teach them and hope they make the right choices, so I think God could be doing the same :)
I like to look at it that way, I like to think what it would be like to be the father of every human on earth. Sure they’ll be disappointments, but there are a lot of people doing good things and I’d like to think he can have a little pride to go with the disappointments. As a species, we might not be doing all that well yet, there is still a lot of war and injustice and greed, and I’m sure that part might be “heart breaking” for him to have to watch, but I’m sure there are a few out there that fill his heart with love as well. (cont)
(cont) I think that in the past, humans acted a lot differently and so they might have seen God a lot differently kinda like I’m doing by looking at him as this great father looking at his children. Children back then were looked at a lot differently; people were superstitious and didn’t know why anything happened. If you look at all the other old religions they think gods caused thunder and ghosts caused insanity, that epilepsy was demonic possession. We understand a little bit more so we can look at God in this new light. I think he could have sent Jesus as a teacher to help them understand some of the things they thought he did, that he might not have done. Maybe he felt that was the only fair way to interfere with us without taking away or free will creation as you put it. Why do we have to give in to entropy and think we have all the answers already, how does that show God glory in light of his complex creation. If his creation is this complex and we still seek to understand it, then why can’t we continue to try and understand him as well? If he made life this complex then shouldn’t he be just as complex?
ReplyDeleteI think I will go further with this on my blog :)
Hye KL
ReplyDeleteYou spoke of evolution,
"So I don’t think it’s wrong to teach it, to show the evidence as to why it is thought to be a good theory and how everything has supported it so far, I just like to add that we don’t know everything."
"I think he may have created us to love him, but I don’t think that is the only reason."
I agree with your statement there. In fact it is one of the first commandments. As christina this commandment is a pure joy because we know who God is and what He has done for us. We also know that He wants the best for us...the Ten commandments are evidence of that.
Yes and what I would think would be awsome is to teach God and the evidence for Him. I think it is coming in as "Intelligent Design" these days.
"When we have children, we can have hopes about how they will grow and the adults they become, but we still have to watch them grow. They have free will and the ability to make mistakes and learn from them. A parent can find great joy in watching their child figure things out, so I think God could be doing the same thing."
I like your analogy, although one difference I would point out that I believe the Bible emphasizes is that God does not enjoy watching us make our own wrong decisions. A good Father will punish us when we do wrong. There are two groups of people. Followers of God and non-followers.
In the beginning man was God's children but man decided not to be God's children by rebelling by choice. God gave us this choice but if God wants a good world and people don't want to come back to Him as their Father then He will have to dis-own them. The children (Christians) that desire to follow His ways and to love Him, He will teach us and grow us.
He will not find pleasure in anyones bad decisions, even Christians.
He gave us the opportunity to go againts Him because He wants us to be loyal. How can you have loyalty without the opportunity to be dis-loyal?
"We can’t teach our children everything, but we can tell them what is right and wrong and teach them and hope they make the right choices, so I think God could be doing the same :)"
I recommend a book by C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity) that Esther and I are reading at the moment. He talks about the inner conscience as evidence of God telling every man what is right and wrong. It is called the argument from morality. Very interesting.
The relationship between God and man is not just a Father son relationship but a Judge and sinner realtionship. God is willing to have anyone back to Himself but some will not come back. So God must dis-own them... so we come back to topic of Hell.
"If his creation is this complex and we still seek to understand it, then why can’t we continue to try and understand him as well?"
Yep I can see what you are saying, but remember one thing the Bible says is that God is the same yesturday today and forever. The Bible is the Word of God and it will not change. All understanding of God must be based on the Bible...all other views would be relative. Eg. "God to me is so and so"...another says "No but God to me is so and so".
That leads no where and comes to the scary conclusion that morality is relative. This is one point atheists and the like have to accept.
It would all come down to opinion.
Cya,
DB
(cont) I am glad that God is the ultimate Judge and will give to man what he deserves...although He is merciful to the repentant sinner...PRAISE GOD!
ReplyDeleteNote KL:
ReplyDeleteI said:
"But He made us human with the ability to make mistakes and have an animal body to keep us humble"
When I said mistakes, I meant human error not moral mistakes. In the beginning God gave us the choice but He originaly didn't design us to make moral mistakes.
You know what I mean.
DB
“In the beginning man was God's children but man decided not to be God's children by rebelling by choice.”
ReplyDeleteNo, just because a child makes a bad choice, that doesn’t make them no longer a child. I can rebel against my Parents but I’m still their child. No matter what we do, we will always be God’s children.
I also don’t believe God would disown his children, so I think that is a false teaching. Of course he will be disappointed by our bad choices, but he will continue to love us as a loving parent does.
The bible teaches that our relationship with God is a judge and criminal relationship. I do not believe this, and as I read the bible, this is not what the spirit is telling me. He wants us to be good children and make the right choices, and he will punish those who do bad things. To me that is still very much a Parent/Child relationship.
People who want to enforce law would try to make God look like a cold hearted judge figure, this is not what the spirit is telling me. To think that the Bible is the end of God’s teaching is nothing more then idolatry. God speaks to us though the Holy Spirit, he does not need words on paper. To me that is nothing more then a graven image. It is a guide, but one that has been turned into something it was not meant to be. Before the bible, God spoke to the people though the Holy Spirit; there were no words or paper. We have fallen by using the bible as an idol that we now put all our worship into. We have lost our connection with God as we were meant to have it. I’m sorry that the spirit doesn’t show you this the way it has shown it to me.
Yes everyone is going to try and interpret the spirit in their own way that is the freedom God has given us. We have to learn from our own mistakes, just like any child. He can try to guide us to make the right choices, but he can’t do it for us. When I realized what the bible truly was, I could feel the spirit within me, telling me I was right. I felt a great peace by this and I thank God for opening my eyes. I hope he can open yours too :)
KL,
ReplyDeleteI sense you are upset with me? I don't apologise. I want to speak the truth.
One of the dangers of interpreting the Bible is that we can fall into the trap of interpreting the way we want it to and if it makes us "feel" good then it must be right. I have done this in the past. Feelings aren't an accurate way to discern truth.
The Bible says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
If you go to Ray's site he has put a very good explanation of the law and God and man.
You seem to believe in hell as an eternity away from God as I take from previous conversations. Yet you seem to think that God wouldn't dis-own ... send people to hell?
The main teachings of hell were from Jesus himself. If you read Revelation you will find that it is the Lamb (Jesus) opening the seals of judgement on the earth....yes Jesus is our mediator between God and man but yet He also says that He came to bring a sword.
God will punish evil doers and the ones that reject Him He will reject.
The real children of God are the ones who do His will.
If God changes His revelations to us throughout history then why should we trust His revelations now? They could change tomorrow.
The fascinating thing I find is that the Bible agrees with itself over 66 books written by diferent people in different time periods. I believe God speaks to us today but it must be consistant with how God has spoken to us in the past.
The New testament is the Old testament hidden and the old is in the new revealed. when I look back in the old testament I see it pointing toward the new.
Cya,
DB
The New testament is "in" the Old testament hidden and the old is in the new revealed. when I look back in the old testament I see it pointing toward the new.
ReplyDeleteSorry I forgot that important word "in"
The only way I could rationalize hell was by taking out the physical part. What has been revealed to me by the Holy Spirit is that people are idolizing a book instead of listening to God. I'm not made at you, not in the least, but I hope you listen to God once in awhile and not spending just reading :) God has shown me that he doesn't need a book to speak to me, his spirit speaks to me everyday, I've just finnaly realized I should listen to his voice instead of reading words printed in a book :)
ReplyDeleteI have something to add, my new insight into God allows me to understand why God doesn't answer all prayers of the faithful, or warn them of natual disasters. The bible said he did this before but the fact he doesn't do it now made me wonder why.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned freedom and that really makes sense. If he were to give us warnings like that, we wouldn't really be free. Freedom comes with a very heavy price :)
Hello KL,
ReplyDeleteGod does not change, Since God has been consistant for the past few thousand years then I have no reason to think He would tell me something different and contradictary.
The idea of idolatry you get comes straight from the Bible...but if you only pick what you want to believe concerning the Bible then what makes you think that idolatry is listening to the very word of God?
"I have something to add, my new insight into God allows me to understand why God doesn't answer all prayers of the faithful, or warn them of natual disasters. The bible said he did this before but the fact he doesn't do it now made me wonder why."
God does answer all prayers of the faithful even today...where did that change?
Either God says no or the person isn't faithful or is living in sin.
James says "The effective fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much". I have experienced this in my own life. Provided I am walking with God.
God does warn us of things to come...it is in His Word. If you study prophecy etc and reasons why God does something in the Bible then that overlaps to us today. But God still even speaks separetly from the Bible today but if it contradicts what he has said in the past then it cannot be of God.
Jesus's Bible was the Old testament and He quotes it all the time. If He uses it then why am I wrong to use it now?
If you are intersted, David Pawson does a whole 3 hour talk on natural disasters and why bad thing happen to people. If you can get hold of that it may be of some worth to you.
Cya,
DB
You keep believing that DB, I have my truth that I was looking for.
ReplyDelete