Posted on 03/31/2012 6:04:29 PM PDT by Borges
There is a lot of evidence of Noah's flood lying around, but the canyon isn't part of it. The canyon is basically an electrical scar.
ltr
bump
The Black Sea perhaps. The Grand Canyon to base level, no. And I am a believer in Genesis.
One religion comes from ancient writings (over two thousand plus years old) from many who interacted directly and indirectly with obvious diety. The other religion has no god, (supporting writings less than 160 years old) proposes matter sprang from nothingness, and all life in its near-infinite variety sprang from the same nothingness - taking millions or billion of years.
I've studied both 'religions' for over 65 years - one stands above the other through observable evidence.
We did battle at the Grand Canyon over 25 years ago. They had a sign near the bottom of the canyon - pointing to a dark layer they claimed was the 'Silurian' layer - where only ferns were present on earth.
We (Bible Science Association) got permission from national government to take a small sample of that layer. It was taken with great care, the process extensively documented by film, both still and live video. Pine pollen was found in the sample. The other side went nuts, claiming we allowed the sample to be polluted. We challenged them to take their own sample, and allow us to observe. They agreed... we watched, they found pine pollen as well. They took the sign down, and never gave further full attention to their claims of how the various layers of the Grand Canyon came about.
A world of honest science can be found on the internet. A good place to start is at THIS LINK were links to the Bible Science Association, the Institute for Creation Research, and many associated links can be found and followed.
Science grew during the Rennassiance and was fostered by the Church. To me, today’s separating Christian faith and science is a false separation. God gave us the ability to reason, we did not create it ourselves.It's worth noting that the man who could be considered the Father of Modern Science, and one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Isaac Newton, spent more time studying the bible than he did inventing calculus and describing the laws of physics.
Never made sense to me either. But it is what “they” say the Bible says.
Born in sin and will go to Hell unless they accept Jesus as their personal savior, something they can’t do until the age of reason.
The logical extension is the only way to guarantee that one commits no sin and therefore goes to Heaven is to die in the womb...
I’ll grant the ad hominem against you (not against that quack you mentioned) but the rest you’ll have to prove. I directed every response to a statement you made so I’m not even sure where you’re pulling the strawman from.
Now I’ll admit I’m about as well versed in creation theory as the flat earth theory but I have to accept that you know a bit about what most other people know in the fields paleontology and plate tectonics.
So why even bother telling me you have a fossil (buried alive???) from Ohio...big freakin deal, virtually every single part of the planet was under water at one point or another, outside of a mountain range you’ll be hard pressed to find bedrock that doesn’t contain fossilized sea creatures in some amount.
As for Camelback are you changing your story there? What is this caked desert sand cause I’m pretty sure we’re talking about sandstone which is something entirely different then just sand.
But for the hell of it say you’re right? Explain to me then how desert sand, deposited on a mountain, turns into sandstone without being compressed by overhead deposits...where does the pressure come from to do such a thing?
The real problem with evolution and the 6 days controversy is NOT in Genesis.
The real problem is later in Exodus when God makes it very clear: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. Ex 20:10
And then of course: Romans 3:4 Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.”
To me, that 6 days means just what it says: 6 24 hour rotations of the Earth, Days!
Nonsense on the babies go to hell.
Job 3 and 16 and 17: “Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth”. Job said, “Let the day perish on which I was to be born and the night which said a boy is conceived! May that day be darkness.”
“Why was I not hidden like a stillborn child, like infants who never saw light?” Why didn’t I die in my mother’s womb? “There the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest.”
Notice that key word: REST. What’s he saying? He’s saying, “I’d be better off if I miscarried. I would be better off if I were stillborn, so I wouldn’t have to face a troubling life—that I would enter immediately into,” what? “Rest.” “Rest.” Job understood that dying as an infant would bring one to rest and one would escape the pain of suffering. He certainly didn’t believe that infants that die go to hell and some eternal torment, but rather had the confidence that they enter into rest.
Job is the oldest book in the Bible and what most people had FOR a Bible before Moses wrote what we call the first 5 books.
But we can go on: In Ecclesiastes 6:3-5, Solomon laments. He laments that a stillborn child is better off than a person who lives a thousand years twice and doesn’t enjoy the right things. He says, “What’s the point of living two thousand years if you don’t ever enjoy true goodness? You’d be better off a stillborn child.”
What about sin? Total depravity? Are all babies born sinners? Yes!
Do all sinners go to hell?
NO!
John MacArther said it thusly:
How were you saved? By what? Grace! You say, “Well, if God just takes all the babies to heaven, that’s just grace!” Right! But how were you saved? By law? What do you want? Law for babies and grace for you? You had no more to do with your salvation than a helpless infant. That’s why the truest and purest theology is that theology which understands that salvation is by grace, and maybe that’s what Jesus had in mind in part when He said, “You who go to heaven, go to heaven as little children.” Is there a better illustration of a salvation by grace than the salvation of a helpless infant? Any true understanding of Scripture yields the reality that all salvation is by sovereign choice by God through grace based on nothing that the sinner merits, and is there a better illustration of that than saving lost infants? Does that magnify sovereignty? Does it magnify grace? Of course it does.
God chooses whom He will save. And God calls ALL. Some listen, some do not. The choice to go to hell belongs to you. Babies get full unconditional grace. No contradiction.
I do believe you were deceived by my initial post. I’m not here to play games with anyone. I’m a Christian. A few years back I was probably living more in your shoes, but I had the pleasure of meeting some true Christians who are tremendous witnesses to Christ. I didn’t see it coming but one day I was just compelled to ask Christ into my life. I’m often conflicted and have many questions. But I have zero regrets. I post on a thread such as this seeking knowledge from those more informed than me, not to intentionally play the devil’s advocate.
That, sir, is the best answer I’ve ever gotten for that issue/question.
It does not dovetail perfectly with what else I’ve been told, but it is substantial food for thought.
Thanks!
Deceived? No. You were forthright, I was presumptuous.
I also seek. Sometimes by asking, sometimes by poking, and sometimes by confronting.
Amen to that, GF.
Amen bigtime to that also, GF.
Biblical literalists make themselves and other Christians look bad by trying to use the Bible for something it was never intended for. It gets liberals laughing like crazy, who turn around and use it to make atheists out of college students. It’s time to let go of the quaint 19th century American heresy of Biblical literalism; Christians got along fine without it for many centuries before someone declared out of nowhere that the Bible was relative to its interpreter while somehow it was sacred at the same time. When it comes to Creation, it should be enough to believe that God is real, that He is the ultimate cause behind the universe and its creatures, and that He takes a personal interest in what goes on here.
When it comes to Creation, it should be enough to believe that God is real, that He is the ultimate cause behind the universe and its creatures, and that He takes a personal interest in what goes on here.
Good post to wake up to. My best wishes in your search.
Let them laugh all they want - it only shows someone so closed-minded they have not considered some very simple truths and how well these self-evident truths have dovetailed with creation science. Although I’ve heard your argument many times before I simply can not agree -
2 main points:
Genesis is foundational to my true faith. It explains creation and the fall in enough details to explain not only the what, why, and when of our history, yet it also explains our present imperfect state and all the the ways we need to strive to be better.
All of scripture is God-breathed so if there are any outright falsehoods then God and His Holy Word are completely untrustorthy on all His promises. My faith will not allow me to believe God a liar - everyman yes but God no!
Awesome post Waywardson! I often listen to MacArthur too - at oneplace.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.