Bible Vs Scientism
- Thread starter MichaelBoll
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Here's the problem with your "irrefutable" proof: it is based on unproveable assumptions. So while you might consider it "ignorant to even try to say that" the earth is only 6-10,000 years old, there is actually some very sound science behind those views.
Instead of assuming the "millions of years" theory is valid (while winking at the contradictory evidence) and wondering how the Bible fits with it, consider the likelihood that the theory is simply wrong.
If the Bible is wrong about the age of the Earth, what makes you think it is right about the nature of God and the path to salvation? Conversely, if the Bible is right about the nature of God and the path to salvation, why do you assume it is wrong about the age of the Earth?
Instead of assuming the "millions of years" theory is valid (while winking at the contradictory evidence) and wondering how the Bible fits with it, consider the likelihood that the theory is simply wrong.
If the Bible is wrong about the age of the Earth, what makes you think it is right about the nature of God and the path to salvation? Conversely, if the Bible is right about the nature of God and the path to salvation, why do you assume it is wrong about the age of the Earth?
-
1
- Show all
What the freak? In light of the evidence, let me rephrase: "I didn't INTENTIONALLY put any reaction on your post."
Nor would I have chosen a sad face. Nor would I have posted the reaction and then lied about doing so. But it seems clear that the reaction came from my account/device, and so I can only assume that it was another one of those times that I pull my phone out of my pocket, only to find out that it has opened up five apps and three web pages and that I'm one click away from purchasing $8,000 worth of airline tickets to Tibet.
It appears that in a butt-dialing event, my phone has placed a sad emoji on your post. My apologies.
Now that that's settled, do you agree with my INTENTIONAL response to your post, ie: possessing/owing 10,000 talents is not a physical impossibility, and therefore not a valid argument against my point about the tall tree and high mountain?
Nor would I have chosen a sad face. Nor would I have posted the reaction and then lied about doing so. But it seems clear that the reaction came from my account/device, and so I can only assume that it was another one of those times that I pull my phone out of my pocket, only to find out that it has opened up five apps and three web pages and that I'm one click away from purchasing $8,000 worth of airline tickets to Tibet.
It appears that in a butt-dialing event, my phone has placed a sad emoji on your post. My apologies.
Now that that's settled, do you agree with my INTENTIONAL response to your post, ie: possessing/owing 10,000 talents is not a physical impossibility, and therefore not a valid argument against my point about the tall tree and high mountain?
Yes. There were 3 days before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. As I pointed out above, a "day" is a light/dark cycle on earth. On day 4 of creation, God created the sun to govern the day and the moon to govern the night. These are not the cause of the day and the night. Nor are they the cause of the light that God created to form the first day - 3 days before the existence of the sun, moon, and stars.
Yes. The Hebrew word "yowm" is used in the Bible exactly as the English word "day" is used by us. Its default meaning is a 24-hour light/dark cycle on earth (or the 12-hour daylight portion thereof). It is also used idiomatically to refer to a general period of time.
Gen 2:4 is the idiomatic use. Please reexamine all 4 points that I've listed above, and see if you can refute any of them. Thanks.
Psalm 90:4... A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
Please define "day" in that verse.
How so? The sun stood still in the sky, and that particular day lasted longer as a result of the sun's inaction. Also, according to Scientism, the sun didn't actually stand still that day. The earth stopped revolving/orbiting. Which is the truth?
Actually, the word "day" in Ps 90:4 refers to a literal 24-hour day. The point is that God is outside of time as we know it, and doesn't necessarily have to EXPERIENCE our 24-hour light/dark cycles as we do. A thousand years is 365,000 days. The point of Ps 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 is that God could experience a thousand of our years as if they were just one of our 24-hour days (365,000 times FASTER than we do)... or could experience just one of our 24-hour days as if it took a thousand years to pass (365,000 times SLOWER than we do). Neither verse changes the definition of our 24-hour light/dark cycles on earth.
Jocund, see if you can determine the various meanings of "day" in the following...
In the day of Noah, it rained day and night for forty days.
Which refers to an idiomatic general period of time? Which refers to literal 24-hour days? Which refers to the 12-hour daylight portion of a 24-hour day?
Yes. The Hebrew word "yowm" is used in the Bible exactly as the English word "day" is used by us. Its default meaning is a 24-hour light/dark cycle on earth (or the 12-hour daylight portion thereof). It is also used idiomatically to refer to a general period of time.
Gen 2:4 is the idiomatic use. Please reexamine all 4 points that I've listed above, and see if you can refute any of them. Thanks.
Psalm 90:4... A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
Please define "day" in that verse.
How so? The sun stood still in the sky, and that particular day lasted longer as a result of the sun's inaction. Also, according to Scientism, the sun didn't actually stand still that day. The earth stopped revolving/orbiting. Which is the truth?
Actually, the word "day" in Ps 90:4 refers to a literal 24-hour day. The point is that God is outside of time as we know it, and doesn't necessarily have to EXPERIENCE our 24-hour light/dark cycles as we do. A thousand years is 365,000 days. The point of Ps 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 is that God could experience a thousand of our years as if they were just one of our 24-hour days (365,000 times FASTER than we do)... or could experience just one of our 24-hour days as if it took a thousand years to pass (365,000 times SLOWER than we do). Neither verse changes the definition of our 24-hour light/dark cycles on earth.
Jocund, see if you can determine the various meanings of "day" in the following...
In the day of Noah, it rained day and night for forty days.
Which refers to an idiomatic general period of time? Which refers to literal 24-hour days? Which refers to the 12-hour daylight portion of a 24-hour day?
Great posts! I too refute it because the Bible is my ultimate authority, and the Bible refutes it. It's great to meet another Biblical creationist.
Genesis 1:6-8... And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Job 37:18... Can you with him spread out the firmament of the skies, hard as a molten mirror?
Oyster, do you also believe that heaven is a hard, physical barrier that separates the waters below heaven from the waters above heaven (Ps 148:4), and in which the sun, moon, and stars run appointed circuits over the earth?
Genesis 1:6-8... And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Job 37:18... Can you with him spread out the firmament of the skies, hard as a molten mirror?
Oyster, do you also believe that heaven is a hard, physical barrier that separates the waters below heaven from the waters above heaven (Ps 148:4), and in which the sun, moon, and stars run appointed circuits over the earth?
-
1
- Show all
Agreed. The actual fossil evidence is as follows: Billions of dead things buried in sediments that were laid down very rapidly by water - all over the world.
Sounds like a worldwide flood to me.
Interesting that for two centuries, the "expert" geologists bent over backwards to downplay any evidence of flooding being the cause of large fossil deposits. More recently, because of large fossil sites such as the Karoo Supergroup (and because people are no longer gullible enough to believe that millions of animals died, and then laid there on the ground for millions of years - undisturbed by scavengers and decay - as dust ever so slowly covered them up) they have no choice but to acknowledge the role of LARGE flooding events in the fossil record. They, as members of the Cult of Scientism, will never acknowledge the possibility of a single huge flooding event, but they are at least now acknowledging that the fossil record is best explained by "localized large flooding events".
Sounds like a worldwide flood to me.
Interesting that for two centuries, the "expert" geologists bent over backwards to downplay any evidence of flooding being the cause of large fossil deposits. More recently, because of large fossil sites such as the Karoo Supergroup (and because people are no longer gullible enough to believe that millions of animals died, and then laid there on the ground for millions of years - undisturbed by scavengers and decay - as dust ever so slowly covered them up) they have no choice but to acknowledge the role of LARGE flooding events in the fossil record. They, as members of the Cult of Scientism, will never acknowledge the possibility of a single huge flooding event, but they are at least now acknowledging that the fossil record is best explained by "localized large flooding events".
In other words...
Jesus using an event that WASN'T a physical impossibility to make his point means it is logical to assume that Jesus also used an event that WAS a physical impossibility to make his point.
I think that's called a non sequitur, Dino.
I consider the tall tree and the high mountain to be clear and undeniable Biblical evidence that both the Father and Jesus know we live on a plain (certainly not a ball), and that they each spoke in ways that make it equally clear that their audience also accepted the same as obvious fact. You are free to believe the much more recent and, frankly, absurd worldview that you're currently moving 1000 mph while standing still, within an atmosphere that is somehow velcroed to a ball and moves right along with you.
Jesus using an event that WASN'T a physical impossibility to make his point means it is logical to assume that Jesus also used an event that WAS a physical impossibility to make his point.
I think that's called a non sequitur, Dino.
I consider the tall tree and the high mountain to be clear and undeniable Biblical evidence that both the Father and Jesus know we live on a plain (certainly not a ball), and that they each spoke in ways that make it equally clear that their audience also accepted the same as obvious fact. You are free to believe the much more recent and, frankly, absurd worldview that you're currently moving 1000 mph while standing still, within an atmosphere that is somehow velcroed to a ball and moves right along with you.
