Can God do all things???

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Harrell01@aol.com wrote:
> 
> The Bible should agree with science.
> 
> I couldn't disagree with you more...if the Bible was required to agree with
> science, then you better start findind darwinian evolutionism in the Bible.

Uh, evolution is a theory, not a natural law - it is allowed to have
flaws.  Read about Darwin, he didn't believed his theory of evolution
had flaws and couldn't be proven.

> A more accurate statement would have been  "science should fall in line
> with the Bible." But we all know that they are NOT going to agree all the
> time because the Word is God inspired, and science theory is man inspired.

Scientific theories may not agree with the Bible, the laws of nature
will because God made both and he doesn't do confusion.

Back to an earlier statement - the Bible is about theology God and his
relationship with man.  It is NOT a book about science; therefore
if/when the Bible makes reference to science the two should agree. 
Religion going into science would make the statement the Bible should
agree with science.

 
> > When the Bible and science disagree, either the Bible is misinterpreted or
> > the science is faulty.
> 
> I'll go with the latter.

Why, a MAN is interpreting the Bible and science.  And a man can botch
either interpretation or both interpretations.  Examples that come to
mind = sun going around earth, Catholic church, Methodist church,
Baptist church, Lutheran church, Calvinists ....
 
> >> "Without form and void" does not necessarily mean that there was a ball
> >> that exploded and traveled perpetually outward.

Well that would have came after the boom.

> I'm not saying that this IS NOT the case, I'm just saying that >according to the Bible, we have no
> >> conclusive evidence even alluding to this fact.

The Bible doesn't offer conclusive evidence the sun rises in the same
horizon everyday, radioactive decay takes place, planes can fly, and a
host of other things.  And for arguments sake, where is conclusive
proof(in the Bible) that either God, heaven, or even this earth exists?
 
> > the Bible isn't an exact record of EVERYTHING that has or will happen,
> > just a record of what God thinks is important for man to get perfect -
> > salvation, how to live, major history to prove he is God.
>
> That's why I say if things are NOT stated explicitly in the Bible, then we
> should not make effort to try to explain things away, make up theories
> of how we think God should have done things.

And that type of opinion is why many scientist(especially non USA) look
at "religion" with contempt.   The Bible is about religion, not
technology.
 
> > Well, since the Bible uses terms for time in vague ways who is to say
> > the exact length of a creation day?
> 
> NO ONE! Likewise, unless God himself comes down and tells us the actual
> length, we should not "assign" numbers to scripture that we think are right.

So, why is it so hard to accept that the 7 days of creation may have
been either 7 million, 7 billion, or 7 trillion years?

> > IMO, it is time for Christianity to stop fighting in a realm in which it
> has
> > limited knowledge.  Theologins are not nearly as expert in theology as
> > scientists are in science.
> 
> What makes you think that God will reveal more to the carnal mind about
> carnal things than he will reveal to a spiritual mind about Godly things? 

Because they study the carnal things with greater diligence and are
willing to admitt they don't have all the answers.  How many religious
ideas taught today are generally unchanged from 1600 yrs ago?

A question for you: what makes you think God would reveal more to a
spiritual mind about carnal things than he would to a carnal mind?
 
> If science touches a subject that is mentioned in the Bible (creation), 
> and it doesn't agree 100% with the Word, then I don't accept it as > 100% truth. 

Agreed.

> I might accept it as a matter of fact for earthly 
> purposes, but I don't make the Word of God bend to fit the
> scientists theory.

How can you accept it as fact for earthly purposes? it is either right
or wrong.  It cann't be right in one place and wrong in another.

Back to the original statement.  When the Bible invades the area of
science, it should agree with science.  If not then either man's
interpretation of the Bible or man's interpretation of nature is wrong. 
And I'm not taking bets on which is wrong.

Skip
-- 
In the begining God said BANG! and it was BIG