Can God do all things???

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

JoeJarv@aol.com wrote:
 
> You:
>  Not applying logic and reason to the Bible and science is why we >have these problems today. 
> Me:
> I'd have to agree with Bro. Harrell here:
> 1 Tim 1:4
> 4       Neither give heed to *fables* and *endless genealogies*, which *minister
> questions*, rather than *godly edifying* which is in faith: so do.

Ignoring what happens in science and speaking from an uneducated(for
MOST Christians) view point IS why creationism, prayer, and references
to God were take out of public school in the first place.  Lack of
education/understanding is also how the garbage of "Separtation of
Church and State" came into being.
 
> You:
>  <<1) The Bible isn't a scientific text, yet where the Bible makes claims
>  in the realm of science there can be no conflict.  The Bible should agree with science.
> Me:
> 
> Actually, *science* should agree with the Bible.

Uh, no, when entering the sphere of another, they take precedence.

>  You:
>  <<2) The religious community has in the past made statements concerning
>  the Bible and science that were completely wrong.
>  i.e. in the 1600's Galileo was forced to recant that the earth revolved
>  around the sun.  Now, everyone believes the earth goes 'round the sun.
>  STRIKE ONE against religion.>>
> 
> Me:
> 
> STRIKE ONE against the *religious community*, not against the Word of God.

That is what I said.  No where have I said the Bible was wrong.

> Perhaps the religious community got into
> trouble *because* they had agreed with scientists.

Then when the "facts" are proven wrong, change.  The problem with the
solar system was the "church" was using Genisis as a scientific book, it
isn't.
 
> In fact, the "shadow of turning" in James 1:17 (written during the first
> century by a *religious*, not scientific, man), can only be fully understood,
> and properly interpreted by knowing the actual relationship of the Earth and
> Sun, not what was commonly accepted at that time. I guess that it just goes
> to show that the Bible was actually authored by God, and that these religious
> men wrote what God spoke, not what seemed *logical*.

Back to what I said earlier, I never said the Bible was wrong, I said
the Bible should agree with science, and here it does.  The religious
community in the 1600's still didn't interpret it right.

>  You:
>  <<3) When the Bible and science disagree, either the Bible is
>  misinterpreted or the science is faulty.>>
> 
> Me:
> Agreed, but you won't get many scientists to agree with this statement.

Actually, IMO(based on the scientist with which I've worked) scientist
assume(incorrectlly) that theologins(sp?) are experts in
theology(therefore understand what they read) and do more than repeat
what has been "known" for the last 2k yrs.  They expect the Bible to be
studied, and opinions revised as more information(new scrolls, new
historical tid bits) becomes available.  So, if a theologin makes a
statement concerning the realm of science using the Bible as a reference
problems occur.  You are very rare case.  How many ministers know more
than absolute basics of science?

>They want to prove that the Word of God is *faulty*, not merely misinterpreted.

Again, those I have been around don't care about the Bible being
faulty.  They have no time to deal with a group of people unwilling and
unable to logically discuss a topic.
 
> In fact....."Galileo wrote a long, open letter on the *irrelevance* of
> *biblical* passages in scientific arguments, holding that *interpretation of
> the Bible* should be *adapted* to increasing knowledge ..."
> Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright
> (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation.

Look at his trouble with the Copernium solar system.  He was RIGHT!  The
interpretation of the Bible the religious community of the 1600's had
was wrong.
 
> Irrelevance of the Bible, re-interpretations and new adaptations of the Bible
> to fit man's knowledge? Sounds more than a little arrogant to me.

No, just asking the question - are you sure?  Remember Azuza St?  Topeka
Kansas?  Seems like some men were changing how the Bible was interpreted
by the religious community.
 
> You:
> << 4) The Bible is for how to live, science is how things work.>>
> 
> Me:
> I believe that it's quite a bit deeper than that, but the Bible, and a true
> study of *pure* science, are complementary. The Bible *can* answer all those
> questions that science *cannot*.
> 
> A good example is the law of conservation of mass and energy. Since these are
> constant, and cannot be created, only converted from one form to another,
> where did all this "stuff" come from?

See my tagline. 

> You:
>  <<Besides, for all the grief I've
>  given the Big Bang theory, it is a fairly accurate description of
>  Genisis 1's sequence.>>
> 
> Me:
> ????
> Heb 11:3
> 3       Through faith *we understand* that the worlds were framed by the *word of
> God*, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Big Bang Theory(short version):
1: all stuff(don't know how or where - that's why it's a theory) jammed
at one point.
2: boom, now all stuff is whizzing out in all directions at high temp.
3: over time, the stuff slows down and cools down, forming the universe
as we know it.

Genisis 1

In the begining God(answers 1st question of Big Bang) created the Heaven
and the earth, (boom, it went kablooy) and the earth was without form
and void(kind of like hot gasses before the planets were formed).  And
God said let there be light(the fusion reaction 
for the sun starts).  God divided the light from the darkness(the earth
revolves).  God made the firmament in the water and let it divide the
waters above the firmament from the waters below the firmamament(land
separates oceans from clouds - an atmosphere is developed).

>  You:
>  <<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.  This has resulted in science looking at
>  religion as illogical, holding to myths that have been proven false.
>  This opinion is still held today, because our people remain, by and
>  large, ignorant of what science really says.
>   >>
> 
> Me:
> 
> Well, personally not being all that ignorant of science or theology, (having
> been a serious student of Physics, Engineering, and God's Word), I find it
> hard to believe that anyone can study both, and fail to see the harmony they
> exhibit. (But, I guess that is because I was filled with the Holy Ghost
> *prior* to going to college.)

THAT'S MY POINT!!!!  MOST theologins don't have the foggiest idea what
the scientists are saying, so why/how argue with the scientists?
 
> As far as "myths proven false", I'd like to see one from the Bible itself,
> properly interpreted. 

That is also my point - properly interpreted.

> Maybe it's time for the *scientists* to quit fighting in a realm in which
> they have limited knowledge.  

They aren't fighting about theology, they are fighting about science.

> but I'd like to see a little of their "credentials" when they enter into a
> discussion of the Word of God.
> (I showed 'em mine, now I'd like to see theirs.)

They are discussing SCIENCE, they take what the Word of God says from
what they are told by theologins.

Skip

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