 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 NBF... |
Aaron Scott |
First, I don't think a frog became a dog--I was just using that as an example.
I have noticed that you have YET to tell me what fossil would convince you that evolution took place. Don't say "A transitional fossil," that is too vague. Be SPECIFIC.
With THOUSAND (perhaps MILLIONS) of minute changes from Point A to Point ZZZZZ, nothing I could offer, it seems, would be convincing. The SLIGHT change from Frog 1 to Frog 1.1 would be so minor that we could dismiss it as adaptation. But if I find Frog 1111.1111, it will be so different as to be dismissed as "not a frog at all."
It's a circular definition that ensures that one species cannot evolve into another because, well, because it's clear that one species cannot become another species, by George.
Again, give me THE FOSSIL that would convince you that evolution took place. THE fossil. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6036
8/28/13 9:32 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
peterz3fo |
| Quote: | I have noticed that you have YET to tell me what fossil would convince you that evolution took place. Don't say "A transitional fossil," that is too vague. Be SPECIFIC.
|
May I offer a thought? No single fossil specimen, whether homosexual Erectus or Australopithicus or Archaeopteryx, will ever be convincing that Darwinian Evolution took place. Remember, you MUST get definitional clarity when using the term "evolution."
In order to demonstrate slow, gradual change, there needs to be the evidence in the fossil record. It's not there. This is why MOST Darwinian Evolutionists either a) Jump ship to Punctuated Equilibrium Theory b) Abandon the fossil record altogether and go after genetic mutation, or c) continue to tell the story of the fossil record KNOWING it's a fairy tale. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 395
8/28/13 1:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| peterz3fo |
Aaron Scott |
I'm sure you meant homosexual ERECTUS, right? (SMILE)
To me, the fossil record is secondary. After all, as I argue, it won't convince a literalist, for any offering will be said to be another species altogether, etc.
To ME, the LAYERS are important. Why? They clearly demonstrate that as time has passed, there has been a very consistent move toward complexity, with certain lifeforms never appearing before X layer, etc. (Of course, there may be anomalies, but not enough to counter the entire weight of the argument.0
Also, to me, the LOGICAL is important. It makes sense, to me, that if a lifeform can mutate and adapt, then, OVER TIME, that lifeform can slowly become something very different from what it's ancestor were.
For instance, you have a pack of dogs. One group moves apart. Over eons, they mutate and adapt. And while they can still continue to reproduce with their group, at some point, it is logical to think that they may be so very different from where they started that they are considered a different species, cannot reproduce with them, etc.
I'm not saying that is conclusive. I know it's not. But it makes sense that, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, it would happen. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6036
8/28/13 2:05 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
peterz3fo |
Okay, gotcha. The layers actually tell a different story. Look at the history of the supposed evolution of the horse.
The alleged first “horselike’ creature was Eohippus. Equus is the “modern” horse.
Scientists find “fossil horses” mixed vertically and horizontally throughout all the different time layers.
The pictures in the textbooks DO NOT represent how these fossils have been discovered in the rock layers!
Eohippus looks more like a modern rock badger and so different from the next one in the series that there is confusion concerning its right to a place in the series.
If Eohippus is not part of the Horse transitional series then everything else looks like smaller to larger horses.
Gordon R. Taylor in The Great Evolution Mystery p. 230
“The line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic….There is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time.”
Boyce Rensberger notes that the sceanario of the volution of the horse has no foundation in the fossil record.
“The popularly told example of horse evolution…has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.”
The Cambrian Explosion virtually "explodes" the notion of slow gradual change. Its game, set, match for the Darwinist. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 395
8/28/13 2:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Just an update |
Poimen |
I was able to help Dr. Mortenson get through all the hurdles he was facing. However, he relays that he just hasn't had the time to post anymore as of yet. He remains indicative that he will try. At this point though, I'm not sure when, or if that will actually transpire.
I hope he gets to share more. But if he doesn't I am grateful he took the time to come and share at all.There has certainly be no shortage of conversation all the same. 
Just an FYI.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/30/13 7:08 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| peterz3fo |
Aaron Scott |
One of the biggest misconceptions about the theory of evolution is that it is somehow "purposeful." That is, you'll hear things like "Giraffes grew longer necks so they could eat the food that was higher up."
Of course, evolutionary theory would not claim that at all! Rather, it would say something like "This animal had a mutation that gave it a longer neck, it was able to eat food that the other animals could not reach...and so it survived long enough to pass on its genes."
In fact, evolutionary theory does NOT say that the best will always continue on. Not at all. It is the FITTEST. That is, the fastest, strongest horse might not have survived...when a smaller, weaker version did precisely because...well, any number of little things. It might have been more able to deal with drought. It might have been better able to handle starvation. It might have had some element that better attracted the opposite sex.
Eventually, we will have to deal with DNA matters. If we believe that DNA can prove that John is the father of George. Or that Samantha and Sam have a common ancestor. Then we will perhaps have to eventually explain why, say, a hippo and a whale show a common ancestor. Are we going to claim that DNA is not valid then?
For if it shows that, then we will have to accept that at least some evolution took place. This doesn't do away with God, with creation, or His hand in it all, but it will do away with much overly literal take on some things, I'm afraid. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6036
8/31/13 8:46 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
diakoneo |
| Quote: | Of course, evolutionary theory would not claim that at all! Rather, it would say something like "This animal had a mutation that gave it a longer neck, it was able to eat food that the other animals could not reach...and so it survived long enough to pass on its genes."
|
Again with the mutation? 
From the strata evidence as you have described we could just as easily conclude that the world when first created had many more different animals than it does today. This would make more sense as we can and have observed the extinction of certain animals in our lifetimes.
Which would parallel what the Bible says about sin and death. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
8/31/13 12:31 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| diakoneo... |
Aaron Scott |
No, the strata would NOT lead to "there were many more animals." Rather, it would lead to there were CERTAIN TYPES of far less complex animals that do not appear to exist any longer. Moreover, the higher layers would increasingly hold more complex lifeforms and animals that we recognize.
That is, you don't find a single ape or (I suppose) horse in the bottom layers. But if all the animals were here at the same time, then you would fully expect to find those animals in those layers, alongside ones that are now extinct.
But that is NOT what we find. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6036
8/31/13 1:42 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| replies to several of you |
Terry Mortenson |
All,
Sorry I can’t participate more often and sooner. Too much else to do.
Dear Acts Enthusiast,
The dictionary defines “compromise” as “an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compromised?s=t). All old-earth creationist and theistic evolutionist views (day-age, gap theory, framework hypothesis, etc.) are attempts by Christians to harmonize evolution and/or millions of years with the Bible, i.e., to adjust conflicting claims to try to make them agree. And if every case this is done by making the scientific consensus (what the majority of scientists believe) the final authority in determining the meaning of the Bible (rather than making Scripture supreme and using Scripture to interpret Scripture).
Since I believe (along with the vast majority of orthodox Christians throughout church history, until the 19th century, when the millions of years idea became popular) that the Bible clearly teaches young-earth creation and a global Noachian Flood, then if you accept evolution and/or millions of years and hold to one of the modern reinterpretations of Genesis, you have compromised by the above definition. If you think millions of years is proven truth, then you are accusing me of compromise. But what then have I compromised with? I don’t derive my young-earth views from any ideas outside of Scripture but only from a careful study of Scripture.
Now compromise (as defined in the dictionary) is not inherently wrong. But if you have compromised with the secular scientific consensus, then you have undermined the truth, clarity and authority of Scripture, even though (I have no reason to doubt) you motivations and intentions were sincerely not that at all. I say this because the scientific majority says that Genesis 1-11 (and much of the rest of the Bible) is all mythology.
Young-earth creationists do NOT resist the evolution claims about any dating methods by non-observable claims such as relate to star light). Please read the literature I recommended on the subject. The 6000-year mark is not magical. It is the result of careful analysis of the Biblical text and of the scholarly arguments that respected Christians have made to say that the Genesis genealogies do not allow us to determine the age of the creation. If God’s inspired Word teaches 6000 years (approximately), then any man-made method interpreted by finite sinful human beings resulting in dates that contradict Scripture is flawed and the dates are wrong. As I think I said before, there is NO scientific method that can confidently date the age of the earth or the universe, because every method involves unprovable assumptions about the unobservable past (and the assumptions used by evolutionists are highly questionable, if not scientifically demonstrably false, and contrary to Scripture).
Yes, scientifically verifiable statements in the Bible can be examined and no creationist hinders that examination. In fact, creation scientists do such examination all the time and they don’t all agree on every point (such as where the Flood/Post-Flood boundary is in the geological record). But science doesn’t examine such statements, rather scientists do. And the philosophical/worldview assumptions of the scientists have a massive influence on their examination and interpretation of the scientific evidence used to check the biblical claims.
The dendrochronology article is here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/biblical-chronology-bristlecone-pine.
Dear Golf Cart Mafia,
The testimony of recent sightings of dinosaurs has been made by missionaries and natives living on the edge of deep remote jungles in Papau New Guinea or central Africa. Of course, most people treat these as lies or delusions of shallow-thinking or gullible and weary observers. But given that almost every year scientists are discovering creatures that we didn’t know existed or that evolutionists dogmatic said for years had gone extinct millions of years ago, I am not so quick to dismiss such reports by people who are not liars, deluded or gullible, but are very knowledge about the jungles they live in or near. I’m not saying we have proof that dinosaurs exist today, only that there is intriguing testimony that they do. If we find them alive, then evolutionists will be quite embarrassed and have to rewrite their textbooks. But creationists will be neither surprised nor in need of revising there text much at all.
Dear friendly face (The Bard),
We at AiG do recognize the rock solid fact that there is more than one interpretation of Genesis. That’s why we publish our biblical, historical and scientific reasons rejecting all the old-earth (as well as the absurdly evolutionary) interpretations. But it is logically fallacious (contradictory) to say that there is more than one LEGITIMATE (i.e., exegetically sound, correct) interpretation of the length of the days of creation or the age of the earth. The days can’t be both literal 24 hour days and long ages. And creation week can’t be 6000 years ago and millions of years ago.
We are not making ad hominem attacks. We repeatedly say that we are not questioning old-earth creationists’ faith or salvation. We are not questioning the validity of their academic training or attacking their intelligence. We are not accusing them of being immoral. Rather we are critiquing and rejecting their bad arguments and false claims with reasoned arguments and calling the church back to the truth of Scripture. We are doing exactly what Paul and Jude taught us today (Tit 1:6-9, Jude 3), and sometimes that involves naming names (just as Paul and John did in e.g., 1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 1:15, 3 John 9-10).
Dear Acts Enthusiast,
One of the books I recommended is in fact by 14 theologians. That’s because we are historically and biblically defending the young-earth view and critiquing old-earth “biblical” and historical arguments put forth by theologians.
Most of the other literature I recommended was written by scientists. If you want to really dig into the scientific arguments for a young-earth then see Andrew Snellings (PhD in geology), 2-volume, 1100-page work, Earth’s Catastrophic Past (here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/earths-catastrophic-past/).
All for now, gentlemen (and ladies?). I'll try to do more, but can't make any promises. I urge you to look at the literature/DVDs that I have recommended.
Sincerely in Christ,
Terry Mortenson
Answers in Genesis
_________________
Terry Mortenson, MDiv, PhD
speaker, writer, researcher
Answers in Genesis |
Newbie
Posts: 2
9/6/13 1:52 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
philunderwood |
|
|
| |
|
| A response... |
Aaron Scott |
| Quote: | | All old-earth creationist and theistic evolutionist views (day-age, gap theory, framework hypothesis, etc.) are attempts by Christians to harmonize evolution and/or millions of years with the Bible, i.e., to adjust conflicting claims to try to make them agree. And if every case this is done by making the scientific consensus (what the majority of scientists believe) the final authority in determining the meaning of the Bible (rather than making Scripture supreme and using Scripture to interpret Scripture). |
If we wish to use science to PROVE our interpretation of Genesis...then we must also stand ready to accept that it might also go against our interpretation of Genesis.
Secondly, the "attempts by Christians to harmonize" is not compromise! IT IS A SEARCH FOR TRUTH! The great compromise, so far as I am concerned, is when we will KNOWINGLY reject scientific findings, or cover ourselves with a suspect theory, all to advance our interpretation of Genesis.
It seems that young-earth Creationists have no problem with unobservable science so long as it works FOR them (e.g., they like to claim that light used to travel much faster--sorry, can't observe that; nor were we here to observe the Flood, etc.). To say that we cannot observe something does not mean that we can dismiss it. No, it may not be deductively true, but you can certainly build up great evidence and confidence in such a theory.
No one on this site would hold that we must reject the entire Bible because our interpretation of Genesis doesn't work. I certainly don't distrust or reject the Resurrection just because the resurrection morning stories are at such odds with each other. THE KEY TRUTH IS THAT JESUS AROSE!
We are people of the TRUTH. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6036
9/6/13 3:44 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dforest1987 |
| I'm not so sure the Bible is scientifically accurate. Why should we accept that the biblical account of creation is correct? |
Hey, DOC
Posts: 54
9/6/13 5:06 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Poimen |
| Dforest1987 wrote: | | I'm not so sure the Bible is scientifically accurate. Why should we accept that the biblical account of creation is correct? |
Because friend, to do less is to undermine, question, and logically leads to rejecting the divine inspiration and authority of the whole. It either is or is not the inspired, authoritative, trustworthy word of God, the word of TRUTH, or it is not.
Now, before anyone takes me wrong, I'm not arguing that one must hold a YEC view to truly be born again. Nor am I here arguing that YEC is the only legitmate creation view of those discussed. I am simply relying to Dforest1987 concerning why we must accept the Biblical account of creation (or anything else for that matter), whatever our interpretations of that account, as CORRECT.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
9/6/13 6:04 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Poimen, my brother, not so! |
Aaron Scott |
Poimen, you know I love you like a brother (for you ARE my brother), but may I suggest that we almost DARE NOT hold to the inerrant view? Here's why....
The inerrant view--which includes the equally unscriptural position that EVERY SINGLE VERSE IN THE BIBLE IS EQUALLY INSPIRED...AND...EVERY SINGLE WORD IS DIVINELY INSPIRED--puts us in a house of cards.
NOT because the scriptures are weak! But because WE have created a doctrine that says, "If you find a SINGLE THING WRONG, THEN IT'S ALL WRONG."
How smart is it to paint ourselves into that corner? There's not a single person on earth that has ever given a reasonable response to the multiple accounts of resurrection morning. They require us to set aside credulity, to believe a back-and-forth-and-back account that sounds like a conspiracy theory, etc. BUT SO WHAT? All the scriptures of the matter agree: JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD!
Now, why in the world would I for a moment allow the truth that Jesus arose to be at the mercy of some other set of verses that may or may not be inspired? For instance, neither Esther nor the Song of Solomon even MENTION God. Yet I am to believe that they are equally inspired with the four gospels that are packed to the top with the glorious Son of God???
That's "verbal inspiration" and "inerrancy" for you. All you have to do is ask yourself this question: "Would I stop believing in Jesus if I found out that Song of Solomon was really just a secular love poem?"
Anyone who would stop believing in Jesus over that clearly doesn't know the same Jesus we know. And YET...that would be the end of "inerrancy," would it not?
All SCRIPTURE is inspired. But nowhere does the Bible claim that ALL VERSES IN THE BIBLE are inspired. That's us doing the talking...and we're not infallible.
So, back to the creation account. If we say that "God wasn't trying to provide us with a scientific treatise, but was trying to simply reveal to ancient understandings that it is HE that is behind all of the universe," why does that disrupt the space-time continuum that allows us to believe that Jesus is truly the Son of God, etc.?
For me, it doesn't. Yes, I PREFER the standard explanation of six literal days. I love that. I grew up with it. But I also know that we must be people of truth if we are to have integrity. And FOR ME, I have to acknowledge that there is far too much "grasping for straws" when it comes to literalists trying to "explain" creation.
God bless you, my brother. You know I love you even if we disagree. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6036
9/6/13 6:19 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dforest1987 |
| I going to agree with Aaron here. I view the Bible as us looking at "puzzling reflections in a mirror." Being human, we do our best to grasp the truth, but some how I feel we never quite achieve it. I recognize that sometimes the writers of scripture just get things wrong. Even Jesus points to this. Now does this discount scripture because the writers didnt know modern science? I saw no, because they were not writing a science book. I believe the Bible does teach us everything necessary for salvation, and in this we can trust. |
Hey, DOC
Posts: 54
9/6/13 6:57 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Ventureforth |
| philunderwood wrote: | | I'm still waiting to discover where the dinosaurs are still living. |
Hello Phil,
If you're interested, I just happen to find this guy on youtube. He seems to give information that could be verified if someone wanted. At 42:34 he gives accounts by missionaries in the late 1950's and then accounts in the following decades. Then at 48:10 he says there are Pterodactyls still living and gives the location.
If you check this out, could let me know what you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDKvlWTqlMk&list=WL855A16466A727FE9 |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
9/6/13 11:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Poimen, my brother, not so! |
Ventureforth |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | Poimen, you know I love you like a brother (for you ARE my brother), but may I suggest that we almost DARE NOT hold to the inerrant view? Here's why....
The inerrant view--which includes the equally unscriptural position that EVERY SINGLE VERSE IN THE BIBLE IS EQUALLY INSPIRED...AND...EVERY SINGLE WORD IS DIVINELY INSPIRED--puts us in a house of cards.
NOT because the scriptures are weak! But because WE have created a doctrine that says, "If you find a SINGLE THING WRONG, THEN IT'S ALL WRONG."
How smart is it to paint ourselves into that corner? There's not a single person on earth that has ever given a reasonable response to the multiple accounts of resurrection morning. They require us to set aside credulity, to believe a back-and-forth-and-back account that sounds like a conspiracy theory, etc. BUT SO WHAT? All the scriptures of the matter agree: JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD!
Now, why in the world would I for a moment allow the truth that Jesus arose to be at the mercy of some other set of verses that may or may not be inspired? For instance, neither Esther nor the Song of Solomon even MENTION God. Yet I am to believe that they are equally inspired with the four gospels that are packed to the top with the glorious Son of God???
That's "verbal inspiration" and "inerrancy" for you. All you have to do is ask yourself this question: "Would I stop believing in Jesus if I found out that Song of Solomon was really just a secular love poem?"
Anyone who would stop believing in Jesus over that clearly doesn't know the same Jesus we know. And YET...that would be the end of "inerrancy," would it not?
All SCRIPTURE is inspired. But nowhere does the Bible claim that ALL VERSES IN THE BIBLE are inspired. That's us doing the talking...and we're not infallible.
So, back to the creation account. If we say that "God wasn't trying to provide us with a scientific treatise, but was trying to simply reveal to ancient understandings that it is HE that is behind all of the universe," why does that disrupt the space-time continuum that allows us to believe that Jesus is truly the Son of God, etc.?
For me, it doesn't. Yes, I PREFER the standard explanation of six literal days. I love that. I grew up with it. But I also know that we must be people of truth if we are to have integrity. And FOR ME, I have to acknowledge that there is far too much "grasping for straws" when it comes to literalists trying to "explain" creation.
God bless you, my brother. You know I love you even if we disagree. |
Jesus had a high opinion of scripture.
| Quote: | | Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— John 10:35 |
| Quote: | | For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Matthew 5:18 |
I'm inclined to believe He asserts inerrancy. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
9/7/13 9:57 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Poimen, my brother, not so! |
Dforest1987 |
| Ventureforth wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | Poimen, you know I love you like a brother (for you ARE my brother), but may I suggest that we almost DARE NOT hold to the inerrant view? Here's why....
The inerrant view--which includes the equally unscriptural position that EVERY SINGLE VERSE IN THE BIBLE IS EQUALLY INSPIRED...AND...EVERY SINGLE WORD IS DIVINELY INSPIRED--puts us in a house of cards.
NOT because the scriptures are weak! But because WE have created a doctrine that says, "If you find a SINGLE THING WRONG, THEN IT'S ALL WRONG."
How smart is it to paint ourselves into that corner? There's not a single person on earth that has ever given a reasonable response to the multiple accounts of resurrection morning. They require us to set aside credulity, to believe a back-and-forth-and-back account that sounds like a conspiracy theory, etc. BUT SO WHAT? All the scriptures of the matter agree: JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD!
Now, why in the world would I for a moment allow the truth that Jesus arose to be at the mercy of some other set of verses that may or may not be inspired? For instance, neither Esther nor the Song of Solomon even MENTION God. Yet I am to believe that they are equally inspired with the four gospels that are packed to the top with the glorious Son of God???
That's "verbal inspiration" and "inerrancy" for you. All you have to do is ask yourself this question: "Would I stop believing in Jesus if I found out that Song of Solomon was really just a secular love poem?"
Anyone who would stop believing in Jesus over that clearly doesn't know the same Jesus we know. And YET...that would be the end of "inerrancy," would it not?
All SCRIPTURE is inspired. But nowhere does the Bible claim that ALL VERSES IN THE BIBLE are inspired. That's us doing the talking...and we're not infallible.
So, back to the creation account. If we say that "God wasn't trying to provide us with a scientific treatise, but was trying to simply reveal to ancient understandings that it is HE that is behind all of the universe," why does that disrupt the space-time continuum that allows us to believe that Jesus is truly the Son of God, etc.?
For me, it doesn't. Yes, I PREFER the standard explanation of six literal days. I love that. I grew up with it. But I also know that we must be people of truth if we are to have integrity. And FOR ME, I have to acknowledge that there is far too much "grasping for straws" when it comes to literalists trying to "explain" creation.
God bless you, my brother. You know I love you even if we disagree. |
Jesus had a high opinion of scripture.
| Quote: | | Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— John 10:35 |
| Quote: | | For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Matthew 5:18 |
I'm inclined to believe He asserts inerrancy. |
I wouldn't go that far. Definitely holds scripture in high requard, but also had no problem saying that scripture is wrong sometimes.
_________________
"The first duty of love is to listen" -- Paul Tillich |
Hey, DOC
Posts: 54
9/7/13 10:31 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Ventureforth... |
Aaron Scott |
The SCRIPTURES are indeed inerrant!
The problem is that WE have said, using human reasoning, that EVERYTHING in the BIBLE is SCRIPTURE.
Most of us equate the Bible with scripture..but I believe that while everything in the Bible is valuable and useful in some way, not every verse is SCRIPTURE. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6036
9/7/13 10:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Ventureforth... |
Dforest1987 |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | The SCRIPTURES are indeed inerrant!
The problem is that WE have said, using human reasoning, that EVERYTHING in the BIBLE is SCRIPTURE.
Most of us equate the Bible with scripture..but I believe that while everything in the Bible is valuable and useful in some way, not every verse is SCRIPTURE. |
This really all depends on how you define scripture. Typically this is viewed as the sacred writings contained in the Bible. However, if you wish to cling to inerrancy, I can certainly see where you are coming from.
_________________
"The first duty of love is to listen" -- Paul Tillich |
Hey, DOC
Posts: 54
9/7/13 11:25 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
