We travel around the US with a team of men and women targeting places where we know we'll find sinners. We knew we would find some church going Christians but what we found was shocking. It wasn't the heathen at these wicked evil events. It was the entire church! Please pray for us as we go out to go find those that have gone astray.
What I find peculiar is that you seem to believe that if evolution can somehow be discredited, then this is somehow evidence in favor of Christianity. One could just as easily argue that it would be evidence in favor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Alex I recognize that this is the wrong approach to the matter. Just discrediting evolution would not suffice to make the point that the Christian God is THE God. In order to establish that, men far more intelligent than myself built a model to present what the world of nature would test as truth per peer reviewed scientific research and the NSA's stamp of approval with those parameters in mind. As you know, a model can change if new information is discovered. The book Creation is Science has an outline of the model proposed by Reasons to Believe. So far, I have never been able to find this online and I just don't have the time to type it out myself. Plus, I am thinking I would need the author's permission before I made such an attempt.
I realize that it was typical of the modern day church's approach to circumvent established truth whether it was Scriptural or in the world of nature, which is why we are in the mess we're in.
"...there used to be land bridges that connected Russia and Alaska and Australia with Asia. This is also mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 10:25)" - from Ray's "Ignorant Knuckle-draggers" post.
"...there used to be land bridges that connected Russia and Alaska and Australia with Asia. This is also mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 10:25)" - from Ray's "Ignorant Knuckle-draggers" post.
I just can't seem to make the link myself....
Cheers,
Hi Matt
The busyness of life will never cease to be my undoing. I am not sure what the question was. I am sure as a supporter of Pangaea etc, that you believe the continents were connected at one time, right? Are you arguing that then as these things emerged that this was not the case? I believe that through this type of anthropology, they have somehow determined that the folks that migrated from Asia to Australia did have to use some sort of boat. But mtDNA studies confirm that there is a relationship there. And mtDNA studies confirm that the people traveling down through the Americas were related to the folks in Siberia.
I don't know if you'd call me a 'supporter' off Pangaea (I don't have the t-shirt or anything!) but I acknowledge that that is how geologists understand the world's land masses to have been in the past.
The point of my post was in response to a comment you made at 'Atheist Central':
"...there used to be land bridges that connected Russia and Alaska and Australia with Asia. This is also mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 10:25)" - from Ray's "Ignorant Knuckle-draggers" post.
I have no problem with the idea that geologists have analyzed plate tectonics and geological formations to establish this as being true. However, what I do not understand is how this is mentioned in the Bible, specifically in Genesis 10:25.
Could you please elaborate on how:
"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." KJV Gen 10:25
I mean, no other historical document mentions anything like the loss of the ability to walk to another continent!
I'm assuming that these guys lived in the Middle East and that Peleg was named by his parents. Assuming this, you'd have to believe that Peleg's dad (Eber) was aware of the connection between N. America and Asia and South-East Asia and Australia, despite them being thousands of miles away and was also aware that the crossing was no longer possible!
Wouldn't it make more sense, within your own theology, for the name Peleg ('Division') to be referring to the splitting of languages after the Tower of Babel?
I could accept that interpretation as being, at least internally, consistent with the rest of the Bible. The land-bridge thing is a bit crow-barred.
Just my opinion, of course, and I thank you for your responses.
Well it does say the earth was divided and not people necessarily.
I have been reading this book, Creation as Science. It has some excellent references to this. If you happen to be in a public library, maybe you could pick up a copy.
Yes, it does say the earth was divided. But by earth, does it mean 'planet earth' or the 'earth beneath our feet' (i.e, land)? Perhaps it means the 'people of the earth'?
When it says 'divided' does that mean split in two, three, four, a million? Or does it mean separated (by water).
The only way you can claim that this means what you're saying it means is if you figure out what happened by other methods (geology) and then ascribe what happened to the description given in Scripture.
When you first said it, it was so Blasé; as if the chapter you referenced said; "and in that time the great land bridges were swallowed by the ocean and the lands were divided from each other. Thus Eber named his son Peleg." You'd really be on to something with that!
But I don't think you can, if you're being honest with yourself, say that this chapter is referring to the splitting of Pangea when read in context.
Please be wary of people who try and foist interpretations of evidence onto Scripture when they clearly have a vested interest in doing so; just look at the lengths Ray will go to to attempt to debunk evolution!
I know you are leaning towards a sort of punctuated equilibrium / micro-evolutionary / Acts of Special Creation type of theory but this still requires you to accept an old earth - what do you make of the attempts of young earthers to twist data to support their view? Both views can't be right, God or no God; either the world is 6,000 years old or it is ~4.5 billion years old - the data can't point to both... so someone's lying.
Thanks again for your time and, just so you know, I've been reading up on RtB and I'll get back to you shortly with what I think.
I hope it hasn't taken too long for me to respond. I get hundreds of emails from Ray's site and I just go through them chronologically. When you write, it comes to this section of my email program. So it comes up when I get to that point. Anyway, I will try to be more alert to these posts. :-)
Please be wary of people who try and foist interpretations of evidence onto Scripture when they clearly have a vested interest in doing so; just look at the lengths Ray will go to to attempt to debunk evolution!
Right. I couldn't agree more. I don't believe this passage is referencing the splits of Pangea but these land bridges that occurred much further down the line that allowed man to walk across Siberia into Alaska. This has pretty much been proven through mtDNA studies. Apparently, the homo sapien sapiens that are native to this country and down into South America can be traced back to Siberia.
I know you are leaning towards a sort of punctuated equilibrium / micro-evolutionary / Acts of Special Creation type of theory but this still requires you to accept an old earth - what do you make of the attempts of young earthers to twist data to support their view? Both views can't be right, God or no God; either the world is 6,000 years old or it is ~4.5 billion years old - the data can't point to both... so someone's lying.
I will tell you my little history. I would say for the most part, I could care less about creation/evolution. On the whole, it has no impact on my life whatsoever. If, for example, I stopped posting to my blog and Ray Comfort's site and laid aside science, it wouldn't make one iota bit of difference in terms of how I live my life. I hope that makes sense. Actually, that isn't altogether true because studying these things has opened up my understanding of God in a way that I never thought possible. But I just mean, I could live and die without delving into this and probably wouldn't have to think about it.
With all that said, I am a home educator. My only understanding of creation came through homeschool materials and some tapes that were given to me by my bil from Kent Hovind's ministry. They spoke of things like a vapor canopy covering the earth to protect it from ultra violet radiation so that our dating techniques were not accurate. They were heavy duty on the Flood and how this reconciles these misconceptions of science. They spoke of the stars perhaps having a faster speed of light at one point to direct their light here and so what appears to be millions of light years away was brought here supernaturally. They explained that if God could create man whole in a day, He can do anything.
To be honest, there was always a ?? in the back of my mind but I didn't have a clue why. The majority of my friends were under the impression that this was truth and I wasn't really offered any other alternatives.
Even before this, I was given a copy of Hugh Ross's testimony. I loved it! I thought it was great the way he had attempted to disprove all holy books scientifically, historically, prophetically based on the realities of what we know. I loved the way the verse in Job on the Pleiades star cluster being bound was remarkable to him because we didn't actually know that until after the Hubble telescope brought this to light. He was also impressed with the way Moses got all the creation events in the right order. Of course, he was coming at this from a scientific perspective not even realizing there was controversy over these things and that others had interpreted those days as actual 24 hour days.
I was given a YEC book at one time. I opened it up and the first chapter was a slam on Hugh Ross. I closed the book because I simply think that if you are going to make a point about truth, a character attack is unnecessary. Just make your point.
So that was about all the input on creation that I had for many, many years and I lived my life just fine with that aspect of truth on the back burner.
Then my husband and I, through Ray Comfort, began to see that our entire understanding of the gospel message was not even in the ballpark. To be honest, I think Ray's understanding is growing as well even now. Anyway, we got really excited about the message. See, we are not rich people - on purpose. We could have a lot of money if I worked outside our home. But I don't. So we are constantly under the financial gun. Thus when we would give a message that says, "God has a plan for your life," it seemed like a rather ridiculous point. So we never shared our faith. It is funny how bad teaching muddies the waters so that you can't really see clearly what the message actually is. When your perspective is skewed, it is easy to feel that God has let you down. But when you see this thing properly, it's like every single puzzle piece fits!
Anyway, I felt God wanted me to start talking to atheists. I met a young man on Jed Smock's message board who called himself FIU student. He hammered me day and night on evolution etc for three solid months. I began looking for the answers to his questions. I bought a debate at that point from Answers in Genesis - Hugh Ross vs. Ken Ham and I got to tell you, that was a pivotal point for me. Once again, it was obvious that we were getting much bogus information and it made me mad to say the least. The point that knocked it over the centerfield fence for both Doug and me was that if this earth is only 6000 years old, then God is deceiving us when we test it as old because those stars are billions of light years away indicating billions of years. And see, I knew God. And I knew God doesn't deceive.
I began to see how many young people were walking away from God by the droves because when they innocently tried to defend their faith through YEC, they were easily shot down and made to look the fool. What made me the angriest was the fact that Ken Ham knew that his theories were full of holes where Hugh Ross was easily reconciling the biblical text to the truth of science and yet, Mr. Ham continues to talk to congregations of people about YEC as though we are crazy heretics for not believing the Bible. Hugh Ross made it clear that he believes in the Bible's inerrant truth but apparently, this point is deceitfully withheld from the general Christian public. The only way anyone could know that fact though is if they actually checked it out.
But most Christians are too afraid to see things any other way. They are scared to death of what they will find because basically, they are comfortable believing in YEC. As I said, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't make a hill o' beans difference in terms of their apparent happiness. Now I say that but actually knowing these things does make a world of difference in understanding who God is and why we are here but to them, it is not worth it to check it out because status quo is working just fine for them. That is until their children go out and try to share their faith.
The fear of science is built into the entire system. We see people leaving the faith and the assumption is that it is these mean ole scientists who are doing this. The reason they are leaving is because the scientists are holding pieces of obvious irrefutable truth that they can easily show as truth through research and repeatable testing that absolutely proves that YEC is not true. For example, the big bang was yet another thing that was held up as bogus teaching. But we were never told from science that there were other dimensions involved and we were never told from a Christian perspective the absolute accuracy that this moment produced nor that it pointed to a beginning through general relativity. "Let there be light." If scientists have a flaw it is believing that the rest of us common folk could never understand their superior teaching. So they give us a basic truth without any of the rest of the story like say gravity. And if the modern day apostate church has a flaw is that it does not uphold but about a fourth of what the Bible teaches per their favorite verses.
Creation makes a difference though in how we perceive God. Why? Because think about it. If YEC is true, then the animals didn't die before the fall, T-Rex, velociraptor, and megalodon are the result of sin and all that God created here was pleasant and happy before man sinned. But if old earth creationism is true, then perhaps God was trying to send us a clear message such as that He is terrifying at times and soft and gentle at other times since His invisible attributes are evidenced in nature through creation. Perhaps with that perspective people would see that God can and will wipe out entire races of people whom He can no longer tolerate after much patience and slowness to anger giving chance after chance to change.
I said this the other day but when we see these events in the Bible such as the wiping out of the Midianites, instead of stepping back and declaring the Book a lie because now God is not this all loving benevolent God according to Pastor All-Loving-and-No-Substance, maybe He is showing the same attributes He has shown right from the beginning in T-Rex, megalodon and velociraptor. Now these attributes are clearly seen.
See, that is one of the aspects of our lives here that is so important. God cannot reveal Himself to us overtly for several reasons. Firstly, our rebellion toward Him would assure us a place in hell's fire like it did the angels. It would no doubt force us to accept Him whether we want to or not. With faith coupled with our conscience and the power of His Spirit and our own free will choice, there is always the possibility of repentance and reconciliation to Him. Secondly, He says that His invisible attributes are clearly seen in creation so that man is without excuse. And He says in Thessalonians to test all things. So if we test something within creation, which is apparently clearly seen and it doesn't fit what we thought was being communicated through the Bible, we can't come up with a supernatural idea to make it our preconceived understanding fit. See it isn't that God can't work outside of the natural world that He created as much as that He won't. He wants you to test these things to see if they are so. That is such an important aspect of why things are the way they are. And the Bible is the only Holy Book that contains many pages of testable truth. No other holy book comes close.
I am not sorry that the YEC movement exists only because I think we had to exhaust that hypothesis for the sake of some who would still believe, that the earth was young much like the small minority of flat earth believers in their day.
I hope that helps some more. Ask as many questions as you want. I am going to post this post on my blog as a blog post just so that people will know where I'm coming from. I think it's important.
Posts
10 comments:
What I find peculiar is that you seem to believe that if evolution can somehow be discredited, then this is somehow evidence in favor of Christianity. One could just as easily argue that it would be evidence in favor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Good luck!
Alex
I recognize that this is the wrong approach to the matter. Just discrediting evolution would not suffice to make the point that the Christian God is THE God. In order to establish that, men far more intelligent than myself built a model to present what the world of nature would test as truth per peer reviewed scientific research and the NSA's stamp of approval with those parameters in mind. As you know, a model can change if new information is discovered. The book Creation is Science has an outline of the model proposed by Reasons to Believe. So far, I have never been able to find this online and I just don't have the time to type it out myself. Plus, I am thinking I would need the author's permission before I made such an attempt.
I realize that it was typical of the modern day church's approach to circumvent established truth whether it was Scriptural or in the world of nature, which is why we are in the mess we're in.
I am here if you want to chat.
Vera
Hey Vera,
Any luck finding out about those land-bridges?
"...there used to be land bridges that connected Russia and Alaska and Australia with Asia. This is also mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 10:25)" - from Ray's "Ignorant Knuckle-draggers" post.
I just can't seem to make the link myself....
Cheers,
Hey Vera,
Any luck finding out about those land-bridges?
"...there used to be land bridges that connected Russia and Alaska and Australia with Asia. This is also mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 10:25)" - from Ray's "Ignorant Knuckle-draggers" post.
I just can't seem to make the link myself....
Cheers,
Hi Matt
The busyness of life will never cease to be my undoing. I am not sure what the question was. I am sure as a supporter of Pangaea etc, that you believe the continents were connected at one time, right? Are you arguing that then as these things emerged that this was not the case? I believe that through this type of anthropology, they have somehow determined that the folks that migrated from Asia to Australia did have to use some sort of boat. But mtDNA studies confirm that there is a relationship there. And mtDNA studies confirm that the people traveling down through the Americas were related to the folks in Siberia.
Hope all is well!
Vera,
I don't know if you'd call me a 'supporter' off Pangaea (I don't have the t-shirt or anything!) but I acknowledge that that is how geologists understand the world's land masses to have been in the past.
The point of my post was in response to a comment you made at 'Atheist Central':
"...there used to be land bridges that connected Russia and Alaska and Australia with Asia. This is also mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 10:25)" - from Ray's "Ignorant Knuckle-draggers" post.
I have no problem with the idea that geologists have analyzed plate tectonics and geological formations to establish this as being true. However, what I do not understand is how this is mentioned in the Bible, specifically in Genesis 10:25.
Could you please elaborate on how:
"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." KJV Gen 10:25
indicates land-bridges?
Thanks,
Matt
Oh, ic
Dr. Ross believes that by the time of Peleg, the land was divided and there was no longer a land bridge.
Vera
That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
I mean, no other historical document mentions anything like the loss of the ability to walk to another continent!
I'm assuming that these guys lived in the Middle East and that Peleg was named by his parents. Assuming this, you'd have to believe that Peleg's dad (Eber) was aware of the connection between N. America and Asia and South-East Asia and Australia, despite them being thousands of miles away and was also aware that the crossing was no longer possible!
Wouldn't it make more sense, within your own theology, for the name Peleg ('Division') to be referring to the splitting of languages after the Tower of Babel?
I could accept that interpretation as being, at least internally, consistent with the rest of the Bible. The land-bridge thing is a bit crow-barred.
Just my opinion, of course, and I thank you for your responses.
Matt
Well it does say the earth was divided and not people necessarily.
I have been reading this book, Creation as Science. It has some excellent references to this. If you happen to be in a public library, maybe you could pick up a copy.
Vera
Vera,
Yes, it does say the earth was divided. But by earth, does it mean 'planet earth' or the 'earth beneath our feet' (i.e, land)? Perhaps it means the 'people of the earth'?
When it says 'divided' does that mean split in two, three, four, a million? Or does it mean separated (by water).
The only way you can claim that this means what you're saying it means is if you figure out what happened by other methods (geology) and then ascribe what happened to the description given in Scripture.
When you first said it, it was so Blasé; as if the chapter you referenced said; "and in that time the great land bridges were swallowed by the ocean and the lands were divided from each other. Thus Eber named his son Peleg." You'd really be on to something with that!
But I don't think you can, if you're being honest with yourself, say that this chapter is referring to the splitting of Pangea when read in context.
Please be wary of people who try and foist interpretations of evidence onto Scripture when they clearly have a vested interest in doing so; just look at the lengths Ray will go to to attempt to debunk evolution!
I know you are leaning towards a sort of punctuated equilibrium / micro-evolutionary / Acts of Special Creation type of theory but this still requires you to accept an old earth - what do you make of the attempts of young earthers to twist data to support their view?
Both views can't be right, God or no God; either the world is 6,000 years old or it is ~4.5 billion years old - the data can't point to both... so someone's lying.
Thanks again for your time and, just so you know, I've been reading up on RtB and I'll get back to you shortly with what I think.
Kind Regards,
Matt
I hope it hasn't taken too long for me to respond. I get hundreds of emails from Ray's site and I just go through them chronologically. When you write, it comes to this section of my email program. So it comes up when I get to that point. Anyway, I will try to be more alert to these posts. :-)
Please be wary of people who try and foist interpretations of evidence onto Scripture when they clearly have a vested interest in doing so; just look at the lengths Ray will go to to attempt to debunk evolution!
Right. I couldn't agree more. I don't believe this passage is referencing the splits of Pangea but these land bridges that occurred much further down the line that allowed man to walk across Siberia into Alaska. This has pretty much been proven through mtDNA studies. Apparently, the homo sapien sapiens that are native to this country and down into South America can be traced back to Siberia.
I know you are leaning towards a sort of punctuated equilibrium / micro-evolutionary / Acts of Special Creation type of theory but this still requires you to accept an old earth - what do you make of the attempts of young earthers to twist data to support their view?
Both views can't be right, God or no God; either the world is 6,000 years old or it is ~4.5 billion years old - the data can't point to both... so someone's lying.
I will tell you my little history. I would say for the most part, I could care less about creation/evolution. On the whole, it has no impact on my life whatsoever. If, for example, I stopped posting to my blog and Ray Comfort's site and laid aside science, it wouldn't make one iota bit of difference in terms of how I live my life. I hope that makes sense. Actually, that isn't altogether true because studying these things has opened up my understanding of God in a way that I never thought possible. But I just mean, I could live and die without delving into this and probably wouldn't have to think about it.
With all that said, I am a home educator. My only understanding of creation came through homeschool materials and some tapes that were given to me by my bil from Kent Hovind's ministry. They spoke of things like a vapor canopy covering the earth to protect it from ultra violet radiation so that our dating techniques were not accurate. They were heavy duty on the Flood and how this reconciles these misconceptions of science. They spoke of the stars perhaps having a faster speed of light at one point to direct their light here and so what appears to be millions of light years away was brought here supernaturally. They explained that if God could create man whole in a day, He can do anything.
To be honest, there was always a ?? in the back of my mind but I didn't have a clue why. The majority of my friends were under the impression that this was truth and I wasn't really offered any other alternatives.
Even before this, I was given a copy of Hugh Ross's testimony. I loved it! I thought it was great the way he had attempted to disprove all holy books scientifically, historically, prophetically based on the realities of what we know. I loved the way the verse in Job on the Pleiades star cluster being bound was remarkable to him because we didn't actually know that until after the Hubble telescope brought this to light. He was also impressed with the way Moses got all the creation events in the right order. Of course, he was coming at this from a scientific perspective not even realizing there was controversy over these things and that others had interpreted those days as actual 24 hour days.
I was given a YEC book at one time. I opened it up and the first chapter was a slam on Hugh Ross. I closed the book because I simply think that if you are going to make a point about truth, a character attack is unnecessary. Just make your point.
So that was about all the input on creation that I had for many, many years and I lived my life just fine with that aspect of truth on the back burner.
Then my husband and I, through Ray Comfort, began to see that our entire understanding of the gospel message was not even in the ballpark. To be honest, I think Ray's understanding is growing as well even now. Anyway, we got really excited about the message. See, we are not rich people - on purpose. We could have a lot of money if I worked outside our home. But I don't. So we are constantly under the financial gun. Thus when we would give a message that says, "God has a plan for your life," it seemed like a rather ridiculous point. So we never shared our faith. It is funny how bad teaching muddies the waters so that you can't really see clearly what the message actually is. When your perspective is skewed, it is easy to feel that God has let you down. But when you see this thing properly, it's like every single puzzle piece fits!
Anyway, I felt God wanted me to start talking to atheists. I met a young man on Jed Smock's message board who called himself FIU student. He hammered me day and night on evolution etc for three solid months. I began looking for the answers to his questions. I bought a debate at that point from Answers in Genesis - Hugh Ross vs. Ken Ham and I got to tell you, that was a pivotal point for me. Once again, it was obvious that we were getting much bogus information and it made me mad to say the least. The point that knocked it over the centerfield fence for both Doug and me was that if this earth is only 6000 years old, then God is deceiving us when we test it as old because those stars are billions of light years away indicating billions of years. And see, I knew God. And I knew God doesn't deceive.
I began to see how many young people were walking away from God by the droves because when they innocently tried to defend their faith through YEC, they were easily shot down and made to look the fool. What made me the angriest was the fact that Ken Ham knew that his theories were full of holes where Hugh Ross was easily reconciling the biblical text to the truth of science and yet, Mr. Ham continues to talk to congregations of people about YEC as though we are crazy heretics for not believing the Bible. Hugh Ross made it clear that he believes in the Bible's inerrant truth but apparently, this point is deceitfully withheld from the general Christian public. The only way anyone could know that fact though is if they actually checked it out.
But most Christians are too afraid to see things any other way. They are scared to death of what they will find because basically, they are comfortable believing in YEC. As I said, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't make a hill o' beans difference in terms of their apparent happiness. Now I say that but actually knowing these things does make a world of difference in understanding who God is and why we are here but to them, it is not worth it to check it out because status quo is working just fine for them. That is until their children go out and try to share their faith.
The fear of science is built into the entire system. We see people leaving the faith and the assumption is that it is these mean ole scientists who are doing this. The reason they are leaving is because the scientists are holding pieces of obvious irrefutable truth that they can easily show as truth through research and repeatable testing that absolutely proves that YEC is not true. For example, the big bang was yet another thing that was held up as bogus teaching. But we were never told from science that there were other dimensions involved and we were never told from a Christian perspective the absolute accuracy that this moment produced nor that it pointed to a beginning through general relativity. "Let there be light." If scientists have a flaw it is believing that the rest of us common folk could never understand their superior teaching. So they give us a basic truth without any of the rest of the story like say gravity. And if the modern day apostate church has a flaw is that it does not uphold but about a fourth of what the Bible teaches per their favorite verses.
Creation makes a difference though in how we perceive God. Why? Because think about it. If YEC is true, then the animals didn't die before the fall, T-Rex, velociraptor, and megalodon are the result of sin and all that God created here was pleasant and happy before man sinned. But if old earth creationism is true, then perhaps God was trying to send us a clear message such as that He is terrifying at times and soft and gentle at other times since His invisible attributes are evidenced in nature through creation. Perhaps with that perspective people would see that God can and will wipe out entire races of people whom He can no longer tolerate after much patience and slowness to anger giving chance after chance to change.
I said this the other day but when we see these events in the Bible such as the wiping out of the Midianites, instead of stepping back and declaring the Book a lie because now God is not this all loving benevolent God according to Pastor All-Loving-and-No-Substance, maybe He is showing the same attributes He has shown right from the beginning in T-Rex, megalodon and velociraptor. Now these attributes are clearly seen.
See, that is one of the aspects of our lives here that is so important. God cannot reveal Himself to us overtly for several reasons. Firstly, our rebellion toward Him would assure us a place in hell's fire like it did the angels. It would no doubt force us to accept Him whether we want to or not. With faith coupled with our conscience and the power of His Spirit and our own free will choice, there is always the possibility of repentance and reconciliation to Him. Secondly, He says that His invisible attributes are clearly seen in creation so that man is without excuse. And He says in Thessalonians to test all things. So if we test something within creation, which is apparently clearly seen and it doesn't fit what we thought was being communicated through the Bible, we can't come up with a supernatural idea to make it our preconceived understanding fit. See it isn't that God can't work outside of the natural world that He created as much as that He won't. He wants you to test these things to see if they are so. That is such an important aspect of why things are the way they are. And the Bible is the only Holy Book that contains many pages of testable truth. No other holy book comes close.
I am not sorry that the YEC movement exists only because I think we had to exhaust that hypothesis for the sake of some who would still believe, that the earth was young much like the small minority of flat earth believers in their day.
I hope that helps some more. Ask as many questions as you want. I am going to post this post on my blog as a blog post just so that people will know where I'm coming from. I think it's important.
Blessings,
Vera
Post a Comment