Well, I don't know frankly, but for argument sake, I don't think were talking billions of years. Do I think it's 6000? I believe it's closer to that than billions. I believe there is a more definite timeline to Noah and the flood. With regards to the timeline prior, I don't know with regards to man's calendar years. What do you believe?

I don't know really, but I'm just the opposite. I think it's whole lot older than 6000 years, our years that is. I liked the explanation Birdsfan gave earlier. I think I'm pretty close to believing as he had explained.

NO, NO, NO - God is the final authority - that statement comes very close to idolatry. We are not to worship the Bible we are to worship God, and if we make IT infallible we fall into the trap of Bibliolatry.

 

(From the newreformation.org website)

Bibliolatry -- Bible Worship

One of the fundamental principles of Christianity is that nothing is sacred. No thing. No part of creation is God. God is separate from the creation. Creation is only to be respected (made holy) as the handiwork of our God. It is never to be worshiped. This is why western civilization holds nothing sacred. Not king, not country, not flag, not clergy. This is the basis of our freedoms. The first ammendment rights are based on this idea. This is where the founding fathers got this stuff.

Fundamentalist evangelicals violate this basic principle every time the put the printed Bible ahead of God, ahead of Christ, or ahead of the Holy Spirit. The belief in the infallability of the printed Bible may be the worst heresy to affect the church today.

 

It is frequently argued that we must hold on to inerrancy because if we permit anyone to question any part of the Bible, the whole thing is lost. We will have no solid foundation to return to for answers in matters of faith. It is argued that unless we have an indisputable source of truth to return to, Christianity will be reduced to a matter of opinion. But I always thought that Christians came to an understanding of the truth through much prayer, study, and by being informed of the Spirit. I didn't know we could just look up the answers to all the hard questions. In fact there are numerous examples of Biblical passages which simply must be reinterpreted to apply to modern times (see examples in the section on Moral Legalism)

 

Of course the Bible is true. Of course it is the inspired word of God, but inerrancy is a red herring. Even if one grants inerrancy, it solves nothing. We still must rely on study and prayer, informed by the Spirit, to know the truth. Who's interpretation of the inerrant Word should we accept. For example, there are multiple views of the position of women in the church. One interpreter, (well known author and lecturer Mardi Keyes), who believes in inerrancy, reads the gospels and sees Jesus willingness to discuss matters of theology with women (John 4:5-32), and his encouragement of women to sit and learn with the men (Luke 10:38-42), as elevating women to be equal to men. In the context of a first century middle eastern culture these and other seemingly small incidents certainly do represent a radical change in the role of women, given the view that women were mere chattel (property), which was the norm in Jesus day. Other interpreters, who also believe in inerrancy, see only the passage where Paul says women should be silent in church (1 Timothy 2:12). Who's interpretation should we believe?

 

If holding to the position of inerrancy doesn't give us firm answers to hard questions, why do denominational leaders put such great importance on it. Only this: the inerrancy message is a thinly disguised version of "you may not disagree with me." The issue is power, control, and the right to dictate who may do what and when; to tell other Christians what they may and may not believe. This is so foreign to the message of Christ, that it should shock all true Christians.

As the old hymn says, "the Church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord." The Bible is our primary source for knowledge about Christ, but it is not our foundation.

Pardon me for my boldness but your argument is absolute hogwash! I might add that it is MY Foundation.

I don't know really, but I'm just the opposite. I think it's whole lot older than 6000 years, our years that is. I liked the explanation Birdsfan gave earlier. I think I'm pretty close to believing as he had explained.

Oh great! Now I have followers! :irked:

 

 

 

You know, I really think we should spend less time arguing about how long it took to build our house and what kind of wood they used; and concentrate more on keeping it fixed up, and practicing proper hospitality.

This article fits well within this discussion:

 

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Is this supposed to be convincing? IMMHO it simply solidifies the position of those who hold to Intelligent Design. As for the link(s) you requested post #183 and #188 offer some credible sites. However, keep in mind I am not looking for man-made approval or proof . . . the Bible is the final authority.

This is starting to get to the core of one's beliefs. I am glad we are getting there b/c it is the crux of one's future. According to Revelation 22:18-19 what is in the Bible is all true or not. I understand some may argue different points of view, as we are humans. We cannot take some of the Bible and leave some out. What it boils down to is do we believe by FAITH what the word says. We ALL at some point will believe. Those who choose now will be with God in eternity. Those who face God at the Judgement seat of Christ will believe then, but it will be to late to ask Jesus to be your Saviour then. For those of you who know scripture don't be like the rich man in the Lazarus teaching(Luke 16:19)

Thank you for your post.:thumb:

We cannot take some of the Bible and leave some out. What it boils down to is do we believe by FAITH what the word says. We ALL at some point will believe. Those who choose now will be with God in eternity. Those who face God at the Judgement seat of Christ will believe then, but it will be to late to ask Jesus to be your Saviour then.(Luke 16:19)

I think God will save his harshest judgment for people who put themselves above him, by standing in judgment of others.

Acemona

The Bible is Gods own word to us. It cannot be wrong. If it is we might as well quit worshipping God because if one part is not true, then all is not true. There is no gray area. Either He is all right or all wrong. The problem is when we as humans try to fit the Bible into our lives instead of fitting our lives in the Bible. I know its interesting to see other view points, but this is more than life and death. We are talking about eternity here.

I agree. Sometimes I feel like we treat the topic as mere trivia. What you believe in this instance has eternal consequences. Some say that those who hold the Intelligent Design position are elitest . . . I say nothing could be further from the truth. We are simply trying to share the truth in love . . .some people are not taking it that way, however, and this is unfortunate.:cry:

Pardon me for my boldness but your argument is absolute hogwash! I might add that it is MY Foundation.

 

Can you name one historical theologian who agrees with you? St. Augustine? Thomas Aquinas? Martin Luther? Huldrich Zwingli? Billy Graham? (not historical) John Calvin? Adam Smith? Any Pope? anybody born before 1900? Why do the great pillars of our faith not agree that the Bible should be literal, yet you do and call the argument otherwise hogwash. It is easy to dismiss out of hand, but you cannot answer the question that is posed? Whose interpretation of the inerrant word do we believe.

 

FTR - The reference in Revelation is to the book of Revelation itself. The Bible did not exist as a book when John was writing his prophecy. And Paul was referring to the Jewish Holy book when he said that Scripture was "God Breathed". Neither of them claim to be inerrent/infallible/or dictated.

I think God will save his harshest judgment for people who put themselves above him, by standing in judgment of others.

Originally Posted by KJ52

We cannot take some of the Bible and leave some out. What it boils down to is do we believe by FAITH what the word says. We ALL at some point will believe. Those who choose now will be with God in eternity. Those who face God at the Judgement seat of Christ will believe then, but it will be to late to ask Jesus to be your Saviour then.(Luke 16:19)

Birdsfan I am afraid that you have taken KJ52's post out of context. He/she is merely speaking from his/her heart and I agree with it.

Is this the same group that believed about 500 years ago that the earth was flat?

 

Is this the same group that what they have believed and held as FACT turned out to be WRONG!

 

Since scientists say it is fact, are we to just accept that, even though they have been proven to be wrong before and will be proven to be wrong again.

 

If you are determining that man came from ape which is different than the version that the Bible gives, than you are determing that the Christian God and His account of the beginning of man is not accurate as is told in the Bible. And if the Bible cannot be believed than none of it can be believed.

Right on!:thumb:

Originally Posted by KJ52

We cannot take some of the Bible and leave some out. What it boils down to is do we believe by FAITH what the word says. We ALL at some point will believe. Those who choose now will be with God in eternity. Those who face God at the Judgement seat of Christ will believe then, but it will be to late to ask Jesus to be your Saviour then.(Luke 16:19)

Birdsfan I am afraid that you have taken KJ52's post out of context. He/she is merely speaking from his/her heart and I agree with it.

I don't see a lot of love in this thread. All I see is a lot of people looking down their noses at each other while holding their ears tightly closed. The Literalists of you and the staunch Darwinian Evolutionists BOTH have it wrong!

 

 

 

 

 

There! Now everyone can hate me!

Can you name one historical theologian who agrees with you? St. Augustine? Thomas Aquinas? Martin Luther? Huldrich Zwingli? Billy Graham? (not historical) John Calvin? Adam Smith? Any Pope? anybody born before 1900? Why do the great pillars of our faith not agree that the Bible should be literal, yet you do and call the argument otherwise hogwash. It is easy to dismiss out of hand, but you cannot answer the question that is posed? Whose interpretation of the inerrant word do we believe.

 

FTR - The reference in Revelation is to the book of Revelation itself. The Bible did not exist as a book when John was writing his prophecy. And Paul was referring to the Jewish Holy book when he said that Scripture was "God Breathed". Neither of them claim to be inerrent/infallible/or dictated.

 

John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, Thomas Brooks, Matthew Poole, Johnathon Edwards, George Whitfield, Augustus Strong, J.P. Boyce, Matthew Henry, John Calvin, Martin Luther, these are to name but a few. All before 1900.

To answer your question on interpretation . . . we are to do an exegesis of scripture (take out of) not an eisogesis (put in). If you mean translation the truest and most reliable manuscripts come from the Textus Receptus. This would eliminate any paraphrases, the NIV, etc. Hope this clarifies my position. However, keep in mind that I do not have to prove my position to any man. I answer to the one final authority which is God.

I don't see a lot of love in this thread. All I see is a lot of people looking down their noses at each other while holding their ears tightly closed. The Literalists of you and the staunch Darwinian Evolutionists BOTH have it wrong!

 

 

 

 

 

There! Now everyone can hate me!

 

FINE!:madman:

 

Seriously, I'm sorry if anyone felt i was talking down to them. And, I am neither a science without faith, nor a faith without science person. I believe the two are intertwined, and the two are not mutually exclusive.

I don't see a lot of love in this thread. All I see is a lot of people looking down their noses at each other while holding their ears tightly closed. The Literalists of you and the staunch Darwinian Evolutionists BOTH have it wrong!

 

 

 

There! Now everyone can hate me!

Oh, but I don't hate you. I am honestly trying to share the truth with you. However, it is your right to accept or refuse it. In fact, the most loving thing that you can do for someone is share the truth.

Oh, but I don't hate you. I am honestly trying to share the truth with you. However, it is your right to accept or refuse it.

And I offer you the same...