Believing the Bible in the Face of 'Evidence to the Contrary'

[Ken Hamrick]

There is no reason to believe that nonsense explanation. Light reveals what is actual and true. The Son of God is the true light (John 1:9-10), He is truth personified (14:6). He is God's glory Hebrews, 1:3.

It is you who are not making any sense. At least I provided a cogent argument, to wit, that God created everything at every point in the universe simultaneously, including the light between the distant stars and the earth--and further, that the example of Adam & Eve shows that God is not above creating maturity in what He creates. On the other hand, you have provided no argument--at least none that I can decipher as rational.

 

[37818]

It is you who are not making any sense. At least I provided a cogent argument, to wit, that God created everything at every point in the universe simultaneously, including the light between the distant stars and the earth--and further, . . . <snip>

The statement is false by reason there are 6 days where God fixted the Earth. And on the 4th day God had the two lights appear which we identify as the Sun and Moon. There is what the written word of God says and there are interpretations. It is the interpretations of both the written and the natural (Psalms 19:4; Romans 10:17-18) word of God which men disagree on.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

The statement is false by reason there are 6 days where God fixted the Earth. And on the 4th day God had the two lights appear which we identify as the Sun and Moon. There is what the written word of God says and there are interpretations. It is the interpretations of both the written and the natural (Psalms 19:4; Romans 10:17-18) word of God which men disagree on.

Of course, He did. I should have specified. But when God "created the stars also," He created them for the purpose of being seen, so we have no reason to doubt that He would have created both the stars and their light so that He and His creatures would not have to wait millions of years in order for His creative purposes to be carried out.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The Bereans were never skeptics against the revealed truths of Scripture. Scripture was their standard. Not at all a fair comparison to skeptics who weigh the plain-sense meaning of Scripture against so-called natural evidence.

You greatly mischaracterize the nature of the Messianic passages as well as the then current state of their interpretation. Not even the disciples properly understood them prior to Jesus explaining them after his resurrection (Luke 24:25-27). Even then they seem to have been a bit off (Acts 1:6-8).

The Bereans had to deal with the same manmade misinterpretations as everyone else. The difference is that they went back and reassessed Scripture in the light of new truth. They didn’t just accept the previously ascribed plain meanings of supposed Bible experts.

 

[just-want-peace]

------ Not everything scientists say are statements of science. They also invoke their authority in science to make unsupportable philosophical and metaphysical assertions.

IE: GLOBAL WARMING!!!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

IE: GLOBAL WARMING!!!

Yes, but brother, that is extremely mild in comparison to so much of the inanity they express. For example, inventing definitions of "nothing" that are anything but; having this finite universe bring itself into existence; or imagining a "multiverse" that can never be established, would be forever inaccessible, and is irrelevant in any case—anything in their desperate attempts to avoid the reality of the transcendent God of creation and a holy goodness that demands perfection.

Even though God's word warns of this, that they can proffer such metaphysical ideas with a straight face still amazes me, as does their ability to abandon reason and imbibe the relativity of postmodernism. When anything can be true, you can be certain nothing will be, as lies reign in the minds of men.

As you know, ultimately the real problem in all of this is spiritual, not intellectual, as many are towering giants in their fields of expertise. But many others are merely duped by their air of scientific authority and have not stopped to consider what's really going on. These many can yet be reached, when we begin to address the core metaphysical assumptions deceptively introduced, rather than getting bogged down in tangential matters.

 

[Alan Gross]

There can not be any evidence, from any branch of science, of some 'theory', other than, " In the Beginning, God Created the Heaven and the Earth, AND THERE IS NONE.

Only 'assumption' is even rationally possible.

Once, 'assumption' is given up as a Satanic lie, what else is there?

Nothing.

Look outside.

 

[tyndale1946]

There can not be any evidence, from any branch of science, of some 'theory', other than, " In the Beginning, God Created the Heaven and the Earth, AND THERE IS NONE.

Only 'assumption' is even rationally possible.

Once, 'assumption' is given up as a Satanic lie, what else is there?

Nothing.

Look outside.

I believe what the Bible says... The KJV!... Question creation what are you going to question next, the resurrection?... The evidence is there, believe what it says even though you don't understand it... May be you need a Job experience!

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

38:3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

 

[Alan Gross]

I believe what the Bible says... The KJV!... Question creation what are you going to question next, the resurrection?... The evidence is there, believe what it says even though you don't understand it... May be you need a Job experience!

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

38:3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Of course, Perfect.

The Only 'proof' of any of that retardation is 'assumption'.

Once anyone gets rid of that, there is not one speck of dust as 'evidence' for some 'theory'.

THERE CAN NOT BE.

AND THERE IS NONE.

 

[robycop3]

I believe what the Bible says... The KJV!... Question creation what are you going to question next, the resurrection?... The evidence is there, believe what it says even though you don't understand it... May be you need a Job experience!

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

38:3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

The KJVO myth is as much nonsense as evolution is.

 

[robycop3]

I have a simple question for evolutionists - If the amoeba, the simplest animal, evolved into the paramecium, a more-complex animal, which evolved into the volvox, a multi-celled animal, til finally animal life evolved into us, then, WHY ARE THERE STILL AMOEBAE???????????? Shouldn't they all have become paramecia by now ?

 

[Alan Gross]

I have a simple question for evolutionists - If the amoeba, the simplest animal, evolved into the paramecium, a more-complex animal, which evolved into the volvox, a multi-celled animal, til finally animal life evolved into us, then, WHY ARE THERE STILL AMOEBAE???????????? Shouldn't they all have become paramecia by now ?

An amoeba is observed to duplicate itself and at one point appears to be a two-celled living organism, however, that is just it's state prior to the split into two one-celled amoeba.

So, there is not an 'evolutionary' development, from a 'one-celled' organism to a 'two-celled' organism.

The next highest living organism is multicelled, as you say.

There are no 'missing links' between the two.

https://www.google.com/search?clien......0i71j0i67.mW5wjbNsOuM#imgrc=Zye3mLz8ENJ9kM:

That is ignoring the question of where they came from to start with and the Earth they are on, with the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, hanging on nothing in The Universe.

 

[tyndale1946]

An amoeba is observed to duplicate itself and at one point appears to be a two-celled living organism, however, that is just it's state prior to the split into two one-celled amoeba.

So, there is not an 'evolutionary' development, from a 'one-celled' organism to a 'two-celled' organism.

The next highest living organism is multicelled, as you say.

There are no 'missing links' between the two.

https://www.google.com/search?clien......0i71j0i67.mW5wjbNsOuM#imgrc=Zye3mLz8ENJ9kM:

That is ignoring the question of where they came from to start with and the Earth they are on, with the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, hanging on nothing in The Universe.

My wife has always said... It takes way greater faith to believe in Evolution than in Creation... I just read my KJV (The King Jesus Version) and there it is... Seems a lot of brethren want to attack King James, so I changed mine... Brother Glen

 

[Alan Gross]

My wife has always said... It takes way greater faith to believe in Evolution than in Creation... I just read my KJV (The King Jesus Version) and there it is... Seems a lot of brethren want to attack King James, so I changed mine... Brother Glen

She's a keeper!!

 

[37818]

. . . nonsense as evolution is.

Evolution as change over time is no myth. Now the popular Darwinian evolution is full of myth.

 

[tyndale1946]

She's a keeper!!

She was born in Colorado and I was born in California... She told me you haven't see nothing until you see the Rocky Mountains... I must admit they were a sight to behold... Then we went to Canada and she saw the Canadian Rockies and her jaw dropped as she said God you outdid yourself... When she saw The Grand Canyon she said, so that's what your flood created... No doubt about it, she's a keeper... Brother Glen

 

[Calminian]

Trying to bring someone to the age of the earth rather than to Christ is hardly a worthy modus operandi for evangelism. It is a good way to drive people away,...

I've heard this, but never seen evidence of it. In fact, the idea dismissing the history of the earth, in my opinion, is the real undermining agent of the Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus is built on the history of the fall, and culminates in the prophecy of his return. Creation, corruption, cross, consumption. It's a continual story from beginning to end. Chopping off the beginning of the story of Jesus, can't possibly help matters anymore than chopping off end of the story when Christ returns and restores all things.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Trying to bring someone to the age of the earth rather than to Christ is hardly a worthy modus operandi for evangelism. It is a good way to drive people away, and they may be right to avoid such as you. Note you twisted my words, deliberately or not.

Skepticism is a healthy way to approach any new ideas. The Bereans were skeptical and rightly demanded more proof. They did not remain unbelieving, but in being skeptical their faith was thus properly anchored.

RighteousnessTemperance& said: ↑

Trying to bring someone to the age of the earth rather than to Christ is hardly a worthy modus operandi for evangelism. It is a good way to drive people away,...

I've heard this, but never seen evidence of it. In fact, the idea dismissing the history of the earth, in my opinion, is the real undermining agent of the Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus is built on the history of the fall, and culminates in the prophecy of his return. Creation, corruption, cross, consumption. It's a continual story from beginning to end. Chopping off the beginning of the story of Jesus, can't possibly help matters anymore than chopping off end of the story when Christ returns and restores all things.

Who said anything about dismissing the history of the earth? That’s just nonsense. But it’s good to know that your insisting one hold to a certain age of the earth before hearing of Christ crucified for sin hasn’t driven anyone away from hearing the Gospel from you.

 

[Calminian]

Who said anything about dismissing the history of the earth? That’s just nonsense. But it’s good to know that your insisting one hold to a certain age of the earth before hearing of Christ crucified for sin hasn’t driven anyone away from hearing the Gospel from you.

Because the history of the earth, includes the relative age of the earth. There's no separating the two. The Bible records the relative recent creation of the earth. It's a matter of history.

And we know the creation groans because of Adam's sin. And we know that Christ will restore the creation. We know he will put an end to animal predation, and suffering in his millennial kingdom, when the lion, wolf and bear will graze with their former prey. This only make sense with death happening immediately after the Fall of Adam. Fossils depicting death and suffering millions of years before Adam's sin confuses the story.

The protoevangelium is the first prophecy of Christ, give immediately after the Fall. Jesus created a very good world. Sin marred that world, and then the prophecy of Jesus is given.

I'm for preaching the full Gospel with all its contexts. I start from the "very good" creation, and end with coming wrath of the Lamb and establishment of the new kingdom and eventual eternal state. People are craving the entire story from start to finish. Jesus is not merely the middles chapters. He's the "Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

 

[Shoostie]

No one believes the Big Bang Theory based on the preponderance of the evidence. Yet, few liberals or Atheists question whether it's true or not. People demand Christians have answers for everything, but Atheists get a pass.

Empirically, there is no expansion of the universe. Calculations vs. observed celestial movements leave no room for an expansion factor. Nor does any scientist have any actual mechanism for expansion.

I accept that light is observed to travel at a certain speed and I accept that many stars we see are "billions of light years away". But, also accept the Big Bang is a bad excuse for a scientific theory. Between two unscientific options, I go with the Bible. There could be a natural mechanism for light to get to Earth in mere thousands of years (several ideas have been floated). God made the stars for man, and he can do whatever miracles are necessary to give us sight of the stars.