Brother Pat has a faulty view on the bible, as he holds to limited inspiration view, as he maintains that in spiritual matters fully accurate, but in things liek science and history, not so much!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Pat Robertson Calls creationist "Ignorant!"
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Brother Pat has a faulty view on the bible, as he holds to limited inspiration view, as he maintains that in spiritual matters fully accurate, but in things liek science and history, not so much!
quantumfaith
Active Member
Excellent article related to ageing the earth and universe.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 9
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 9
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
IF one was to just take the bible as written as being inspired, and take the hebrew as was written, would end up with a literal viewpoint on genesis!
Otrher viewpoints arise due to TRYING to make scipture accomodated "assumed scientific facts!"
No, other viewpoints arise because the Bible seems to discuss happenings pre THIS creation.
And for the strict literalists, better contact Jesus and tell Him we are still waiting for a literal appearance of Elijah BEFORE the Messiah could come. John the Baptist doesn't cut it.
YECers: we disagree over an interpretation of the Scriptures. You no more "believe the Bible" than we do. We would say we believe what it SAYS but no more. YEC arguments daily get more and more Catholic, depending on tradition and the magisterium to tell us what Scripture means.
Thing about real Baptists is they hold to soul sufficiency, not tradition or the interpretations of men.
And for the strict literalists, better contact Jesus and tell Him we are still waiting for a literal appearance of Elijah BEFORE the Messiah could come. John the Baptist doesn't cut it.
YECers: we disagree over an interpretation of the Scriptures. You no more "believe the Bible" than we do. We would say we believe what it SAYS but no more. YEC arguments daily get more and more Catholic, depending on tradition and the magisterium to tell us what Scripture means.
Thing about real Baptists is they hold to soul sufficiency, not tradition or the interpretations of men.
There would still be differences of opinion as interpretations would still vary from person to person.
Did I not take literal inspired scriptures and show where God and Satan are literally Light and Darkness and that Darkness was already on the earth in Genesis 1:2 when Spirit the God moved and declared himself The Good Light and divided Himself from the Darkness which was already present on the earth establishing twelve hours of morning/day and twelve hours of evening/night before the Sun moon and stars began what we call time.
Did God make a promise, before times eons? Why was that promise necessary at that time?
When people say things this ignorant it only shows they know not what they are talking about.
Archie the Preacher
Member
Dear Brother Mitchell
Brother Mitchell, please understand I think of you as my Christian brother. I pray for you and yours and want you to be well and serve God as He intends. But for you to make such a comment is so funny as to be painful. It is EXACTLY what I feel every time a YEC literalist speaks on the subject.Revmitchell said:
The truth is that the scientific facts support the biblical literalist position much better than the ones who view it thru either lens of evolutionary theory comes first, or else sees it as a metaphor/myth/symbolism etc!
If you folks are going to speak on the "yec literalist" position. First take time to learn what it is.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
:applause: Standing with my brothers on this one.
Well spoken, gentlemen. :thumbsup:
I couldn't care less what he has accomplished, if he denies a basic truth that God created everything in the beginning. Evolution had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Any variations from the creation is nothing more than mutations, cross breeding, and adaptations to the environment. None of those are "evolution".
quantumfaith
Active Member
Who has made that claim Ann? Don't think I heard old Pat suggest that.
Well, science says that the earth is old - so I'd say it's in a similar thing - although the idea of dead people not coming back to life is a bit more observable than the earth being billions of years old.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Rev, where is any misunderstanding of the YEC position
1. God created the heavens and the earth (ex nihlio)
2. He created the earth and all life on it in 6 literal 24 hour days
3. He created man on the sixth day, forming him from the dust of the earth
4. He created woman out of man
Corollaries:
1. YEC sees no need and indeed rejects the idea of the universe being 13.7 billion years, earth being 4.5 billion years
2. YEC rejects any notion of the "big bang"
3. YEC rejects any notion of evolution being or having any part in the creation of humanity
4. YEC believes that their position rests squarely and accurately on the "literal" interpretation of scripture, while any other position that deviates involves some other authority and by default rejects the authority of scripture.
I am sure that I am missing some, does this correctly "sum it up"?
quantumfaith
Active Member
Well, science says that the earth is old - so I'd say it's in a similar thing - although the idea of dead people not coming back to life is a bit more observable than the earth being billions of years old.
While we disagree as to the age of the earth and cosmos, we would both agree (I think) that the raising of anyone from the dead requires a miracle. A miracle from our view point, obviously "no problem" for God.