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!
You are mixing stuff up. There are two issues. The progression of God giving His revelation to man. And the immitability of God and His word. The creation is set. Man was removed from the garden. There has been Noah, Abraham, Moses and now the New Covenant. The millennium is yet future. As is the day of Judgement and the New Haven and Earth.
Nonsense. The days of Noah were quite different. Man lived nearly 1000 years for example. Before Babel, man spoke the same language. In both the millennium and the days of Noah and Adam plants grow fast, not like today. In both the future and the far past on earth, spirits were much more a part of life and sons of gods even took wives here. Nothing was 'set' so that nature could not be changed. The future and past in Scripture are different than the present. You cannot claim the present is set! Anything BUT set actually since it is temporary. You did not offer either science or bible evidence. Zero.
You have offered npne. And you confuse issues and deny. Make false accusations or what to me seen to be confused. You seem to deny Romans 10:18 citing Psalms 19:4 being the immutable word of God by which God gives man faith. You deny it to be natural revelation by which I referred to it, in contrast to the special revelation, we have in the writings we call our 66 book Bible.
False. I claim science does not know one way or the other what nature may have been or will be like in the past or future. The bible as I pointed out describes different basic facets of life for the past and future that are anything BUT natural here in the temporal present world and time and nature. Nothing in the verses you spam even relates to the issue. Be honest.
That is not an issue whatsoever. Of course nature shouts out the glory of God. The issue with the poster that raised the question of 'natural revelation' was that nature is different in the future and past than it is today according to descriptions in the bible. So I accept that nature of the past, the future and the present is shouting out God's glory! That does NOT mean nature will always be and always was the same as today. The poster in question seems to want to use the phrase natural revelation to try and show that the bible says nature was always the same. The reason it is relevant is because science uses the premise that nature was always the same (forces and laws on earth) to produce origin models and old ages and etc. My whole point is that the future and the far past on earth as described in the bible is quite different from today. There is nothing about 'natural revelation' that deals with or changes that.
The reason it is important to point out that science does not know what nature existed in the past is because they use a belief that it was the same as the basis for the theory of evolution. It is important to know that God was right all along, and science as wrong and belief based.
Well, the kids they teach in school are not so well equipped to be able to know they are being taught a crock. Knowing there is a real God and the bible is true and there really was a creation matters!
And you would not sound like you know what you are talking about in the company of an educated group of people. You would probably come off as some guy who is ignorant of the facts, and science and wants to stick his head in a hole.
The poster that I was responding to is not the choir. How about you? Do you believe in a real creation in six days? That was the topic from which he diverted into talking about natural revelation, as if that helped support his non biblical from science. You see, in my choir, those that do not believe in the creator and bible do not sing.
Not sure why you interject into a discussion about time in the far universe and the science claims of ages and distances? Then you mutter about huffing and puffing? I explained why the topic was raised by the poster and why he brought up the diversion issue of natural revelation. It is not about what 'I would like to see done'! It is about people making false claims and left field off base off topic responses.
Don't blame me for what you think I don't understand. The trick is to demonstrate that you understand. Do you realize time in involved in red shifting light out there? If so, then prove time is the same out there? You seem to think that you can sit here in a little fishbowl of a solar system area, and see how things look here, and make all the universe comply to your little observation/experience/scope. You see if time is different then we cannot say light took a certain time to get here. If time is different out there maybe it could affect light and cause shifting? How would we know? You just assume that space and time that we have here must represent all the universe. For no particular reason! You do realize 'frequency' is the number of occurrences of repeated events per unit of time?
God did what He said He did. By the way, relax. You will not be exploring the universe. You are stuck here on earth and the area of this little solar system! Man has not been more than a few light seconds away from earth! The furthest probes are not even one single light day away yet! That is your range of expertise. If people want to believe the word of God they need to take it for what it says, not call God a liar and say well, 'He reeeaaalllly could have done it some other way if He wanted'. That is serpentine nonsense.
The Scripture is the source of truth, not you or I. God will not break His word, and as Jesus said every little jot and tittle will be fulfilled of the law. Jesus also referred to the beginning when He created man. Angels in Revelation pronounced the same thing, that God was the Creator. The New Testament and the Old agree. Do not call people names for believing what it says. He did not have a pack of foolish lies sent to us. The only thing you can be an 'arbiter' of is whether you chose to believe it or not! In modern English that means like it or lump it. Take it or leave it.