Why do we need salvation?

Hmmm, I do not see a PhD in biology there. Craig really is more qualified than you to speak on the topic.

But that is how things work. Those who are considered experts are those who have subjected themselves to the necessary training, who have studied the issues, who have done the lab work or the field work. These are the people who have enough information to judge the merits of a theory. The plain fact is that neither you nor I have the expertice to make a judgement.

That is why it is a logical fallacy to make an appeal to authority to someone who is not an expert in the subject.

Now, about all these people who really all qualified in evolutionary biology and geology and astronomy...

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, we do have the authority. We have a Book that God preserved us that provides a witness to the events. I will take it over 200 Phd's any day of the week. Even the Bible is very clear on man's perceived wisdom making him blind.

Let me ask YOU directly. Do YOU believe Jesus turned water to wine and it was done as a "miracle"? Do YOU believe that Jesus died and was ressurected?

Where do YOU draw the line on God's power?

 

Okay, Mike, you have your wish. If any posts are made from this point on that are not related to the topic, they WILL be edited.

Stick to Mike's subject and you will be fine.

I too am tired of arguing evolution based on what we SEE. And I am also tired of certain people comparing their little degrees to prove they know more about creation than God did.

If you wish to discuss the science of evolution, then start a new thread.

Thank you......(and thank you, Mike.)

 

My God can. He can also feed 5000 with a small bag of fish and bread... with twelve baskets of leftovers.

 

I hope I'm not breaking the rules here, but I want to re-post something I posted a little earlier........

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away;"..... Matt 24: 38-39 (NASB).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus Himself said there was an ark, a flood, that Noah entered the ark, and that the flood carried them all away.

Please explain to us how it was that Jesus was confused on the issue?

The question is...who are we going to believe?
Or to put it another way...It's decision time.

 

Sorry Philip, I posted before I saw your decision....
Mike, once again I apologize for leaving the topic and thanks for your understanding....

 

Actually stick with the topic and answer the original question? What a novel approach. You aren't trying to convert us from being Baptists are you?

Well, OK.

I base the necessity for salvation, man's condition, the cause for that condition, the means of salvation, and the origin of all that is on the same book read in its normal, literal sense.

If God could not give us a straight answer concerning where we came from to include the major re-start of the Flood and how we came to be sinners then why should I believe His answer concerning how I can be redeemed?

Every promise made concerning my salvation is miraculous. I was quickened spiritually. Though my body will die, I will be one of the many brethren of the resurrection. I will have a supernatural inheritance. I will have a supernatural, eternal existence. I will escape a supernatural, eternal torment.

The supernatural is so much greater than the natural according to the Bible that I am mystified as to how someone who professes faith could be limited by naturalistic presuppositons when considering science. It seems completely, absurdly incoherent to me that one would claim faith in the resurrection, our resurrection, heaven, hell, angels, etc but then declare that Gen 1-11 "cannot be literal".

 

McGyver's scripture has a direct bearing on salvation. IMO, it is on topic.

 

No problem, mcgyver. Your answer does relate to the heart of the question.

What I am going to limit is not the discussion of whether or not Jesus can DO a miracle.

This was not opened as a "science" discussion;
to compare college degrees and nor to take a poll of how many scientists believe in evolution and what scientific findings they have to prove it.

The way to the cross is narrow and as Christians, we know how many people are headed straight to hell. Therefore, the issue of how many great and wonderful people believe in evolution and WHY they believe in it is not the debate.

 

mcgyver, The complete context of that scripture is a great proof text for an acceptance of a literal, historical flood. Jesus used it as an actual event that parallels another actual event. Nowhere does the Lord give even an inkling of the idea that the flood was local or anything less than historical truth.

 

I agree Scott

 

Of course I consider the Bible to be literature, don't you?

</font>[/QUOTE]NO. The Bible is not "literature" in the sense that it is governed by theories or rules concerning writings of human origin.

God is the author of the Bible. You cannot accept this premise then turn around and use the same rules to evaluate His book that you use to evaluate ancient mythology.

My salvation is based on the gospel message of a divinely given Word. That Word is never... ever to be subjected to the type of higher criticism that would render it nothing more than ancient myth.

 

I assume that you would not ask me a direct question and then turn around and mandate that if I answer it then I will considered off topic and deleted...

I have answered such question from you in the past.

Of course I believe the miracles of the Bible as written. You know that. We take those things on faith. There is no proof of them even if we demanded it. God acting outside of the natural laws is the very defintion of supernatural.

But you also know the rest of what I have said repeatedly. I place no limits on God's power. He could have created the world at any point in time in any manner of His choosing.

As it happens, the creation itself reveals that He did so of billions of years. There is no credible theory that can explain our observations of the creation in any other manner.

I have also told you that it is quite possible that God chose to create the universe and make it look exactly as though He used billions of years. I just refuse to believe that God would create evidence of things that did not happen on such a grand scale. A perfectly functioning universe could have been created without the CMB in the sky and the twin nested heirarchy, the known transitional series, anatomical and molecular parahomology, anatomical and molecular vestiges, past biogeography, present biogeography, ontogeny, atavisms, shared pseudogenes, shared retroviral inserts and all the other evidences for evolution in the living creatures and in the ground.

If God made the world recently then He was extremely careful to make it look like He did it billions of years ago. But He could have easily done so. But in that case, we can never believe our lying eyes on anything at anytime.

I will add that IMHO, the opening post was phrased in such a way as to bait OEers into the debate. I think he got just what he wanted.

 

My God can. He can also feed 5000 with a small bag of fish and bread... with twelve baskets of leftovers. </font>[/QUOTE]...pardon me, but I just HAVE to ask this question and Craig you may certainly answer.

Certainly, you didn't say that God can not squeeze a gallon of water into a one ounce bottle, did you?

 

Yes, he did.

 

Mike wrote in his opening post,

It is absolutely impossible to offer an academically sound answer to Mike question without taking into consideration the text of Genesis, the literary genre of it literature, the evidence for the literary genre of its literature, what Genesis really tells us about man and sin, and what the New Testament writers had to say that is relevant to all of these matters.

I don’t believe, therefore, that it is fair for Mike G. to claim that we are off topic when we deal with these matters in an academically sound manner rather than from his particular and highly questionable theological view point. However, I have both dealt with these matters in an academically sound manner and I have directly answered Mike G.’s question, and I have no further comment at this time.

 

For goodness sake UT, OPEN YOUR EYES!!!

Creation doesn't "reveal" anything in and of itself. That is ascribing an intelligent trait to nature. Nature is interpretted by naturalists to be billions of years old because the presuppose that the supernatural was not the cause.

None of the things you say you have faith in could have been recognized as the result of a miracle by looking at the end product. The wine looked and tasted like wine that had passed through natural processes. Lazarus' body functioned as if it had never been dead. Jesus appeared in the room as if He had used a door. The leper's skin looked as if it were the result of natural processes.

A scientist could have explained the process of how these realities came about naturally but they didn't come about naturally.

All of these things we believe as a direct result of what the Bible tells us. If it tells me that Jesus did real miracles, really rose from the dead, really has a home for me in a supernatural place called heaven, etc... and I believe those things, I find no difficulty whatsoever with creation ex nihilo.

 

Does it apply to me as well...

Again, this is a miracle. God showed His creative power there.

Now, relating that back to Craig's flood comments, I wish the YEers would simply take that approach. God used a miracle to make the water appear. God used a miracle to make the water disappear. God used a miracle to save all the species. God used a miracle to clean the earth up after the flood, leaving no trace. God used a miracle to replenish the ecosystems immediately so that life would have something to survive on. God used a miracle to redistribute the life to where thier ancestors lived.

But you don't get this. You get fanciful tales of vapor canopies and underground water and canyons and massive hiberation and all these other things trying to explain it as non-miraculous. And when you do, you open yourself up to how plausible such scenarios are.

Same thing with the rest of the discussion. Either simply say that God used a miracle to create life wit hthe appearance of evolution or show us how to better explain what we see. You can't do both.

If that was the tactic used from the beginning, there is the possibility I might still be YE. Afterall, it was the weakness of the YE material, and this coming from someone YE at the time, that led me to consider something else. They should just be honest and admit that this is what the data shows but that God just created it that way for His own purpose. When they try and go scientific, they go wrong.

 

Whoops, it has been brought to my attention that Phillip wrote and asked,

I do not have a copy of a HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS book with me here in my office, and I doubt that they have a copy of one in the university library, so my answer is not going to be as technical as perhaps it should be, but when God made water, He made something, by His own design, that can NOT be compressed to any significant extent without changing it molecular structure to the point that it is no longer water or even a liquid. God IS a God of miracles—and when he created water from nothing, he created, by His own design, water with its particular molecular structure, making it impossible for Him to squeeze a gallon of water into a one ounce bottle.

 

For goodness sake UT, OPEN YOUR EYES!!!

Creation doesn't "reveal" anything in and of itself. That is ascribing an intelligent trait to nature. Nature is interpretted by naturalists to be billions of years old because the presuppose that the supernatural was not the cause.

None of the things you say you have faith in could have been recognized as the result of a miracle by looking at the end product. The wine looked and tasted like wine that had passed through natural processes. Lazarus' body functioned as if it had never been dead. Jesus appeared in the room as if He had used a door. The leper's skin looked as if it were the result of natural processes.

A scientist could have explained the process of how these realities came about naturally but they didn't come about naturally.

All of these things we believe as a direct result of what the Bible tells us. If it tells me that Jesus did real miracles, really rose from the dead, really has a home for me in a supernatural place called heaven, etc... and I believe those things, I find no difficulty whatsoever with creation ex nihilo. </font>[/QUOTE]Then propose the better interpretation that better accounts for our observations in the creation.

And do not give me the line about where all the funds go. The funds go to the research. For comparitively little money, you can subscribe to the proper journals and get all of the data available. Then you just need to better explain what we see. It only takes thought and very little money. I bet the floks at AIG and ICR and the like already have subscribtions to many of the right journals for their quote mining.