Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Preachers are not Scientists, obviously ...

Expand Messages
  • dmathew1
    Hello Matthew, ... I pity your poor brain, suffering as it is from nourishment. Best Regards, David Mathews
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 10, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Matthew,

      > The child of my brain must be nourished. It has found no
      > sustenance here in many days. & etc.

      I pity your poor brain, suffering as it is from nourishment.

      Best Regards,

      David Mathews
    • lipscombgene
      ... Gene: Matt, there you go again. I thought you would have learned your lesson. When Robert and I REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that you cannot always take
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 11, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"
        <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote:
        > Scientists do not have all truth. I find nothing untrue in
        > the statement of the professor quoted below. Can you
        > identify a particular false statement in the quote? I find
        > nothing in the statement the professor should be ashamed of
        > or correct.

        Gene: Matt, there you go again. I thought you would have learned your
        lesson.

        When Robert and I REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that you cannot
        always take the statements as they are listed in the text literally,
        you put your head in the sand.

        What statement does Matt not take literally?

        "The world stands firm, never to be moved." (1 Chronicles 16:30 and
        Psalms 93:1)

        Matt believes the Earth moves, despite the clear reading of the text.
        He accuses me of claiming the Bible teaches error when I do this to
        him, but of course I do not.

        Matt believes the earth moves BECAUSE of things he has been taught
        external to the Bible which have convinced him that the reading of
        that text cannot mean what it sure seems to say. It is the same thing
        with Genesis 1, but he does not want to admit it.

        Of course, Matt also tends to claim when this obvious conclusion is
        pointed out that "Gene is putting words in my mouth...someone make
        him stop...Waahhh!"

        He wouldn't have to resort to that type of whining if he would face
        up to the facts.

        Surely, Matt would jump up to tell a preacher he is wrong if the
        preacher remarked something like this on Sunday morning:

        "I have no formal education in science. I've seen pictures of the
        earth somewhere. Ignorant scientists try to tell us that the earth
        rotates on an 'axis' and that it 'revolves' around the sun. However,
        God Himself has said, 'The world stands firm, never to be moved.' (1
        Chronicles 16:30 and Psalms 93:1). Anyone who claims otherwise has
        bought into atheistic science and has denied God. Repent!"

        Or would Matt sit in his pew and wonder..."Why don't I accept the
        plain reading of Psalms 93:1 and 1 Chronicles 16:30, when I accuse
        those who do the same thing in Genesis as having denied what God
        said? Oh well, I don't really mind being inconsistent"

        Who knows, because Matt won't answer.

        Gene
      • emilyseyes795
        ... (em here) I guess I still do not get why there is all this division and controversy over science and religion. How do we know these scriptures are to be
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 11, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "lipscombgene"
          <genewright143@h...> wrote:

          >
          > "The world stands firm, never to be moved." (1 Chronicles 16:30 and
          > Psalms 93:1)

          (em here) I guess I still do not get why there is all this division
          and controversy over science and religion. How do we know these
          scriptures are to be taken literally? Maybe it is used as
          personification showing that the world will remain unchanged
          (unmoved)
          in other words, it will continue to exist until God chooses to change
          or move it. This would be simply illustrating God's power and awesome
          authority over the universe not a lesson in astrophysics. To me, the
          Bible was never intended to be just a book of facts and rules...there
          are many nuggets of truth in the symbolism.
        • lipscombgene
          ... and ... change ... awesome ... the ... rules...there ... Gene: Hi Em! Hope all is well. I do not necessarily disagree with you here, but the problem is the
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 14, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "emilyseyes795"
            <emilyseyes795@y...> wrote:
            > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "lipscombgene"
            > <genewright143@h...> wrote:
            >
            > >
            > > "The world stands firm, never to be moved." (1 Chronicles 16:30
            and
            > > Psalms 93:1)
            >
            > (em here) I guess I still do not get why there is all this division
            > and controversy over science and religion. How do we know these
            > scriptures are to be taken literally? Maybe it is used as
            > personification showing that the world will remain unchanged
            > (unmoved)
            > in other words, it will continue to exist until God chooses to
            change
            > or move it. This would be simply illustrating God's power and
            awesome
            > authority over the universe not a lesson in astrophysics. To me,
            the
            > Bible was never intended to be just a book of facts and
            rules...there
            > are many nuggets of truth in the symbolism.

            Gene: Hi Em! Hope all is well. I do not necessarily disagree with you
            here, but the problem is the "my way or the highway" approach many
            YEC do with regard to Genesis 1. Some say if you believe the earth is
            old, you're calling Jesus a liar. Others, including Matt, have
            equated believing the earth is old to disagreeing with God.
            Obviously, anyone who calls Jesus a liar or disagrees with God cannot
            go to heaven, so in essence they are saying "if you believe things
            are old, you're going to hell". Don't see any way to escape that
            conclusion.

            Now the problem for the YEC group that are in the "my way or the
            highway" crowd is that they are SELECTIVELY literal and SELECTIVELY
            dogmatic. The passage I quoted above should be just as literally read
            and dogmatically used by this group as Genesis 1, yet because they
            KNOW this is nonsense because of what they have learned from science
            and the investigation of the real world, they don't maintain their
            consistency.

            There is more than enough real world evidence for the ancient
            creation of the universe and the earth (ancient here meaning much
            longer than 10,000 years ago). Therefore, I am not a YEC for the same
            reason Matt and other "my way or the highway" YEC are also not
            geocentrists.

            If only they would realize this inconsistency.

            As Lipscomb said, "For a long while, men thought that the Sun moved
            around the Earth; they interpreted the Bible to say so. When the
            investigation of the laws of the physical world proved that the Earth
            moves around the Sun, many thought it overturned the statements of
            the Bible. The theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun is
            universally accepted by Bible students now and none think the theory
            contradicts any statement of the Bible; indeed, there is not a
            statement in the Bible concerning the movements of the Earth and the
            Sun that men of science would not now use to describe them. So the
            discovery contradicted no statement of the Bible. But how it extended
            our conceptions of the universe and of the works and wisdom of the
            Creator! It contradicted no statement of the Bible, but our
            misconception of its statement."

            YEC have a strong misconception of Genesis and should open their eyes
            to the way things really are.

            Lipscomb also said 100 years ago:

            "The laws of the spiritual universe, as revealed by God, are true and
            infallible; all the facts and truths stated by God concerning them
            are infallibly true ... the Bible is a revelation from God to man, so
            God adapts its teachings to the comprehension of men ... But we
            often, by looking at these revelations from an improper standpoint,
            misunderstand them, and by the investigations of science may be
            called upon to revise our conclusions as to what they teach."

            Matt and others should revise their conclusions about the age of
            things in the same way they have revised their conclusions about
            whether the earth moves or not.

            Cheers!
            Gene
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.