Can God do all things???

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>> I couldn't disagree with you more...if the Bible was required to agree with
>> science, then you better start findind darwinian evolutionism in the Bible.
 
> Uh, evolution is a theory, not a natural law - it is allowed to have
> flaws.  Read about Darwin, he didn't believed his theory of evolution
> had flaws and couldn't be proven.

More than flaws...his theory is in direct conflict with the Word of God. He 
said man evolved, the Word says God created from the dust...
 
> Scientific theories may not agree with the Bible, the laws of nature
> will because God made both and he doesn't do confusion.

Laws of nature cannot be denied....what goes up must come down, at
lease within the earth's atmopshere. There is no disputing that fact, it
is a law of nature and can be proven consistently without incident.

My problem is with these theories that have no tangible proof, and whose
origins are questionable at best as they related to Biblical accounts.
 
> Back to an earlier statement - the Bible is about theology God and his
> relationship with man.  It is NOT a book about science; therefore
> if/when the Bible makes reference to science the two should agree. 
> Religion going into science would make the statement the Bible should
> agree with science.

God's Word is not going to change. Perhaps we have discovered some
things recently that the Bible does not accurately describe in scientific
terms. But rest assured, it's not because God didn't know! God gave 
man the knowledge to advance technology and create microscopes,
telescopes, kaleidescopes and whatever other kind of scope. We now
have more scientific knowledge than they did in the Bible. We now know
(at least we think we know) that the earth revolves around the sun. I 
don't have a problem accepting that. BUT where the Word states that 
God created man, etc...then no one can tell me that man evolved.
 
> Why, a MAN is interpreting the Bible and science.  And a man can botch
> either interpretation or both interpretations.

Then it seems that your faith in the Word of God is not very stable.

> Examples that come to mind = sun going around earth, Catholic church,
> Methodist church, Baptist church, Lutheran church, Calvinists ....

This was correctly interpreted. From the authors viewpoint and based on
his limited knowledge, it appeared to him that the sun revolved around the
earth. This issue was not a matter of God's creation nor a matter of 
salvation. It's just like when Moses' rod turned into a snake...the type of
snake is irrelevant...the fact is, it DID turn into a snake.
  
> And that type of opinion is why many scientist(especially non USA) look
> at "religion" with contempt.   The Bible is about religion, not technology.

Well, then they will have plenty of time to theorize why hell's fire burns as
hot as it does...or have they already figured that one out too?!
  
>>> Well, since the Bible uses terms for time in vague ways who is to say
>>> the exact length of a creation day?

>> NO ONE! Likewise, unless God himself comes down and tells us the actual
>> length, we should not "assign" numbers to scripture that we think are
right.
 
> So, why is it so hard to accept that the 7 days of creation may have
> been either 7 million, 7 billion, or 7 trillion years?

That's another issue that I don't really deal with. If I had to take an
academic
test, I'd answer according to what the class is taught, but I WILL NOT accept
it as pure fact because it can't be tangibly proven. The bible says "days",
not millions of years. the term "years" is in the bible, so I don't think it's
a
mistake or a riddle that the word "days" is used.
 
>>> IMO, it is time for Christianity to stop fighting in a realm in which it
>>> has limited knowledge. Theologins are not nearly as expert in theology as
>>> scientists are in science.

Here I would beg to differ. However, I don't see that Christians are fighting
with
science except on the theory of evolution vs. creation.

> Because they study the carnal things with greater diligence and are
> willing to admitt they don't have all the answers.

I'm sure there are bible scholars that study as diligently the Word of God
as academics study science. 

> How many religious ideas taught today are generally unchanged from
> 1600 yrs ago?

MANY! The fact remains from 1600 years ago that you STILL need to be 
baptized in Jesus name and STILL need the infilling/baptism of the Holy Ghost
STILL evidenced by speaking in other tongues. I could go on...the Bible has
never changed and NEVER WILL..."Heaven and earth shall pass away, but
my words shall not pass away." (St. Matthew 24/35)

>> I might accept it as a matter of fact for earthly purposes, but I don't
>> make the Word of God bend to fit the scientists theory.
 
> How can you accept it as fact for earthly purposes? it is either right
> or wrong.  It cann't be right in one place and wrong in another.

For example...if I'm taking an academic test...I will answer with what the
class is taught, but will not change my opinion nor the truth. An answer
can be right on a test, but wrong in reality...
 
> Back to the original statement.  When the Bible invades the area of
> science, it should agree with science.

So do you think we should re-write the Bible every time a scientist comes
up with a new theory (or even a proven fact)? Truthfully, there isn't much
in the Bible that goes against science. Most science is based on laws of
nature, with which the Bible is in total harmony.

If I was a scientist and "discovered" something that the Bible explicitly
describes as a matter of scientific fact, then I would review my science,
not alter the Word of God.