Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:54:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
326 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> Let's look at the logic you provided. God put information into the Bible for
> a REASON. If it was something we could learn from our natural surroundings
> (like, say, gravity), then He wouldn't put it in. (Am I right so far?) So
> basically, God's act of including it in the Bible implies that the Bible
> explains aspects of the physical world which we couldn't otherwise determine
> difinitively through science? (Not sure that's the jump you'd make)
Dave - you get waaaaay beyond yourself when you assume what I mean and then
build upon that assumption repeatedly. It might be far easier to simply make
an assumption show it's conclusion and wait for a response... (IMHO)
As to the topic:
No, that's not what I'm saying.
A literal interpretation would mean:
God chose what to include in the Bible, we did not.
There are many things He could have put in the Bible, but He did not.
What He chose to put in the Bible He did for a reason.
Some of those reasons appear to be evident, others do not.
Whether or not something is in the Bible has no relationship to our ability to
learn about it.
Indeed I believe that most things (certianly not all - yet perhaps) in the
Bible can be observed by us.
God would want His creation to find His Word trustworthy, and believable.
But He would not want the creation to re-make Him in their image (so-to-speak).
As the creation, we should attempt to understand His ways of doing things, not
force Him to fit our thoughts (finite vs infinite).
(and here we touch on His attributes)
As creator - He is greater than us. Also, He does not lie to us - He is truth.
These are things He tells us in His Word.
(off topic)
Evolution is man's construct. It actually doesn't fit with man's science - but
that's another thread.
-Jon
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Actually, I find that more difficult, but that's just the way I think. I find it easier to think it out to greater extremes when I'm responding, or else I might forget what track I was on, etc. Dunno... that's just me. But anyway, I DO try and (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Cool! That's all I wanted, since that's what you said that's explicitly what you were after in this thread. (...) EXACTLY! And let me just say you did an excellent job of discussing the matter. It's all interpretive. The point of course being (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
