Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

You Say You Want An Evolution!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    There were many a theologian and other Christian leaders that denounced the concept of the earth orbiting the sun and not vice versa as flying squarely in the face of what Scripture plainly says. They were wrong.
    What scripture says that? I know the texts that said where God would gather the elect from the four corners of the earth was used to support a flat earth. I don't remember a texts saying that the sun orbited the earth? Maybe the sun standing still thing?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      What scripture says that? I know the texts that said where God would gather the elect from the four corners of the earth was used to support a flat earth. I don't remember a texts saying that the sun orbited the earth? Maybe the sun standing still thing?
      Luther specifically cited Joshua 10. IIRC, Melanchthon cited Ecclesiastes 1:5

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Luther specifically cited Joshua 10. IIRC, Melanchthon cited Ecclesiastes 1:5
        Ok...
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #19
          Ecclesiastes 1:5 is at best Solomon's words, beliefs and laments. Not to mention poetry. Even if Solomon believed the world was flat, it doesn't mean the bible was teaching a flat earth. It was just reporting what Solomon thought. He probably didn't believe in germ theory or atoms either.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            He probably didn't believe in germ theory or atoms either.
            I believe in germ theory - COOTIES!
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              I believe in germ theory - COOTIES!
              Solomon didn't believe in cooties.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Solomon didn't believe in cooties.
                With all those women around - how could he not?
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  I believe in germ theory - COOTIES!
                  So did Hitler and other top Nazis. The likened their attempt to eliminate the Jews with trying to eradicate an infection.

                  Ipso Facto, Germ Theory is evil and should be abandoned.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    So did Hitler and other top Nazis. The likened their attempt to eliminate the Jews with trying to eradicate an infection.

                    Ipso Facto, Germ Theory is evil and should be abandoned.
                    And then there's the case of Corrie Ten Boom's "Praise God for the Lice and Fleas!"
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Ecclesiastes 1:5 is at best Solomon's words, beliefs and laments. Not to mention poetry. Even if Solomon believed the world was flat, it doesn't mean the bible was teaching a flat earth. It was just reporting what Solomon thought. He probably didn't believe in germ theory or atoms either.
                      I'm not arguing in favor of geocentrism but merely citing the passages that some prominent Christians used to support it back "in the day."

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Do you think you could offer what you think is the strongest argument in favor of a young earth rather than simply saying watch this nearly 2 hour long video?
                        There are three or four videos. So it is longer than 2 hours.

                        He reminds people that the lack of explanation by astronomers doesn't mean that a young earth is true, but the secular model doesn't hold up with any consistency.


                        Here are some details that I can recall ... as best as I can recall

                        The moon moves farther from the earth every year. If the solar system was more than a million years old, the moon would be touching the earth at that time.

                        The rotation of the earth, around its axis, decreases over time. If projected back so many millions of years ago, the earth would have had to do a 360 rotation in 2.5 hours ...which would have scattered the water away from its surface.

                        There is no theory for the initial creation of planets from scattered particles in space.

                        The theory for the high density of Mercury assumes that there must have been soft material at the outer layers ...but where the outer material was thought to be knocked away by an asteroid hit.

                        Uranus and Neptune couldn't form within the age of our solar system using planetary-formation theories.

                        No new stars have ever been seen to be forming ... so we can't claim new-star formation as a normal aspect of the universe.

                        Gas clouds are too dispersed to independently contribute to star formation.

                        The speed of light has probably changed drastically -- so we couldn't use the speed-of-light to determine the distance and age of stars

                        One observation was concerning 300 remote mature Galaxies that formed 3 to 6 billion years after the Big Bang. The secular model expected "zero massive galaxies beyond about 9 billion years ago" (Video 2 22:07) [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...708014406.htm]

                        Essentially the videos describe an accumulation of many observations that tend to point to a younger universe than the secular models speak about. It seems the speaker is saying that the secular models are inconsistent and self-contradictory.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The further clarification of the goal of the video is that the Big Bang model isn't some solid, consistent theory of science that we should treat as reliable and unquestionable proof that the universe is billions of years old. In fact, the observed phenomena often shows rates of change or degradation which either produce conflicts within secular theory (e.g., a mature galaxy forming in 500 million years instead of the expected 2 billion years) or age constraints (such as the moon's rate of increasing distance from the earth showing that this change in distance couldn't be sustained for a billion years).

                          The Christian then doesn't have to assume that 'science' has proven the Bible to be wrong. We don't have to accept the idea that scripture and science are antithetical -- that we are 'believing' ideas contrary to scientific evidence if we hold to a young age of the Earth and universe. (The video does notably differentiate experimental/methodological science from the study and theories of cosmology.)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            There are three or four videos. So it is longer than 2 hours.

                            He reminds people that the lack of explanation by astronomers doesn't mean that a young earth is true, but the secular model doesn't hold up with any consistency.


                            Here are some details that I can recall ... as best as I can recall

                            The moon moves farther from the earth every year. If the solar system was more than a million years old, the moon would be touching the earth at that time.

                            The rotation of the earth, around its axis, decreases over time. If projected back so many millions of years ago, the earth would have had to do a 360 rotation in 2.5 hours ...which would have scattered the water away from its surface.

                            There is no theory for the initial creation of planets from scattered particles in space.

                            The theory for the high density of Mercury assumes that there must have been soft material at the outer layers ...but where the outer material was thought to be knocked away by an asteroid hit.

                            Uranus and Neptune couldn't form within the age of our solar system using planetary-formation theories.

                            No new stars have ever been seen to be forming ... so we can't claim new-star formation as a normal aspect of the universe.

                            Gas clouds are too dispersed to independently contribute to star formation.

                            The speed of light has probably changed drastically -- so we couldn't use the speed-of-light to determine the distance and age of stars

                            One observation was concerning 300 remote mature Galaxies that formed 3 to 6 billion years after the Big Bang. The secular model expected "zero massive galaxies beyond about 9 billion years ago" (Video 2 22:07) [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...708014406.htm]

                            Essentially the videos describe an accumulation of many observations that tend to point to a younger universe than the secular models speak about. It seems the speaker is saying that the secular models are inconsistent and self-contradictory.
                            Everything on that list is wrong.

                            First, they suspect that the moon DID come from the earth during a collision but that was longer than a million years ago.

                            The rotation thing is just bad math

                            There are plenty of theories of planet creation

                            I have no idea about Mercury

                            The Uranus/Neptune thing is just wrong. I just watched a show on sci channel that showed a theory of how they ended up in their orbits. Short answer: Jupiter.

                            They are observing stars forming right now in various nebulas.

                            There is no reason to think the speed of light has changed or could change.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Everything on that list is wrong.

                              First, they suspect that the moon DID come from the earth during a collision but that was longer than a million years ago.

                              The rotation thing is just bad math

                              There are plenty of theories of planet creation

                              I have no idea about Mercury

                              The Uranus/Neptune thing is just wrong. I just watched a show on sci channel that showed a theory of how they ended up in their orbits. Short answer: Jupiter.

                              They are observing stars forming right now in various nebulas.

                              There is no reason to think the speed of light has changed or could change.
                              i should state more clearly that I have most likely recalled details incorrectly. the goal was to quickly point out the types of things he was saying.

                              There are apparently data to show that the speed of light has changed. The video mentioned two independently presented theories regarding the change of speed reflected in the data across a (couple?) hundred years. This has been discussed among physicists. you could start here http://ldolphin.org/cdk-helen.html. So, there may be reason to think the speed of light has changed; you may be indicating that this theory isn't commonly incorporated within the broadest scientific community.

                              Some of your issues seem to be semantic -- sorry where I have used terms that allow for such side-tracking. Another issue is that just because someone has theories about how planets were formed, this doesn't mean that the theory is correct. (The video doesn't say that there was a lack of theories of planet formation.) I think the approach of the video was to show that even the existing theories have led to contradictions and inconsistencies

                              I would like to get a website setup to structure discussions on facts, theories, and observations so that details of such theories could be documented ... and easy to see how complete the ideas are. So, if there are papers observing that the speed of light hasn't not been consistent across time, this could be paired up with the opposition ideas that the speed has not changed.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Ecclesiastes 1:5 is at best Solomon's words, beliefs and laments. Not to mention poetry. Even if Solomon believed the world was flat, it doesn't mean the bible was teaching a flat earth. It was just reporting what Solomon thought. He probably didn't believe in germ theory or atoms either.
                                People knew centuries before Christ's birth that the earth was round. I don't know how common the knowledge was, but it was certainly known among the "academics" of the day.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                71 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X