Adam and 4000 BC

No problem man, I knew you had it in you to answer your own question.

 

Neither do I want to be confrontational about the matter of faith. I understand that we must live by faith since much of what we see is unseen. Will God give us the words to share - we have faith that he will. Do we face trying times and come through them glorifying God - we have faith that we will. Will nothing separate us from the love God has for us - I have faith that is true.

I appreciate everyone who has faith in the father - as you obviously have. But we all see things in different lights.

My point is if we have faith that a situation will bring glory to God but instead it disappoints God - then our faith is amiss - misguided.
Should I live by a beautiful lake that freezes solid every winter and I and my father and g'father have skated on it for as long as memory reaches - I may very well have faith that the ice will hold me this year - so I step boldly onto the ice and it gives way. I have misguided faith. I must use reason to understand that this might happen.
So with God - I must be sure that I am not accepting things on faith that I have been taught since childhood when indeed closer observation and careful reason show that this is not the truth God has for me.

Reason is not an adversary of God, nor is intellect an adversary of God. They are tools God has given us to better understand Him and the world He has given us. It can be misused and abused as any of God's creation can be. But those two gifts should be tended and cherished and used to develop a better understanding of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

Nice one waterbrother. You made a baseless claim (that dating techniques derived from geology and paleontology are a hoax perpetrated by evolutionists) and when someone who has bothered to study the history of these fields points out that you are wrong, you simply make a silly remark.

William Smith, Baron Georges Cuvier, Alexandre Brongniart, and Alcide d'Orgbigny are just a few of the religious men who laid the groundwork for geology and paleontology and if you bother to look it up you will see that they were publishing decades before Darwin and Wallace.

So I will say it again, the idea that dating techniques rely on assumptions about evolution, or that the data used for dating has been created by evolutionists is completely false.

 

I think I am just repeating myself and my convictions. Believe me I respect yours. Can we both be correct and the common ground is obscured by our predilections? Anyway - :beatdeadhorse5:

 

What do you feel is god's will for his children?

 

Common ground is obscured but it cannot be extinguished.
Solution is equal dispersal. The sun shines on all alike.

 

Yes, I "be holding" the Bible, but what does that have to do with it's demonstration of realities not beheld.

 

The only "dilemma", as you put it, is that it doesn't speak to you because you don't seem to be listening.

 

Thanks, and although I'm sure we don't agree on everything, I have enjoyed a lot of what you've said as well.

 

To behold is to see or observe something. If you see the bible it is not a reality not beheld.

You claimed the bible was such a "reality not beheld", so that is what it has to do with it, wasn't my idea. The bible, as far as I am concerned, does not meet the criteria of realities not beheld.

Regardless, this discussion would be more appropriate in a different thread.

 

However the Holy Spirit does speak, to the degree that you are willing to listen.
When you present me with a recording of a bible's voice, then I will say that the bible speaks. The bible is a book, an inanimate object, it does not speak.

 

If by saying that it doesn't speak you simply mean that it doesn't emit an external audible sound then you are correct. But I'm not sure what pointing this out accomplishes or how it's related to the discussion.

 

You can say it all you want but it doesn't make it any more true.

The "fact" that "William Smith, Baron Georges Cuvier, Alexandre Brongniart, and Alcide d'Orgbigny are just a few of the religious men who laid the groundwork for geology and paleontology and if you bother to look it up you will see that they were publishing decades before Darwin and Wallace", proves nothing.

First, what was the groundwork that they laid, you don't say? If it was that the earth is millions or even billions of years old, I have no problem with that. The Bible says that the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning and that beginning could have been millions or billions of years ago. If it was that there are fossils of dinosaurs, I have no problem with that. But if they said they were millions of years old, I have to ask what proof did they have? Most of the dating methods came long after Darwin and Wallace.

Second, what does their being "religious" men have to do with anything? Even Jesus pointed out that there would be people calling themselves Christian who are not Christians.

PS I never said "that dating techniques derived from geology and paleontology are a hoax perpetrated by evolutionists". What I am saying is that there is no reliable way to date anything past recorded history and since evolutionists say that evolution had to take millions of years, it is easy to see how "facts" can be made to fit the theory. It wouldn't be the first time that scientists "found" facts that fit their theories.

 

Some people give powers to the bible that it does not possess. The bible is a repository of information. That information must be read and interpreted for meaning. The many interpretations of the bible belie the belief that the bible makes a singular statement to all people. There are many, many denominations.
To denominate is to name or give a particular description to something. There are many, many descriptions of christian faith.

 

I wish you would actually read what is said, rather than just looking for perceived reasons to argue with what as said .

I did not claim that the Bible is a "reality not beheld", I claimed it was part of the "evident demonstration" of realities though not beheld.

But you are correct, this discussion would be more appropriate in a different thread.

 

There are a lot of denominations of "Christian" churches out there of course, but I don't think there are a lot of different "denominations" of what the Holy Spirit communicates through the Bible.

 

You keep calling the Bible, God's word, an inanimate object and yet God's word is alive.(Heb 4:12) Why do you deny that?

I could also ask for a recording of the "Holy Spirit" that you seem to hear so well.

 

Recorded history is human history, it is a history written down by human beings.
Geologic history is much older than human history and its history is written in the strata of various kinds of rocks, in geologic formations, in patterns of erosion etc..
History is written in the present and told from the examination and interpretation of existing evidence. An existing geologic record is as substantial as an existing recorded history. Is it an accurate date to say for example that you are 62 years old, when in fact you may be 62 years 299 days 7hrs. 32min. 16 sec., and counting?

Again, geologic dating does not date the artifact, it dates the geologic strata. The age of the artifact is inferred on the basis that the only way for that fossil to be deposited in that level of material is that is was present at the time the deposit was being formed.

 

I do not deny that God's word is alive. Living words are words conceived, spoken, and demonstrated by living beings.

The Holy Spirit is not recorded but speaks along side you in your mind to the extent that you are willing to listen.

 

You agree then, that the Bible speaks, no? So what's with all the hub-bub, bub?