The Case for a Creator

[lucaspa]

There is book The case for a creator by Lee STrobel. Has anyone read this? It asks the question, does new scientific evidence point us towards a creator?

An irony in the book is the interview with Craig. Craig argues that the Big Bang is evidence for a Creator and that there is no alternative to Big Bang. Yet Hovind, ICR, and Answers in Genesi are equally firm that Big Bang is against a Creator and, what's more, never happened!

 

[PotLuck]

Why isn't the Creation created by the Creator also the measuring stick? Why only "the bible"?

Simply looking at the creation has fostered much debate as evidenced by debates between evolutionists and creationists.

I believe the bible to be the infallible word of God and that genesis is an historical account from God of his creation. Therefore I believe Him.

In a way I too believe a big-bang.
God spoke and "bang" there it was.

 

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

Simply looking at the creation has fostered much debate as evidenced by debates between evolutionists and creationists.

I believe the bible to be the infallible word of God and that genesis is an historical account from God of his creation. Therefore I believe Him.

In a way I too believe a big-bang.
God spoke and "bang" there it was.

amen!

 

[PaladinValer]

"The Bible contains everything necessary for salvation and is authoritative in all matters of faith and doctrine" -paraphrase of the beliefs of the Apostles, Early Church Fathers, and of the Ecumenical Councils.

I do not see history or science in this.

The Bible is a book of theology, not a science textbook. You diminish the Holy Bible's value by using it in such a worldly way it was never meant to be used.

 

[Didaskomenos]

|v10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
|v11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
|v12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.
|v13 Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?
(OldT:Isaiah 43:10-13)
|v6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
|v7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.
|v8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
(OldT:Isaiah 44:6-8)

Great passage! Isaiah is definitely my favorite prophet. An absolutely remarkable poet by any standards.

 

[PotLuck]

"The Bible contains everything necessary for salvation and is authoritative in all matters of faith and doctrine" -paraphrase of the beliefs of the Apostles, Early Church Fathers, and of the Ecumenical Councils.

I do not see history or science in this.

The Bible is a book of theology, not a science textbook. You diminish the Holy Bible's value by using it in such a worldly way it was never meant to be used.

Well, I don't suppose Moses had the science we have today, that's obvious. And there are references in the New Testament that can be considered as "statement" to the historical view by both Jesus and Paul. Being "uneducated" in the sciences, or the lack of science as we know today, there would be more influence or reason for people over 2000 years ago to view the accounts as historical. I'm quite sure Genesis would have been predominately taught as history, an account from God Himself and not simply a story to stress a point.

On the contrary, I lift up the bible, what God has said therein as being true. To view Genesis simply as a myth would "diminish the Holy Bible's value" in my opinion. No, I prefer to believe God rather than the feelings or opinions I may be tempted to embrace only through what I can see or touch and ideas I may conjure on my own. Many archeological digs have been successful by using the bible as a guide as to where to dig. That in itself proves value not just for theological reference alone.

 

[PaladinValer]

.

 

[PotLuck]

Maybe this forum isn't one that fits you if you believe Genesis as "a myth or a legendary or untrue story that teaches a moral or religious truth."
I'm a creationist. What other view would you have from me?

 

[JohnR7]

The Bible is a book of theology, not a science textbook. You diminish the Holy Bible's value by using it in such a worldly way it was never meant to be used.

Jesus is the chief cornerstone. The Bible sets the standard for what is and what is not truth. You can measure all truth against the Bible.

 

[GodSaves]

I thought this wasn't a debating forum...

 

[KleinerApfel]

I thought this wasn't a debating forum...

Take it to the "origins" if you want to argue against a literal Genesis please. We don't want to fall out!

Blessings all, Susana

 

[boughtwithaprice]

MOD Hat ON


I am asking everyone to be patient. These subforums are new, and it may take time to get the message that this is not a debate forum. I ask that we all act with christian charity, and gently remind your brothers and sisters that this is not a debate forum. It is best if you do it by hitting the report button or PM, rather than adding to the thread, as these posts will cause confusion, when the problem is corrected.
Mod Hat Off

 

[lucaspa]

Simply looking at the creation has fostered much debate as evidenced by debates between evolutionists and creationists.

Looking at the Bible has sponsored more debates and evidenced by disagreements between YECs, between YECs and OECs, and between YECs, OECs, and IDers.

I believe the bible to be the infallible word of God and that genesis is an historical account from God of his creation. Therefore I believe Him.

In a way I too believe a big-bang.
God spoke and "bang" there it was.

But that last isn't Big Bang, is it? However, doesn't Genesis 2 say God formed man and animals from dust? No "banging", but rather something like pottery making. So which of those stories is the "infallible word of God" and the historical account?

Why don't you believe Him in His Creation?

 

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

I thought this wasn't a debating forum...

that only works one way, in favor of the evos.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

that only works one way, in favor of the evos.

you are incorrect. Creationists can debate in their own forum. Evolutionsists should not be debating here.