Replies

The creation of plants not from seed would definitely not be the natural process we see. Well, of course not, since the process that we see is cyclical. Yet the agent specified is "the earth", with God ordaining or commanding that this should happen. To me it's just very open ended as an explanation. And I should say that I quail at the term "supernatural". To me this invokes witchcraft and ghosts, and I'm loath to think that Natural Creation is founded on such terms.

And let there be light!

To me it's just very open ended as an explanation. And I should say that I quail at the term "supernatural". To me this invokes witchcraft and ghosts, and I'm loath to think that Natural Creation is founded on such terms.

What is this "Natural Creation" ? It's not in the Bible.

Do you believe that Christ raised Lazurus from the dead ?

Luke 11

"43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go."

No man save Jesus can raise a person from the dead. That's what I mean by supernatural. It's not natural. Naturally speaking, dead is dead.

Jesus Christ did this, most definitely not using witchcraft.

Exodus 13

"21 And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

22 He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people."

A pillar of fire leading a tribe of people around at night ? Not natural.

Do we actually believe in these things ?

Or do we say they are fables, not to be taken literally, because WE DON'T THINK THEY COULD ACTUALLY HAVE HAPPENED AS WRITTEN ? This indicates a) our lack of belief in what the Bible says in certain cases and b) we then selectively decide which Biblical history we accept as true and which we decide for ourselves could not have happened, so we read into the text that it is a "parable" - even in cases where the context is a purely historical account.

We thus take our metaphorical "teacher's red pen" to the Bible text, editting out what we think is too fantastical to actually happen, thus our "belief in God" is:

"I believe in God, but I don't think he has any power over nature".

Instead, we place our faith in texts not divinely inspired: textbooks, math books, science books.

In essence - they replace God for us - as THEY are what we have 100% faith in, and we reduce God's Word to a fable.

Thus, we see indeed that the Word of God is a two-edged sword: it draws the elect to belief in Christ Jesus, and to the unbeliever it reveals their rejection of God's Word.

Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."