Posted on 12/09/2008 2:39:05 PM PST by My Favorite Headache
President George W. Bush said his belief that God created the world is not incompatible with scientific proof of evolution.
In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on Monday, the president also said he probably is not a literalist when reading the Bible although an individual can learn a great deal from it, including the New Testament teaching that God sent his only son.
About creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can — you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."
"You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son,'" Bush said.
"It is hard for me to justify or prove the mystery of the Almighty in my life," he said. "All I can just tell you is that I got back into religion and I quit drinking shortly thereafter and I asked for help. ... I was a one-step program guy."
"I do believe there is an almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people,"
Asked whether he thought he would have become president had it not been for his faith, Bush said: "I don't know; it's hard to tell. I do know that I would have been — I would have been a pretty selfish person."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.aol.com ...
So, what you appear to be saying here is that God Almighty would allow the errors of a bunch of Iron Age scribes to throw His message off-kilter?
Does that really make sense?
For credibility, to be part of the “thinking class.”
You said — “Ok. So God revealed, without any possible doubt, these premises. How do you know?”
God verified His Word by means of fulfilled prophecy. He says that He knows the “end” from the “beginning” — which He says no one else does and can do. And, alongside of that, God also sent Jesus, as a direct witness to who God was. We have the direct witness of Jesus to this, through the people who testified to these things.
The Bible, besides being a divinely inspired writing — is also (and just as much and more so than any other) is a historical document, which can also be verified as to its accuracy.
It has its veracity documented, then, these several ways — through its accuracy as a historical document, it’s proof through prophecy (things given ahead of time and accomplished later), the direct witness of Jesus Christ Himself, affirming that this *is* the Word of God and His life being “verified” through His resurrection, and being taken up to Heaven in the sight of over 500 people, seeing this, all at one time, plus the many other eyewitness testimony. These are several proofs to the Word of God.
One particular prophetic event that has its “end proof” in our present time — is the restoration of the nation-state of Israel. Israel was destroyed as a nation-state and its people scattered into all different nations around the world (many of them still there...). Now, they were destroyed as “that nation” for almost (roughly speaking) around 2,000 years (a little bit less than that). No nation in the world that has been destroyed like that, so long ago, has ever survived and has come back as a nation-state — and no less — in the same place as it originally existed.
In fact, the Bible indicates that not only would it come back again, but it would be “in the land” (i.e., in the same place) and the Bible describes the nations that would be against it (those same nations that are against it today... LOL...) In addition to that, the Bible also describes that the Temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and on the Temple mount.
So, if you want *continuing proof* that the Bible is 100% accurate in all that it says and comments about — just see if the Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt on the Temple Mount...
—
You said — “Perhaps the “day” in Genesis is allegorical.”
The grammar and syntax in the original language does not support that. In fact, according to *the language* that is given (i.e., as it is written), it can *only* be a normal day, just as it is today... That’s how the syntax and grammar indicates that it *has to be*.
Now, you, personally, may not “believe” what the Bible says about the word “day” — however — what you can’t get around is that it *does* say that about a “day”. All you can say about it — is — “I don’t believe what it says...” And that’s another matter. There is no room for a “day” being anything other than a normal day, as in the passing of one evening and one morning...
—
And then you said — “For many centuries revealed wisdom had it that the sun revolved around the earth.”
That may have been some clerics who said that, but it certainly wasn’t the Bible that said that. It’s the same thing you’ve got today. There are pastors running around, today, who say things that the Bible does not say, and try to get *their meaning* imposed onto the Bible. But, it’s not so... And so, likewise, it was not “revealed wisdom” — as the only “revealed word” is the Bible itself.
—
Finally, you said — “Why are the Gnostic gospels not scripture? Did God tell you they are not his word?”
There have been criteria by which the Jews (at first) and then the Christians (later) have been able to recognize what was God’s Word and what was not God’s Word. Some of the criteria was that it couldn’t contradict God’s Word that had already been revealed (as God gave His Word over several generations and by means of several writers and in several locations — with the only commonality being that it was from God, Himself). Another was that it had to be 100% accurate on any matters of prophecy and/or other facts and statements given (i.e., things that people could easily verify at the time). And..., there are other criteria that are given, too — but I’m not getting into a Bible study here... LOL...
The Old Testament was pretty much solidified by the time of Jesus and the New Testament was pretty much recognized by those Christians who received it by a century or less after the time of Jesus. The Apostle John’s writing in Revelation *closed* Scripture, by the words that He wrote, from Jesus. That was written by around 95 A.D. Anything that would have come after that would have been fraudulent as a result. But, as I said, there are many criteria that were used by Christians and Jews...
“For credibility, to be part of the “thinking class.””
You mean atheist class, don’t you?
19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Since ~no~ prophecy is of private (i.e. personalized, subjective) interpretation, there /must/ be an absolute truth for all prophecy of the scripture.
God is faithful. John 10:35 states that the scripture cannot be broken.
Read Jeremiah 36:1-32. Why was God so careful with the words used here? If God’s word is so subjective and figurative then why such care for every word?
It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by ~every~ *word* of God. (Not some words, not the general vague idea, but _every_ word.)
2Co 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God
Why would there be any handling of the word of God deceitfully if there was not an absolute truth to the scriptures? After all, “that’s just your opinion”, otherwise.
47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
I certainly do NOT want to hear those last words, “ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God”, addressed to me in the day of Judgment.
Let’s see, who should I trust with regards to the creation? Some group of guys in white lab coats (whose preposterous often conflicting theories on evolution change every 20 years or less, according to vagaries of fashion; some of whom later recant and support the general concept of an Author of Life) or the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God - who was actually _there_ when it happened, *making* it happen?
True science is repeatable, observable, falsifiable, etc... We can neither go back in time to observe the creation up-front-and-personal, nor can we repeat the creation to observe it now.
God has spoken. Those who ignorantly call him a liar will ultimately answer before the Master, for their frothing.
Mr. Bush...adios. Take your long, deserved, quiet rest in Dallas and don’t say any more words in public. Thank you.
I stand by that.
What about the other 9 Commandments? Good works?
When you get the first part, the rest will follow. You'll mess up many times but all you need to do is go back to the first step. Our good works don't mean anything, it's faith alone.
No. It is just a formula invented by man to help model the universe.
No. It was invented by God. How sad that you cannot and will not realize that. You could have NEVER invented this on your own - only God could. You know this - but still, you refuse to even acknowledge Him, much less worship Him.
Your future is not bright right now, but it can be.
Turn around.
And even some of the biggest “litteralist” Christians whether they admit it or not know that not every word is litteraly true.
This is revealed in the constant pontificating on Revelations and the End Days. No apocalyptic preacher will tell you that literally a seven headed, ten horned beast will emerge from the sea. They will tell you it is a metaphor for something else (during the cold war it was claimed to mean a SLBM attack).
The article's headline is very misleading. President Bush in no way expressed doubt in the Bible. Same old MSM lies and BS.
You know this - but still, you refuse to even acknowledge Him, much less worship Him. Why do you refuse to acknowledge Him?
So, if a person told you something happened during a period called a day, and that period had a morning and an evening, and you later found out that the event really happened over the period of 3 weeks or 8 years, you would figure that was an accurate portrayal?
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The scriptures themselves assert that God inspired them. If this were untrue, then the scriptures would merely be interesting, elaborate lies.
16 ¶ For we have ~not~ followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
The scriptures are exact enough and clear enough that they can be used to correct and reprove - see verse at the top.
He is a lot better of a conversationalist than you anyway.
I must have missed that part of the bible ...
“All I can just tell you is that I got back into religion and I quit drinking shortly thereafter and I asked for help. ... I was a one-step program guy.”
That actually makes him a three-step program guy. AA-wise. He may do most of the steps via his faith and life practices.
You really need to find something to hold on to.
Let's say you're trying to explain that concept to someone who has no idea what a prefrontal cortex is and no way to figure it out, such as someone living 5,000 years ago.
Would you...
A. Come up with a version of what you've said here that requires no knowledge of the prefrontal cortex (such as "When God made man's mind much greater than the inds of animals, etc., etc.")
B. Spend 1,400 words telling the person about a universe being created in a week, followed by a woman being created with rib surgery and deceived by a talking snake? Don't forget this version has to include the idea that plants existed on Earth before there was a sun.
It's very likely you'd choose option A. So why would the infinitely wise Almighty choose the ham-handed option B?
Possible answer? Because option B is the truth.
Then go talk to God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.