Reviewing The Book of Genesis

Calypso Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:https://answersingenesis.org/worldview/beginning-god-refuted-all-false-ideologies/

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The truth of the first verse of the Bible and the theology that flows from it refutes all false ideologies about the meaning and origin of the world including atheism, evolution, materialism, naturalism, humanism, deism, pantheism, polytheism, monism, and dualism.1 This is because everything in the world owes its existence to the one true and living God (Acts 14:15, 17:28).

God’s revelation of himself through creation has been clear ever since the creation week in Genesis 1 (Romans 1:20).
Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It is not the lack of a belief in God since it not only involves a negative belief (unbelief in God), but it also involves a positive belief in the philosophy of naturalism (see below). Genesis 1:1 tells us atheism is wrong because the heavens and earth were created by God. The Bible tells us that those who do not hold to the view that God created the world and that we are creatures of God are not thinking rationally but irrationally, even foolishly (see Psalm 14:1). This is because those who reject the existence of God are suppressing the truth of his revelation in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18–19). God’s revelation of himself through creation has been clear ever since the creation week in Genesis 1 (Romans 1:20).

You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.

what do you NOT get to use?

Allegations, slander, innuendos, lies.

RV wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

............ You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.

Really? Scripture doesn't back up and explain scripture? Why because YOU say it doesn't? Funny, yet you claimed to be a "christian"...

What a double standard! "Science" uses speculation, theories, assumptions and guesses to "prove" their "findings"!

Yes, the Bible does back up and explain scripture.
To use the bible to prove the bible is saying 'the bible is correct because it says it is correct.'
The Bible is the best book I have read.
It has changed more lives than probably any other book in the history of the world.
I believe it was the first book ever printed and was in the top 10 best selling books for generations, if not longer.
But is is wrong to use the Bible to prove the Bible. Any document cannot be correct because it says it is correct.

At times Science is proven 'wrong' and corrects itself - eg at one time Science said the world is flat.
Now Science believes the world is a sphere.

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:https://answersingenesis.org/worldview/beginning-god-refuted-all-false-ideologies/

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The truth of the first verse of the Bible and the theology that flows from it refutes all false ideologies about the meaning and origin of the world including atheism, evolution, materialism, naturalism, humanism, deism, pantheism, polytheism, monism, and dualism.1 This is because everything in the world owes its existence to the one true and living God (Acts 14:15, 17:28).

God’s revelation of himself through creation has been clear ever since the creation week in Genesis 1 (Romans 1:20).
Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It is not the lack of a belief in God since it not only involves a negative belief (unbelief in God), but it also involves a positive belief in the philosophy of naturalism (see below). Genesis 1:1 tells us atheism is wrong because the heavens and earth were created by God. The Bible tells us that those who do not hold to the view that God created the world and that we are creatures of God are not thinking rationally but irrationally, even foolishly (see Psalm 14:1). This is because those who reject the existence of God are suppressing the truth of his revelation in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18–19). God’s revelation of himself through creation has been clear ever since the creation week in Genesis 1 (Romans 1:20).

You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.

what do you NOT get to use?

Allegations, slander, innuendos, lies.

what does that mean.   Are you saying that being the christian you claim to be that you're going to prove God's word by using anything other than God's word?

Calypso Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:https://answersingenesis.org/worldview/beginning-god-refuted-all-false-ideologies/

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The truth of the first verse of the Bible and the theology that flows from it refutes all false ideologies about the meaning and origin of the world including atheism, evolution, materialism, naturalism, humanism, deism, pantheism, polytheism, monism, and dualism.1 This is because everything in the world owes its existence to the one true and living God (Acts 14:15, 17:28).

God’s revelation of himself through creation has been clear ever since the creation week in Genesis 1 (Romans 1:20).
Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It is not the lack of a belief in God since it not only involves a negative belief (unbelief in God), but it also involves a positive belief in the philosophy of naturalism (see below). Genesis 1:1 tells us atheism is wrong because the heavens and earth were created by God. The Bible tells us that those who do not hold to the view that God created the world and that we are creatures of God are not thinking rationally but irrationally, even foolishly (see Psalm 14:1). This is because those who reject the existence of God are suppressing the truth of his revelation in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18–19). God’s revelation of himself through creation has been clear ever since the creation week in Genesis 1 (Romans 1:20).

You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.

what do you NOT get to use?

Allegations, slander, innuendos, lies.

what does that mean.    Are you saying that being the christian you claim to be that you're going to prove God's word by using anything other than God's word?  

...or claim that it's NOT true! That seems to be popular today and where political "science" is going. Based upon other things he's said, I expect that Squint wants to "prove" that God's word ISN'T fact.

RV wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.

what do you NOT get to use?

Allegations, slander, innuendos, lies.

what does that mean.    Are you saying that being the christian you claim to be that you're going to prove God's word by using anything other than God's word?  

...or claim that it's NOT true! That seems to be popular today and where political "science" is going. Based upon other things he's said, I expect that Squint wants to "prove" that God's word ISN'T fact.

well let him have at it then.

Calypso Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:

.......... what do you NOT get to use?

Allegations, slander, innuendos, lies.

what does that mean.    Are you saying that being the christian you claim to be that you're going to prove God's word by using anything other than God's word?  

It means, you cannot use Allegations, slander, innuendos or lies to prove anything.
You cannot use any document to prove itself.
If you want to prove the bible, go ahead. I feel no need to.
A Spiritual belief may not be 'provable.' It's meant to be not provable

Calypso Jones wrote:

RV wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:

what do you NOT get to use?

Allegations, slander, innuendos, lies.

what does that mean.    Are you saying that being the christian you claim to be that you're going to prove God's word by using anything other than God's word?  

...or claim that it's NOT true! That seems to be popular today and where political "science" is going. Based upon other things he's said, I expect that Squint wants to "prove" that God's word ISN'T fact.

well let him have at it then.

I agree! Squint can provide all the "proof" he wants, all the "evidence" he wants, all the "opinion he wants and all the political "science" he wants, it won't change what I know to be fact, truth and proven numerous times over.

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:

..........  what do you NOT get to use?

Allegations, slander, innuendos, lies.

what does that mean.    Are you saying that being the christian you claim to be that you're going to prove God's word by using anything other than God's word?  

It means, you cannot use Allegations, slander, innuendos or lies to prove anything.
You cannot use any document to prove itself.
If you want to prove the bible, go ahead. I feel no need to.
A Spiritual belief may not be 'provable.' It's meant to be not provable

i'm seeing this technique quite a lot lately.    you start this and then somehow magically turn it around to hamstring your opposition.  Is this a new alinsky rule for radical or just a twist of an existing one?

i don't think that squint understands that the bible IS God's innering word. and yet he doesn't seem to believe it or that it proves itself and disproves all other false beliefs. Squint should be...if he is what he claims, reveling in the innering, unchanging Word of God.

Calypso Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:

..........  what do you NOT get to use?

Allegations, slander, innuendos, lies.

what does that mean.    Are you saying that being the christian you claim to be that you're going to prove God's word by using anything other than God's word?  

It means, you cannot use Allegations, slander, innuendos or lies to prove anything.
You cannot use any document to prove itself.
If you want to prove the bible, go ahead. I feel no need to.
A Spiritual belief may not be 'provable.' It's meant to be not provable

i'm seeing this technique quite a lot lately.    you start this and then somehow magically turn it around to hamstring your opposition.  Is this a new alinsky rule for radical or just a twist of an existing one?

i don't think that squint understands that the bible IS God's innering word.  and yet he doesn't seem to believe it or that it proves itself and disproves all other false beliefs.    Squint should be...if he is what he claims, reveling in the innering, unchanging Word of God.  

"Be not deceived, for many will come in my name saying I am Christ..."

Calypso Jones wrote:

Sprintcyclist wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:

........... what does that mean.    Are you saying that being the christian you claim to be that you're going to prove God's word by using anything other than God's word?  

It means, you cannot use Allegations, slander, innuendos or lies to prove anything.
You cannot use any document to prove itself.
If you want to prove the bible, go ahead. I feel no need to.
A Spiritual belief may not be 'provable.' It's meant to be not provable

i'm seeing this technique quite a lot lately.    you start this and then somehow magically turn it around to hamstring your opposition.  Is this a new alinsky rule for radical or just a twist of an existing one?

i don't think that squint understands that the bible IS God's innering word.  and yet he doesn't seem to believe it or that it proves itself and disproves all other false beliefs.    Squint should be...if he is what he claims, reveling in the innering, unchanging Word of God.  

It's amazing isn't it.
Here is a book written 2000 years ago. Probably the most influential book ever written.
I am sure if I read it a 4th time, cover to cover, it would be illuminating for me.
I can confidently bet on that. It is a very personal book.
Many people have become Christians as a result of reading the Bible in order to prove it wrong.
It has been misquoted to commit or justify crimes. That is not the fault of The Bible. That is humans.

I do not see this as being a case of 'either believe in The Bible or believe in Science.'
Most Scientists have been Christians.

Some of the claims muslims use against it are surprisingly false.
I have discussed a few with them over the years.