Andy Stanley: Throw Away The Bible!

[Izdaari]

If we can  believe that Jesus could and did raise himself from the dead in 3 days it makes sense to believe in what happened in the Old Testament.

I don't rule anything out because it requires a miracle. I do rule things out if they don't make sense according to what I understand of the character of God or the nature of the universe. I don't believe God would use the physical universe to lie to us, and IMO YEC requires believing that God is deliberately attempting to deceive us. He is not deceptive like that. And I think always reading the Bible literally when the original authors didn't think that way or didn't mean it that way is to misunderstand it.

 

[voicecrying]

I don't believe God would use the physical universe to lie to us, and IMO YEC requires believing that God is deliberately attempting to deceive us.

In what way does YEC require believing that God is deliberately attempting to deceive us?

 

[HammondCheese]

Nothing is more to the point than a good digression...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Twisted]

Nothing is more to the point than a good digression... 

LOL!

 

[Izdaari]

I don't believe God would use the physical universe to lie to us, and IMO YEC requires believing that God is deliberately attempting to deceive us.

In what way does YEC require believing that God is deliberately attempting to deceive us?

If YEC were true, it means God made the Earth (at least) in six literal days, but that to every scientific test we can devise, it appears millions of years old. That makes fake fossils, tree rings, fake geological layers, etc.  I cannot believe God would lie to us that way, make false physical evidence to mislead us. No, He didn't lie in the Geneis Creation Story either. The six literal days interpretation is just that, an interpretation, not necessarily the correct one.

 

[brianb]

I don't believe God would use the physical universe to lie to us, and IMO YEC requires believing that God is deliberately attempting to deceive us.

In what way does YEC require believing that God is deliberately attempting to deceive us?

If YEC were true, it means God made the Earth (at least) in six literal days, but that to every scientific test we can devise, it appears millions of years old. That makes fake fossils, tree rings, fake geological layers, etc.  I cannot believe God would lie to us that way, make false physical evidence to mislead us. No, He didn't lie in the Geneis Creation Story either. The six literal days interpretation is just that, an interpretation, not necessarily the correct one.

Trees can have more than one growth ring in a year. Science is not like revelation - it always starts with assumptions.  Before Lyell and Darwin science was based on the assumption of catastrophism, now it's based on the assumption of uniformitarianism. 

 

[Twisted]

but that to every scientific test we can devise, it appears millions of years old.

Hence your problem.

 

[T-Bone]

Fossils are not an iron clad proof of millions of years for the age of the earth.  Mt Saint Helens showed that under the right circumstances fossilization can take place in a short time.

 

[Twisted]

Fossils are not an iron clad proof of millions of years for the age of the earth.  Mt Saint Helens showed that under the right circumstances fossilization can take place in a short time.

Correct.  St. Helens also showed how "layers" can happen in hours.

 

[voicecrying]

If YEC were true, it means God made the Earth (at least) in six literal days, but that to every scientific test we can devise, it appears millions of years old. That makes fake fossils, tree rings, fake geological layers, etc.  I cannot believe God would lie to us that way, make false physical evidence to mislead us. No, He didn't lie in the Geneis Creation Story either. The six literal days interpretation is just that, an interpretation, not necessarily the correct one.

Is it possible the interpretation of the scientific tests are not necessarily the correct ones?

 

[TonyHutsonComedian]

Andy Stanley is a false teacher. At least Tony Hutson remains faithful and doesn't compromise plus Dr. Hutson coined "It's hip to be square".

 

[Ransom]

Andy Stanley is a false teacher. At least Tony Hutson remains faithful and doesn't compromise plus Dr. Hutson coined "It's hip to be square".

No one gives a Schaap what Tony Hutson coined.

 

[prophet]

Andy Stanley is a false teacher. At least Tony Hutson remains faithful and doesn't compromise plus Dr. Hutson coined "It's hip to be square".

That was Huey Lewis...

https://play.google.com/music/m/Tsogws3sf6vpyewh52653iwbrni?t=Hip_To_Be_Square_-_Huey_Lewis_And_The_News

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Andy Stanley is a false teacher. At least Tony Hutson remains faithful and doesn't compromise plus Dr. Hutson coined "It's hip to be square".

That was Huey Lewis...

https://play.google.com/music/m/Tsogws3sf6vpyewh52653iwbrni?t=Hip_To_Be_Square_-_Huey_Lewis_And_The_News

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

Not only is ol Tony a lying plagerizer but a kompromizin rock music listener to-er!
Bless Gawd, he probably secretly reads that abomination of a fake bible the NKJV!

Twisted, alert Don-boy, Saluder-Macgruder and ler her Riplinger!!!!!!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Well, that's 40 minutes I can't get back.

The "meat" starts around 29 minutes.

His apparent rejection of the authority of the Scripture is odd, but not following this guy, I'm not sure if it's just part of the "act" for this series.

Tarheel will like it, I'm sure.

What's really hilarious is that for him to show how unimportant the Bible is, he spends the majority of his time quoting the Bible.

Those who have forsaken the KJVO position have thrown away the Bible a long time ago!
Hey-man?

 

[Izdaari]

I do compromise on rock music. I've been neglected it in favor of hip-hop and k-pop more and more.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

The New Testament is simply a collection of writings by professed Christians.
It's strange to me that those of you in this thread that take a hard anti-Catholic stance would recognize the Catholic church's authority on what should be considered canon. There really isn't any specific evidence or authority in any book in the New Testament that suggests that it should be considered "scripture".

Also, lots of YEC?! I would have put that in the same camp as KJVO among modern Christians as far as the number of it's adherents, especially in light of so much scientific evidence for evolution and an old earth.

 

[HammondCheese]

The New Testament is simply a collection of writings by professed Christians.
It's strange to me that those of you in this thread that take a hard anti-Catholic stance would recognize the Catholic church's authority on what should be considered canon. There really isn't any specific evidence or authority in any book in the New Testament that suggests that it should be considered "scripture".

Also, lots of YEC?! I would have put that in the same camp as KJVO among modern Christians as far as the number of it's adherents, especially in light of so much scientific evidence for evolution and an old earth.

Hi, Andy...  Welcome to the forum.  Tell your Dad I said hello for me.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[TonyHutsonComedian]

Well since Bro Tony says "It's Hip To Be a Square" I would assume "Name" by Goo Goo Dolls best fits Fundamentalism as well as why young people leave the church in general or join the "mega church" of false teachers like Stanley.

 

[Izdaari]

The New Testament is simply a collection of writings by professed Christians.
It's strange to me that those of you in this thread that take a hard anti-Catholic stance would recognize the Catholic church's authority on what should be considered canon. There really isn't any specific evidence or authority in any book in the New Testament that suggests that it should be considered "scripture".

Also, lots of YEC?! I would have put that in the same camp as KJVO among modern Christians as far as the number of it's adherents, especially in light of so much scientific evidence for evolution and an old earth.

I'm not anti-Catholic at all.  I call myself Episcopalutheran Anglo-Catholic. But the Catholic part is mainly a matt4er of preferring the liturgical style. I pay zero attention to the Pope, and don't agree with much Catholic doctrine or practice. The Canon is one thing I do agree with.

I would put YEC in the same basket as KJVO. Absurd on its face stuff that causes many young people raised with it to leave the church, thinking it must all be that crazy.