On May 12, 8:39=A0pm, Randy =AE <pulpitf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 16:49:20 GMT,
> =A0in article <ky_Vj.5715$%X1.5367@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> =A0"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> 1) You have not proved, or offered one iota of exegetical
> >> evidence,
>
> >Once again, the fraud demonstrates that he has no regard for what the
Wor=
d
> >says when it proves him wrong, and fails to address the points made
FROM =
THE
> >WORD, i.e. FROM EXEGESIS.
>
> You didn't prove _any_ point, from exegesis, which
> necessitates God is bound to the existing laws of physics (to
> the degree _you_ know about and understand them (which is
> somewhere between zero and one percent (e.g. God can't have
> the earth stop spinning, or it will fly apart))! =A0
>
> You =A0__said__ that Biblical examples of God doing supernatural
> things, was really just a manipulation and bending of the
> existing laws of physics, as if 1) calling it "bending" and
> "manipulating" the laws of physics weren't an attempt to
> explain away the fact God did something supernatural, thereby
> proving He isn't bound by the laws of physics, and 2) as if it
> were a fact derived from the text, when it was not! =A0
>
> >Hey, fraud: Here's an "exegetical" exercise for you: Other than the
origi=
nal
> >starting point of the creation, wherein God spoke the creation into
> >existence, establi****ng all of the laws of physics in the natural
world,
> >where did God do a miracle where He DIDN'T have already have the
resource=
s
> >in place to DO the miracle FIRST?
>
> Your arguments are what are "fraud". =A0Who argued God lacks
> resources? =A0God has never been lacking any resource to do
> whatever He wants, at any given time. =A0You're the one acting
> like once God spoke creation into existence, He suddenly ran
> out of resources to do whatever He wanted, and became bound to
> the laws of physics.
>
> If God can speak material and laws of physics into existence,
> out of nothing, then why do you act like He suddenly becomes
> limited and bound to operating only within those laws, and
> only with that material? =A0
>
> Fact is, Christ, not gravity, is what holds all things
> together:
>
> Col 1:17 =A0"...in him all things hold together"
>
> Christ does not depend on gravity to hold all things together,
> He holds them together! =A0If He wants the earth to stop
> spinning, without flying apart, He can hold it together!
>
> >> =A0that God is bound by the existing laws of nature and
> >> physics, so that He is therefore incapable of doing whatever
> >> He wants to do.
>
> >God isn't bound by ANYTHING except THE LAWS HE CREATED, and WITHIN THE
> >CREATION, He DOESN'T BREAK THOSE LAW (but He sure does bend them).
>
> Now you're just playing with words. =A0You say He is only
> "bending" the laws. =A0But where does the Bible say or
> necessitate that? =A0Fact is, days just don't last longer than
> normal, and the text even says so, that God never before
> harkened to the voice of a man as He did on that day. =A0
>
> There is nothing in that text which says, or necessitates God
> is bound by the laws of physics, so that He had to bring that
> event to pass by tilting the earth's axis, or which
> necessitates that everything must fly apart if the earth stops
> spinning, and suddenly, Christ would no longer be able to hold
> things together, without His gravity.
>
> You're starting from your desired premise, and working
> backwards, without the sup****t of exegesis.
>
> >> =A0 Quoting examples where you claim He simply
> >> "manipulated" the existing laws, or "bent" them, without
> >> breaking them, does not prove He cannot do _whatever_ He wants
> >> with creation, and Romans 9 says He can.
>
> >Romans 9 says no such thing.
>
> 1) You didn't dispute the fact that the text nowhere says God
> was simply "bending", or "manipulating" the existing laws of
> nature, as if everything that happened must somehow be bound
> by the existing laws of physics, and therefore, the earth
> could not have stopped spinning, etc.
>
> 2) Romans 9 plainly teaches He has power over what He created,
> to bring about His sovereign purposes:
>
> Rom 9:21 =A0Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same
> lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto
> dishonour?
>
> >> =A0 The only thing that
> >> God is bound by, is His own promises and word,
>
> >THE LAWS OF PHYSICS IN THE TEM****ARILY WERE ESTABLISHED BY GOD'S WORD
AT =
THE
> >VERY BEGINNING, THEREFORE HE IS "BOUND" BY THEM, numbskull--
>
> You're the "numbskull". =A0You act like the fact God spoke the
> creation into existence somehow constituted a promise with
> Himself that thereafter, He would henceforth, and forevermore,
> operate only within the existing laws of physics, which it
> does not. =A0An example of God being bound by His word, is His
> promise, in Genesis, that He would never again destroy the
> entire earth with a flood. =A0
>
> >THAT'S why you
> >won't find a single instance of God doing a miracle IN the creation
witho=
ut
> >HAVING A CATALYST IN PLACE FIRST.
>
> The issue is not whether something has to exist, before God
> can do something with it, but whether He is obligated to
> operate within the laws of physics (to the degree _you_ know
> about and understand them (which is somewhere between zero and
> one percent)), when He is doing something with the material
> realm.
>
> >YEESH, you're dumb.
>
> >To TURN WATER INTO WINE, Jesus had to have WATER FIRST.
>
> No, you're dumb. =A0First, the issue is not whether or not God
> has to create new matter before He can be free from the laws
> of physics (e.g., why would Christ have to bring something new
> into existence, to simply make the earth stop spinning, and
> hold it together while He did so?), and second, even if that
> were the issue, He has.
>
> For example, feeding five thousand with five loaves of bread.
> Now you will say the bread already existed. =A0But there were
> only five loaves, and the laws of physics do not allow that
> five thousand people can fill themselves on five loaves of
> bread. =A0He must have created more bread! =A0
>
> Or again, in 1 Kings 17:12-16, are you contending the laws of
> physics allow someone to eat perpetually from a barrel of meal
> that was all but empty, and a little cruse of oil? =A0Just
> because there was some oil and meal to begin with, doesn't
> mean that God bound Himself to the laws of physics while
> sustaining that oil and meal.
>
> >To FEED THE THOUSANDS with LOAVES AND FISHES, He had to have THE LOAVES
A=
ND
> >FISHES FIRST.
>
> ibid. =A0You _say_ He must have had that, but the Bible doesn't
> say that. =A0Just because He began with five loaves and fishes,
> doesn't mean He was obligated to do so. =A0He could have created
> it out of nothing, if He so desired, and the fact is, the laws
> of physics do not allow that five thousand people can be
> filled off five loaves of bread, and five fishes.
>
> >To HEAL THE LAME, they still had to have LIMBS.
>
> ibid. =A0That's what _you_ say. =A0Nothing in text says or
> necessitates that. =A0And besides, they wouldn't have been
> "lame", if they didn't have limbs, now, would they? =A0<snicker>
> If they didn't have limbs, they would have been "amputees". =A0
>
> >To HEAL THE BLIND, He still had to have RAW MATERIALS TO WORK FROM.
>
> The text does not say or necessitate that. =A0This is just you
> reasoning to yourself, from your own desired premise.
>
> >Even the "NEW HEAVEN AND EARTH" require the FOLDING of the OLD ONE.
>
> No, it says they will be melted and dissolved, not just
> folded. =A0Further, it says no more place will be found for
> them, which means they will cease to exist.
>
> >> =A0and nothing in
> >> the Bible says God shall not alter the length of a day, or
> >> orbit of the planets, or that He must not sustain creation
> >> through a supernatural act that is completely different from
> >> the existing laws of nature.
>
> >Yes, there is--THE FACTS.
>
> >Ps 102:26 [the worldly elements] shall perish, but thou shalt endure:
yea=
,
> >all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou
change
> >them, and they shall be changed:
>
> How is that proving your point? =A0You're supposed to show a
> verse that says to the effect that creation, and the laws of
> physics are _immutable_, not that they will certainly change
> and perish, while God will not! =A0<chuckle>. =A0You're proving my
> point.
>
> >> 2) Even by your standard, the sun and earth already existed,
> >> so, according to you, He _could_ have "manipulated" their
> >> orbits, etc.
>
> >Right. That's what I said, moron--He MANIPULATED the situation
according =
to
> >THE RULES OF PHYSICS which He established IN THE BEGINNING, and He did
NO=
T
> >STOP the Earth from rotating--He had to have created THE EFFECT from a
> >NATURAL PHENOMENON.
>
> You're the moron. =A0The earth, according to the existing laws
> of physics, doesn't suddenly tilt to one axis, on one specific
> day in history, just so the day will last longer, in answer to
> one man's prayer! =A0And again, you're just operating on the
> basis of your own desired premise, without any exegetical
> proof, whatever.
>
> >> =A0 This is especially true, since God is so
> >> infinitely wiser than you, that even by the existing laws, He
> >> could figure out a way to do whatever He wanted, including
> >> making the sun rotate around the earth, without catastrophic
> >> results.
>
> >Possibly, but HE COULD NOT HAVE STOPPED THE EARTH'S ROTATION, which
WOULD=
> >have had catastrophic effects.
>
> And now, for the slack jawed, and slow of learning:
>
> Col. 1:17 "...in him all things hold together."
>
> Christ, not gravity, is what ultimately holds all things
> together. =A0He can do it with or without gravity.
>
> >But that STILL required THE MANIPULATION of a NATURAL PHENOMENON.
>
> The laws of physics do not allow that the earth will suddenly
> tilt to one axis, on one day in history, in answer to one
> man's prayer, then suddenly tilt back again. =A0And the text
> does not say or necessitate that's what happened and never
> will. =A0You will always be left with nothing but your own
> desired premise to sup****t that conclusion.
>
> Now, mind you, I'm not disputing it's *possible* that's how
> God did it, I'm just saying God is _not_ obligated to do it in
> a way that jibes with your miniscule understanding of the laws
> of physics.
>
>
>
> >> =A0 Just because _you_ can't see a way that's possible,
> >> doesn't mean God doesn't
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey Randy, do you think Ike would consider these verses as examples of
God =93bending=94 the laws of nature? I=92ve never seen a wall made of
water, should be quite a sight.
Ex 14:21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD
swept the sea back by a strong east wind all night and turned the sea
into dry land, so the waters were divided.
22 The sons of Israel went through the midst of the sea on the dry
land, and the waters were like a wall to them on their right hand and
on their left.
Josh 3:13 "It shall come about when the soles of the feet of the
priests who carry the ark of the LORD, the Lord of all the earth, rest
in the waters of the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan will be cut off,
and the waters which are flowing down from above will stand in one
heap."
|
