A letter from a reader

The following is a letter from a reader of Bible Science Forum with my comments in square brackets […].

UniLecture1004May I take the liberty of suggesting that you should be a theologian teaching the simplicity of faith – Christian faith – Belief in The Redeemer – if one believes in the Redeemer, one believes in His Word – that He is the Truth, the Way and the Life – will believe Him when He says that He is the Creator –  believe His account of Creation week.

The entire faith hinges on just Belief – HE is The Redeemer; yet man prefers unbelief or lies.

Scientific concepts:

The sum of all natural numbers 1+2+3+4+…. ∞ =  -1/12
And they prove that by starting with [the series sum] 1-1+1-1….∞ = 1/2. Depending on whether the series is stopped at a positive or a negative number will determine whether the initial answer is 0 or 1; therefore an average of 1/2 is taken as the final answer.
Then they do a few other series of steps and voila — the sum of all natural numbers 1+2+3+4+…. ∞ =  -1/12.
1
Non-measurability: The one-way speed of light from a star or galaxy –  as a continuous ray or wave from the original that can never be replicated, a one-way speed is not directly measurable and thus physicists assuming uniformitarianism resort to use the ECS (and hence the two-way speed of light) as a convention (as you have so convincingly established).  [See How do we see distant galaxies in a 6000 year old universe?
1
These are just a few of the assumptions made for each and every scientific theory which people have to accept as far better the Gospel truth. We swallow — hook, line and sinker.

1HE said,

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge…” (Hosea 4:6)

photo--lecture1 at UoA

It’s incredulous that because the human mind cannot fathom the infinity, they are willing to accept such near “created truths” and assume them to be the truth and therefore they think that they have all the answers to every question about the universe and thus eminently qualified to deny God who declared in Isaiah 55:8-9:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

Please convince people to think and rationalise in your own inimitable style.

Given a choice, what is more reasonable ? To believe in science or have faith in GOD ? [My position is that you can do both. Belief in God and the straightforward reading of the Bible is not in conflict with science properly interpreted. But I agree if you mean that the faith in the written word should come before science. It is only with a biblical creationist worldview that we can make the correct interpretation of the available scientific evidence.]

In scientific theories, there is more than assumption for the theory to work.
In faith there is only one assumption that God exists.

If one omits, all dogmas and doctrines — baptism, communion, works, vain repetitions, tongues, timing of rapture, church is Israel, at death spirit directly goes to Heaven/Hell or through the interim Hades and its two compartments, … etc which may be interpreted differently by various denominations — the central Truth is BELIEF that GOD exists. Of course, if you compare all other religions … none has the Redeemer; the ONE who was pre-ordained before HE set out to create the Universe. It’s the ultimate depth of HIS mercy and love and in HIS wisdom.

Scientists boast that their theories make predictions and experiments confirm them within acceptable limits.

The Word of God has prophecies and in the fullness of time events confirm it. For example, the incarnation of God, born of a virgin, … and the tribulation to come that will happen with Jerusalem as the epicenter and it is prophesied to be unparalleled in the entire history of mankind – the end has already been revealed, it’s inevitable.

The irony is that theologians and shepherds in high places are more than willing to compromise with a “lets allow every passing theory” (the flavour of the day) to determine the interpretation of the revelations in the Word of God. They possibly (giving them the benefit of doubt, that they are not Trojan horsesmisinterpret Matthew 5:41 “And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.”

Therefore, evolution is fine and billions of years in our cosmological origin is also fine. They seem so eager to kneel down before science and enjoy being in the limelight – photographs with Bono, center-stage with Hollywood stars etc. [Really it is scientism — the religious belief that science can answer all questions. See Science the new religion.]

Whereas the atheist scientific community philosophy has a “do not allow a divine foot in the door” policy. [See full quote by Richard Lewontin.]

You could easily convince others of the simplicity of Christian faith, and do that while still explaining the science of the universe and exposing the lies of unbelievers using science as the medium to project their theories as the only truth. You don’t give an air of superiority and your humility is reassuring.

So – Please, please, please.

Take on the atheists and more importantly those “compromising faith professing” Christians in debates at campuses where the youth are being led to unbelief in Christ.

Shalom

Jacob

[Of course, I do act proactively, speaking on university campuses, in the street, the market places, in churches, and conferences trying to convince people that you can use your mind and glorify God also. One does not need to separate one’s mind into two sections: one for faith and one for science. They are indivisible because all science—properly interpreted in the light of God’s Word—only supports the biblical narrative as truth. There is no contradiction.]

Additional Reading

2 thoughts on “A letter from a reader

  1. I wanted to leave a comment that creationists haven’t seemed to make clear. Our worldview is observable and reproducible. Evolution is not. “Intelligent Design” is everywhere you look in our modern world. My TV, cell phone, guitar, clothing, can of Pepsi, these are all observable proofs for intelligent design. My mother and father created me. That is observable and reproducible, as I am not an only child. I could get a goat and a billy goat and create more goats. It’s provable, reproducible and observable. Evolution? Even Richard Dawkins admits that it is not observable nor reproducible. Which worldview is more scientific? Ours is scientific. Theirs is not.

    Like

    • Gary, I agree largely with what you have written. There is a fine detail though that you must recognise. Our worldview is based on a one-off fiat creation in the past. That is exactly the same in the atheistic evolutionary worldview. Whether that refers to the big bang origin of the universe or the origin of life itself, the atheist requires a one-off creation event without the Creator, essentially a miracle without a miracle-maker. In this respect neither worldview has an origin that is subject to repeatable science. Both are dependent on reconstruction of the past from circumstantial evidence in the present, which makes the science weak. Of course the difference between the atheist and the biblical creationist is that the latter has the written record of the Creator Himself, who was the only eye-witness to the events.

      Like

Comments are closed.