Is Nature the 67th book of God's Word?
Gabriel
making what atheists say about nature the authority on what God
did and did not really do, in spite of what God tells us and His
Son Jesus Christ tells us, and in so doing they ignore God's
word, discredit God's word, and claim Jesus Himself lied when He
said
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he
which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Matthew 19:4 KJVR
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and
female.
Mark 10:6 KJVR
The fact is Nature does in fact support that God did what He said
He did.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/design.asp
If you think God and Jesus both lied, and you start listening to
the faith of atheists on what nature is telling you, it becomes
clear at that point that it's not really God at all you are
following as you don't have faith in what God says, don't have
faith in what Jesus says, don't have faith in God's written word,
don't have faith in what you're clearly shown in nature that
easily supports God's word, and instead you have faith in what
atheists tell you God did and did not do. A sad day indeed.
==================================================
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/something-missing
Here’s an experiment you can do anywhere. Imagine that you are
standing in an open field. In this field you find the remains of
a house that stood long ago. Your job is to come up with the
reason that this house was there, describe who lived there, and
explain why they left.
After making your best guess, what if you then found eyewitness
accounts from those who lived there—accounts that showed your
guess to be wildly inaccurate? Would you then reject those
accounts in favor of your guess? Although this thought experiment
might seem frivolous, the point is important. When looking for
the truth about the unrepeatable past, the best approach is to
first seek out eyewitness accounts of those who actually
experienced the history.
Nature as a Dual Revelation?
When people look to nature to reveal truth, they are falling into
the same speculation trap as in describing the house in the
field. No matter how imaginative or intelligent they are, they
can never know exactly what happened in history without
trustworthy eyewitness accounts.
Those who promote nature as a missing aspect of God’s revelation
(the so-called “67th book of the Bible”) need to understand two
crucial fallacies with this idea: first, nature is cursed;
second, our observations of nature are not independent from our
presuppositions. When we examine these problems, we see that
nature should never be put on the same level as the Bible.
The Curse
Many who trust in humans as the highest authority reject the
Curse as true history and thus deny its effect on our
observations. Some point to the effects of the Curse as proof of
“bad design.” For Christians, however, it is foolish to ignore
the Curse when considering what nature can “reveal” to us. After
all, this would be like someone trusting a funhouse mirror to
show them how they really looked. They look into the mirror and
see a distorted view but assume that this mirror must be “right.”
Likewise, while nature does reflect some of God’s qualities
(Romans 1:20), if we trusted the nature we see now to show who
God is, we would see the death, violence, and plant and animal
defense and predatory structures and imagine God as reveling in
death and destruction.
Natural Conclusions?
This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t study nature. After all,
“nature” is everything around us, and God gave it to humanity so
that we could look into the universe around us and see His glory.
However, nature is only as impartial as the viewer. Although
nature itself does not lead to false conclusions about the past,
people who look at nature can be misled by their own mistaken
presuppositions. Those who look to nature as an objective source
of God’s revelation (or an objective source of scientific truth)
are ultimately looking, instead, at their own preconceptions—even
if they don’t realize they have them.
God’s Take on Nature
Ultimately, God’s Word reveals the reason that we should never
consider nature as our sole source of knowledge or as an extra
book of the Bible:
The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of our God
stands forever. (Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:24–25)
When the Bible mentions nature and the Word together, we find
that only one of them is permanent and foundational for knowing
and fulfilling His will. Nature—this universe—will pass away and
be rolled up like a scroll (Isaiah 34:4), but God’s Word will
endure.
If we depend on nature to reveal the truth, and especially if we
reinterpret God’s Words based on our stories and interpretations
of nature, we will be building our house on a foundation of sand.
By contrasting the transience of nature with the constancy of His
Word, God shows us that His Word alone is sufficient
revelation—and in fact, the only logical framework—from which we
can understand and appreciate the universe around us.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
yourself again...
(And no, that you replied to me once with a link that leads to a small part
of the answer does not count. Especially not since you ran away from the
question that followed that posting of yours)
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus