a bible, theology, politics, news, networking, and discussion site
TIM said:But does Scripture tell us that these spirits show HIS attributes? That is my point. Unlike the activities of demons or wine that started out as water, we are told to look at the creation because it reflects Him. Does God point us to fake things and tell us it teaches us about Him? I don't think so. D.> but we can start with an assumption that it isn't a lie.
Actually, no we can't.
How many times does Scripture explicitly say that God sent forth a deceiving spirit? (1 Kings 22; 2 Chron 18)
But the difference is more pronounced than pointing at bad interpretation, Chad. Pascal flipped out on Descartes for a reason. John 2:9-10 is a testimony on the side of observers; John 2:1-8, 11 is the information for those on the side of the track. These two books of Revelation are great, but you don't fully understand one of the books if you don't rely on the Main Book.
As for demonic activity for the reading and interpretation of Scripture, I would have to see a case for that from the text in regards to the YEC reading of Genesis 1. I used Okham's razor against them and the ambiguity of Genesis 1; but I never try to say their interpretation is the result of demonic activity.
I'm not saying it is either, I'm just wondering why demonic activity is only an option for the interpretation of scientific data, and not biblical data.
We have the biblical data, and we have the data observed from nature. Man interprets both. Yet man's interpretation of the scientific data is being looked down upon as possibly influenced by demonic activity in some of these posts. I'm just wondering what makes man's interpretation of biblical data free from this same criticism (since the criticism has already been raised).
I believe this is the wrong question. As you say, God is timeless. He didn't "need" any amount of time. So it is not a situation of how much time did HE need. It is a situation of how long do some things take. As far as who benefits, I'd say *we* do. Where would we be without things like fossil fuels, for example?Stepping back for a sec... why does a timeless God need an abundance of time to create something? Who benefits from that? That's my biggest reason for rejecting OE views: He doesn't need time, so the timing He chose must have a purpose other than letting creation take its time in order to be full/ripe/ready for Man to be planted on the earth.