# JAN: What of Miracles?

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Vs Science [Bibleman] on November 28, 1999 at 09:12:06 {hcnmikA.FkMSSTtTA17sslyACFuF8c}:

Hi Jan,

I'm sorry this post got distracted. One of the moderators thinks my comments were off topic, but it does deal with the general topic of scientific information versus modern evidence in the form of miracles.

Answer if you like, or not...

Cheers,
Bibleman
================================================

Hi Jan,

Here's a question for you that is facing the JIOR.

Now they've started seeing the miracles. They've seen the sign of the Son of man in the clouds. They
have seen the Messiah appear just as the Bible prophesied, in the flesh, etc. and exactly when
predicted, in 1992 based upon the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem, extracted from the
VAT4956, no less..

But question is this. Does the fact that the Bible is true about the Second Coming and prophesies
regarding the last days, such as a "great tribulation" against the Jews like none other, which was the
HOLOCAUST, change scientific "evidence" that the Bible must be lying about things like the Global
Flood or mankind only being around 6000 years old?

In other words, at the time that Armageddon would begin and it is clear that that is what is
happening, would that DISPROVE the current scientific evidence? Just because one part of the
Bible is true, does that automatically make the other part true?

Would you doubt the current scientific evidence, if in fact some prophesied event, such as the
destruction of Babylon, the Great by the U.N. occurred?

I don't know. But to me, if Armageddon arrived just as it is prophesied or Babylon, the Great
suddenly gets destroyed, to me that would tend to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt as far as it
being a book of total truth and thus what science theory is available now would have to be dismissed
simply as incompetent or inconclusive. But to me, the very fact that you can take that position now
doesn't speak well for the type of evidence challenging the Bible now.

In other words, if there were ancient civilizations like the Egyptians and pyramids that we could
actually see that dated back past 4000 BCE, that would be some DIRECT, HARD EVIDENCE
that would contradict the Bible that wouldn't change. That's direct evidence. But we don't have that
type of evidence. All we have are complex machines and complex theories, so that in the end, if the
Bible really does turn out to be the true word of God, all these complex theories will just evaporate.
Which is my point. If the existence of God is established by his active intervention will nullify current
scientific data, then how reliable is that data in the first place. Is it real evidence or just dismissible
theories?
In the meantime, where is the really HARD, undisputable evidence that doesn't deal with scientific
presumptions and theories?

It's NO WHERE!

So I'm just wondering when Armageddon finally comes, if those who believe in evolution or this
scientific evidence, are still going to believe that part of the Bible was lying or not, even if the latter
part that prophesied about Armageddon is true.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

In other words, if Armageddon comes, which proves there is a God, and we presume that it proves
the Bible is true and that there was an Adam and Eve and a Global Flood and all that, and thus the
"scientific evidence" must have been in error and thus we will dismiss it; then was this REAL
evidence in the first place? How can we just decide to dismiss FACTS based upon whether there is
a God or not. FACTS don't change. So if they are "facts" pre-Armageddon, but only misguided
theories post-Armageddon, then were they really FACTS in the first place? I don't see how they
could be.

So I guess what I'm saying is that those of us in the JIOR who know there is a God and know
Armageddon is coming and have seen the miracles and thus accept the Bible to be true; when we
examine this scientific evidence, we presume it is inaccurate and dismiss it. But we wouldn't be able
to do that in the first place unless it was borderline dismissible anyway. And that speaks to the
nature of this evidence in the first place. It's not based upon FACTS but upon theory based upon
theory based upon theory based upon presumption based upon presumption.

Sorry, that's not good enough.

Cheers,
Bibleman

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *JAN: What of Miracles?

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]