Originally posted by Darfius
Correction, some scientists believe that the singularity that gave birth to the universe is of infinite age. And since we cannot know the environment of that singularity into just after the Big Bang, that is pure conjecture. A matter of faith. No scientists claims to know what caused the Big Bang. So if you're asking me why those scientists are OK with having faith the universe always existed and not God (the most likely cause for the Big Bang), I couldn't tell you.
Ok. Now we are getting somewhere. Let's look at the parallels:
Universe: Infinite, eternal;
God: Infinite, eternal.
Big Bang Belief: Faith;
God belief: Faith.
God created: doesn't need one;
Universe created: needs one?
The Bible makes no claim about itself, but God claims to be perfect, and He claims to have inspired the Bible, so it must be perfect.
God does not claim to have inspired the Bible. The Bible claims that all
Scripture is 'God-breathed.' It fails, however, to define Scripture.
What was and was not Scripture was the product of a council meeting
hundreds of years later (that same council convened and ratified that
Baruch, 1/2 Maccabees and all the others were 'Scripture' as well).
Yes, they might, until they say something that contradicts what we know to be the inspired Word of God. Then they are false prophets and false religions.
But, if you recall that God found slavery permissible and then He
didn't, you cannot say with certainty that God wouldn't 'revise' or
'reinterpret' His relevalation with further Scripture.
I know what you are going to say: Revelation 22:18, but it is inapplicable.
It reads: 'I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:
if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described
in this book...'
As long as a person doesn't add to the Book of Revelation, they are not
violating the Word of God (assuming that they accept the Book of Revelation
as the Word of God, even though it was added decades after the council
which formed the canon). And, just so you know the Greek reads:
'bibliou toutou' meaning 'this small book,' which very clearly indicates the
Book of Revelation.
So, in fact, there is no provision against adding or revising. There is no
provision against the Koran or the Book of Mormon. If you are willing to
admit that God's revelation isn't complete (for, it is infinite and never
could be complete), then you are willing to admit that other books might
And if you are willing to admit that the NT 'revises' or 'fulfills' the OT, then
you must admit that there might be a 'new NT' which 'revises' or 'fulfills'
the 'old NT.' And so on.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about this.