Humans are nothing special?

[chapmic]

Your interpretation of the Bible is not the same as everyone else's. Besides, someone could just as easily accuse you of doubting God by denying what can be observed from examining the universe He created.

I'm not interpreting the Bible, I'm taking it literally. The reason why there is so much confusion in Christianity is because people listen to someone else's interpretation of the Bible and never learn what the Bible teaches itself. What am I denying that can be observed from the universe? I don't just look at a scientist theory and agree with him just because he uses big words, I study it myself and I would do the same thing for anyone preaching. If what their preaching doesn't sound right or make sense I study it myself to see if it matches up with the Bible.

 

[TLK Valentine]

2 Peter 1:20

Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding,[h] 21 or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God.

We're not talking prophecy here, are we?

 

[chapmic]

The age of the Earth became more accurate as we got better tools to measure it. I honestly don't know what you're complaining about.

Should they have declared one age to be right, then stuck to it and never changed, regardless of learning more and developing better techniques? Would you prefer that?

I would prefer them to admit that they do not know. Make excuses for them if you want, but you asked show you the proof that they have been changing the dates and I did that.

 

[chapmic]

We're not talking prophecy here, are we?

My point was that whenever I mention what the Bible says on here everyone throws at me the word "interpretation". Because the phrase "I interpret it differently" sounds better than I don't believe.

 

[lasthero]

I would prefer them to admit that they do not know. Make excuses for them if you want, but you asked show you the proof that they have been changing the dates and I did that.

First, your claim was that they've changed once a decade. You haven't shown that. Don't move the goalpost.

Second, all science is tentative. Any scientist worth anything will admit that all results COULD be wrong and are subject to change in light of new information. Has any scientist ever said different about the age of the earth? Did my of those scientist ever insist they were 100% right?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm not interpreting the Bible, I'm taking it literally.

Which in itself is an interpretation.

The reason why there is so much confusion in Christianity is because people listen to someone else's interpretation of the Bible and never learn what the Bible teaches itself.

The Bible is a book -- and people don't usually read the same book the same way.

What am I denying that can be observed from the universe? I don't just look at a scientist theory and agree with him just because he uses big words, I study it myself and I would do the same thing for anyone preaching.

And we don't agree with the Bible just because it uses big words -- we study it ourselves...

If what their preaching doesn't sound right or make sense I study it myself to see if it matches up with the Bible.

If the Bible doesn't sound right or make sense we study it ourselves and see if it matches up with God's own unadulterated handiwork...

Most of us are here because we determined the Bible came up short in that department.

 

[chapmic]

First, your claim was that they've changed once a decade. You haven't shown that. Don't move the goalpost.

Second, all science is tentative. Any scientist worth anything will admit that all results COULD be wrong and are subject to change in light of new information. Has any scientist ever said different about the age of the earth? Did my of those scientist ever insist they were 100% right?

That's my point, science is tentative. People should not put their foundation of their beliefs on something tentative. Do not make your house out of straw. If I kept changing my opinion on here and flip flopped I would lose creditability with other posters, but scientists get a pass because they were using the "evidence" they have at the time.

 

[chapmic]

Which in itself is an interpretation.



The Bible is a book -- and people don't usually read the same book the same way.



And we don't agree with the Bible just because it uses big words -- we study it ourselves...



If the Bible doesn't sound right or make sense we study it ourselves and see if it matches up with God's own unadulterated handiwork...




Most of us are here because we determined the Bible came up short in that department.

How can I interpret something that I'm taking literal? You either said the words or didn't? You're right about people not reading the Bible the same way, because like with anything if you try to read with a biased opinion you will be blinded from the truths because you are not looking for them. What about the Bible doesn't sound right or make sense?

 

[hurste1951]

That's my point, science is tentative. People should not put their foundation of their beliefs on something tentative.

As opposed to putting their faith in something that is simply decreed to be "Truth", right? That's probably why Christianity has NEVER CHANGED in its entire history. There has never been schisms or splits because it is perfect truth.

but scientists get a pass because they were using the "evidence" they have at the time.

Scientists are given a pass because they are attempting to be honest and understand their limitations.

 

[hurste1951]

I'm not interpreting the Bible, I'm taking it literally. The reason why there is so much confusion in Christianity is because people listen to someone else's interpretation of the Bible and never learn what the Bible teaches itself.

Can you tell us exactly which denomination gets it perfectly right? Thanks!

 

[lasthero]

That's my point, science is tentative. People should not put their foundation of their beliefs on something tentative. Do not make your house out of straw. If I kept changing my opinion on here and flip flopped I would lose creditability with other posters, but scientists get a pass because they were using the "evidence" they have at the time.

By that logic, we should never try criminals in court. After all, we COULD be missing evidence that shows they're innocent, right? And we can't let them out of prison if we find evidence that exonerates them. That'd be flip-flopping, right?

There's a difference between changing your mind willy-nilly for no good reason and changing your mind when you learn something you didn't know before. The former is silly, the latter is honest.

 

[chapmic]

As opposed to putting their faith in something that is simply decreed to be "Truth", right? That's probably why Christianity has NEVER CHANGED in its entire history. There has never been schisms or splits because it is perfect truth.



Scientists are given a pass because they are attempting to be honest and understand their limitations.

So because other people have manipulated teachings of Christianity, it makes what Jesus taught false? You do realize not all evolutionists agree and that their are "schisms" in the science community? Like I said I don't blindly follow people whether scientist or religious. I follow the teachings of the Bible. On your last quote, so you really believe there are no honest Christians and no lying scientists?

 

[chapmic]

Can you tell us exactly which denomination gets it perfectly right? Thanks!

No one gets it perfectly right, its all about following the Bible with the heart of trying to getting perfectly right because of each own's personal love for God.

 

[chapmic]

By that logic, we should never try criminals in court. After all, we COULD be missing evidence that shows they're innocent, right? And we can't let them out of prison if we find evidence that exonerates them. That'd be flip-flopping, right?

There's a difference between changing your mind willy-nilly for no good reason and changing your mind when you learn something you didn't know before. The former is silly, the latter is honest.

You misused my example. By my logic no one should assume every criminal is guilty because of "evidence". That evidence blinds people and you assume the criminal already did what he did. This is what happens in real life and that is why their is innocent people in prison. How can one learn something they didn't know before when they already ruled out that possibility in their head? That's my point.

 

[lasthero]

You misused my example. By my logic no one should assume every criminal is guilty because of "evidence". That evidence blinds people and you assume the criminal already did what he did. This is what happens in real life and that is why their is innocent people in prison. How can one learn something they didn't know before when they already ruled out that possibility in their head? That's my point.

So we shouldn't use evidence to come to conclusions? What else is there to use?

 

[cerad]

The fact that you are on a site that was founded by people who read a book that has been sold throughout the world for over a thousands years is proof enough that the Bible lived up to that scrutiny.

So "over a thousands(sic) years" is some kind of cutoff for scientific credibility as long as they have a web site?

The Quran, the Vedas, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Tao Te Ching, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Buddhist Sutras etc have all lived up to the appropriate scrutiny and should be taken literally?

The standards of Sophisticated Theology never cease to amuse me.

 

[ALoveDivine]

No one gets it perfectly right, its all about following the Bible with the heart of trying to getting perfectly right because of each own's personal love for God.

So....we should obsess about the age of the earth and spend our time trying to poke holes in biological science? Seems like we should maybe, out of personal love for God as you mentioned, focus more on, say, realizing the fruits of the Holy Spirit in our own lives. Or on helping the poor, for example.

I think this topic counts as one of the "fruitless disputes" Paul warned about, and it serves only to divide the body of Christ. If you want to believe in a six thousand year old earth, a literal global flood, dinosaurs living with humans, a literal tree with literal fruit and a literal talking snake, go for it. I'll continue to regard them as allegorical imagery, like most unprejudiced rational people, including the majority of Christians, would. There is no need for this divergence of interpretation to divide us.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's my point, science is tentative. People should not put their foundation of their beliefs on something tentative. Do not make your house out of straw. If I kept changing my opinion on here and flip flopped I would lose creditability with other posters, but scientists get a pass because they were using the "evidence" they have at the time.

So because you don't rely on evidence of any kind, you don't need to change and can be trusted implicitly?

 

[chapmic]

So we shouldn't use evidence to come to conclusions? What else is there to use?

My point is that people can manipulate evidence, they can take the evidence and put their own interpretation on it and make it mean something it doesn't. That is what lawyers get paid to do in court all the time, that is why there is a court process with checks and balances. Because evidence may be objective but it can lead to theories of what happened by people who are subjective.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How can I interpret something that I'm taking literal?

Taking it literally is a choice -- your choice.

You either said the words or didn't?

have you ever read the Gospel of John?

Let's look at a few episodes together:

John 2:19-21
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
But he spake of the temple of his body.

John 3:1-4
There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

John 4:9-15
Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

John 4:31-34
In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.
But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.
Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Now, here's my question:what do all the people -- the crowd at the Temple, Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, and Jesus' disciples -- all have in common here?

You're right about people not reading the Bible the same way, because like with anything if you try to read with a biased opinion you will be blinded from the truths because you are not looking for them.

And I take it that your opinion is unbiased?

What about the Bible doesn't sound right or make sense?

Ask the crowd at the Temple, Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, and Jesus' disciples -- Jesus didn't sound right or make sense to them. What were they doing wrong?

Extra bonus question: Except for the temple incident, all these episodes are unique to John's Gospel -- do you think John's trying to tell us something?