Believe the Bible - or mock the Bible - which do you choose?

[JacksBratt]

Because the basic message of our salvation is clear in the Gospels to all who can read.

The basic principal of Christ is woven throughout the literal OT. The lessons and history of the OT also provides a foundation for living a healthy righteous life...

God did not inspire a book of truth, of this proportion, only to have 1/4 of it valid scripture.

 

[W2L]

Because the basic message of our salvation is clear in the Gospels to all who can read.

The basic message, as you put it, is the heart of it all. When you live it, you see it, and it becomes your daily bread. It enters your heart and lives in you, its alive inside. Many people study much theology, but never live it because they thought it was just the basics.

 

[BobRyan]

Barr was right. What's your point?

My point is that figuring out what the Bible actually says -- is not the deep dark secret tasks that T.E.s would have us all believe.

Obviously.

Why do you keep posting over and over again a quote from someone who I agree with

And to some degree - I also agree with.

His statement is that the Bible is obviously describing a literal 7 day creation week - and not Darwinism.

 

[Speedwell]

His statement is that the Bible is obviously describing a literal 7 day creation week - and not Darwinism.

So?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
His statement is that the Bible is obviously describing a literal 7 day creation week - and not Darwinism.

So?

So -- to atheists it does not matter what the Bible actually says.

To Bible believing Christians it does...

Obviously.

================================

Out of curiosity - we are at the point where I say "2 + 2 is 4 and we all know it" and you insist you just don't see the point that 2 + 2 could actually be 4. So then I say "well we are talking about 2 + 2 you know.." and you say "so" as if "so... it still is not 4" is the sort of solution that is working for you.

I am curious to know how that sort of "solution" on your part -- in any way helps you make your case.

 

[Speedwell]

So -- to atheists it does not matter what the Bible actually says.

To Bible believing Christians it does...

Obviously.

================================

Out of curiosity - we are at the point where I say "2 + 2 is 4 and we all know it" and you insist you just don't see the point that 2 + 2 could actually be 4. So then I say "well we are talking about 2 + 2 you know.." and you say "so" as if "so... it still is not 4" is the sort of solution that is working for you.

I am curious to know how that sort of "solution" on your part -- in any way helps you make your case.

What case? I'm just curious as to why you keep posting that Barr quote. Do you think it's cute to use it to support a Bible doctrine he opposed?

 

[JacksBratt]

What case? I'm just curious as to why you keep posting that Barr quote. Do you think it's cute to use it to support a Bible doctrine he opposed?

Please understand his point.

Even people who are not YEC people, read the genesis account and admit that it implies six literal days.

In other words..... Ya, you told me that my tongue would stick to the freezing cold steel pole but I stuck my tongue there anyway.....

Or, Ya, you told me the the pool was too shallow to dive into, head first, but I did anyway. Please push my wheel chair over to the window.

Or, Ya, you said that you shouldn't eat raw chicken... but now I have salmonella.

Or, Ya, you said you created it in six days, but I'll tell everyone it was billions of years.

 

[Speedwell]

Please understand his point.

Even people who are not YEC people, read the genesis account and admit that it implies six literal days.

Right. And I've agreed every time he's posted it.

 

[Speedwell]

His statement is that the Bible is obviously describing a literal 7 day creation week - and not Darwinism.

Why would anyone think that text which is at least 2500 years old would describe "Darwinism?"

 

[JacksBratt]

Why would anyone think that text which is at least 2500 years old would describe "Darwinism?"

If Darwinism was the way it actually happened........then that's what it would have described

 

[Speedwell]

If Darwinism was the way it actually happened........then that's what it would have described

LOL! Now I get it--sorry to be so slow.

You and BobRyan think that non-YEC Christians are anxious to make Gen1 somehow describe "Darwinism."

I can see how that assumption would lead BobRyan to believe that posting that Barr quote was any use.

 

[JacksBratt]

LOL! Now I get it--sorry to be so slow.

You and BobRyan think that non-YEC Christians are anxious to make Gen1 somehow describe "Darwinism."

I can see how that assumption would lead BobRyan to believe that posting that Barr quote was any use.

Actually, no, you don't get it..

Genesis was written the way it was as a direct correlation to the fact that it is actually how it happened.

If God created one solitary amoeba and had it progressively change into all the organisms and creatures on the earth today.... He would have said so.

Something like:

In the beginning God created the stars, earth, moon and sun. There was 1 year and then a billion years. God saw that something was missing.
Then God created a life form. It was the first living organism and was to be the father and mother of all organisms. There was a year and a couple of billion years.
Then God watched as the organism grew and changed and developed into organisms that were male and female. Another Billion years.
Then God continued to watch. Another Billion years.
Eventually an organism was developed that looked like God's image so He gave it a soul.....

 

[Speedwell]

Actually, no, you don't get it..

Genesis was written the way it was as a direct correlation to the fact that it is actually how it happened.

Yes, that is your assumption, but not one that all Christians necessarily share. That is why it is wrong to assume further that non-YEC Christians are anxious to make Gen 1 somehow describe "Darwinism."

 

[RickG]

Actually, no, you don't get it..

Genesis was written the way it was as a direct correlation to the fact that it is actually how it happened.

How does one verify that? And why is it so different form God's actual physical creation?

 

[lesliedellow]

I mock creationists, because they deserve it; I do not mock the Bible.

 

[lesliedellow]

Let's not forget that it takes millions of years for ice to form to a depth of 260 feet; though 8 WWII planes were buried that deep in just 49 years.

What a complete straw man. Greenland has an average annual snow fall of about 12 feet. Randomly pulling numbers out of your head proves nothing. So why do we mock creationists? Because they come out with nonsensical and made up facts like that.

 

[Speedwell]

Be kind, they can hardly help it--there's a whole industry devoted to indoctrinating them with that kind of foolishness. Creation Research International, Answers in Genesis, Institution for Creation Research, the Discovery Institute and on and on...

 

[BobRyan]

If Darwinism was the way it actually happened........then that's what it would have described

Indeed - and even Darwin said it was clear that Moses was no Darwinist.

 

[BobRyan]

Actually, no, you don't get it..

Genesis was written the way it was as a direct correlation to the fact that it is actually how it happened.

If God created one solitary amoeba and had it progressively change into all the organisms and creatures on the earth today.... He would have said so.

Something like:

In the beginning God created the stars, earth, moon and sun. There was 1 year and then a billion years. God saw that something was missing.
Then God created a life form. It was the first living organism and was to be the father and mother of all organisms.....

Certainly we expect atheists to reject the Bible and condemn it as an unreliable source of fact.

Nobody is surprised by that.

Christians on the other hand - believe the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Why would anyone think that text which is at least 2500 years old would describe "Darwinism?"

hmmm you mean "Darwin had not yet made up all that story telling so how could Moses have known about wild stories that Darwin would be telling 1000's of years later?" -- good point!!