Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I presume then it was alright for Lot's daughters to
a) get their father drunk (before prohibition after all)
and
b) have sex with him and get pregnant?
That's real cute.
Father and daughter? I don't think so. The father is already married (i.e. "one" with his spouse).
Originally Posted by Assyrian
Do you think the bible mentions this approvingly to show us how wise and resourceful Lot's daughters were?
Do you?
Originally Posted by Assyrian
I am not sure you will actually find that 'pure gene pool' idea in the bible.
Is there anything pure in the Bible with you guys?
All you're ever taught to do is view everyone as 'mutants'.
If you reverse the gene pool, will it not become purer the farther back in time you go?
Originally Posted by Assyrian
Cain was about to sin, and yet there was no commandment against murder.
Correct --- that is why God did not insist on the Death Penalty in his case.
Originally Posted by Assyrian
So clearly things could be sinful long before they were tabulated in Exodus and Leviticus.
Paul says where there is no law, there is no transgression of the law.
Originally Posted by Assyrian
And after all that you still expect us to think you know how Genesis should be interpreted?
I'm not sure "expect you to" is right --- after all --- if you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, you'd be out there looking for witches to burn, people to enslave, and genociding the rest.
Out of curosity, do you find the parting of the Red Sea unlikely?
No problem with God parting the Red Sea, he is God. My only problem is with interpretations of scripture that claim things that clearly didn't happen. But I don't think the disciples would have had that sort of faith either. If Peter and John had run and found the tomb wasn't empty, they would not have believed the resurrection, why do you think they ran there in the first place? If the man born blind was still walking into walls, nothing would have convinced those hard nosed fishermen that he had been miraculously healed. The disciple expected God to work miracles, but they expected the miracles to be real.
Actually it sounds to me like those desert nomads were describing a tsunami.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Assyrian; 17th June 2009 at 10:44 AM.
Given that the genealogy is a list describing biological descent, I don't think you can say Luke was being really literally here, not unless he is saying Adam was God's biological son.
Originally Posted by Cabal
Originally Posted by GuidanceNeeded
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna...
Sorry, forgot the word "supposed" only applied to Joseph.
If you look at the genealogy you will find here is only one main verb in the whole list, 'being' and the supposed is attached to that verb. If being refers to the whole genealogy, so does supposed. The genealogy is much tighter than our English translations as the italics suggest: being as was supposed the son of Joseph of Heli of Matthat of Levi of Melchi of Janna... There is no break between the supposed paternity of Joseph and genuine and reliable genealogy, no indication that we go from supposed genealogy to real "being as was supposed the son of Joseph, who actually was the son of Heli of Matthat..." Other manuscripts have the supposed after son, but the result is the same, because there is only one word 'son' in the whole list too: being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph of Heli of Matthat of Levi of Melchi of Jannai...
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
When science contradicts the Bible I will take Gods word of mans word. We aren't talking about the sun rising, doctors and medicine, etc. We are talking about where human life began, which is with Adam and Eve.
You know I would truly like to say that when I get to Heaven it will be the first question I ask God, but in all honestly I believe I will be in such awe with being in the Lords presence, that I will care less about the evolution crap scientist have come up with.
Can we take a quick step aside? I just have a question that I would love to ask.
When did you decide to interpret the bible literally? Don't take that the wrong way, you're certainly not the only person to do it and I'm not trying to single you out. However, this type of faith is actually relatively-new, and primarly found in the USA... and it just occured to me that I've never had the chance to ask this type of believer about where that decision came from.
Were you just raised that way? Did you change churches or belief systems and found that a literal translation was more appealing?
I'm just trying to understand how you came to this conclusion.
Can we take a quick step aside? I just have a question that I would love to ask.
When did you decide to interpret the bible literally? Don't take that the wrong way, you're certainly not the only person to do it and I'm not trying to single you out. However, this type of faith is actually relatively-new, and primarly found in the USA... and it just occured to me that I've never had the chance to ask this type of believer about where that decision came from.
Were you just raised that way? Did you change churches or belief systems and found that a literal translation was more appealing?
I'm just trying to understand how you came to this conclusion.
Contrary to popular belief, I was not raised in a Christian setting. Christianity wasn't shoved down my throat. My mom used Sunday School and Church activities as a "babysitter". To be perfectly honest, I don't recall (as a child) being taught about God (which I'm sure I was, I just don't remember). But for reasons I will not discuss on the forum, as a young child I put a lot of faith in God.
My first Bible was a children version of the Bible. Even when reading that book I believed all the stories that were in the book.
I really didn't start reading the (KJV) Bible until maybe 10 yrs ago (give or take a yr). When I first started reading the Bible I took on faith that what I was reading was to be taken literally.
So to answer your question, I suppose it was just me who made the decision to take the Bible literally.
__________________ Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Yeah, it's a hard philosophy to subscribe to, huh AV?
Father and daughter? I don't think so. The father is already married (i.e. "one" with his spouse).Do you?
Well, it's your philosophy....it's not like there were any laws against it, so I'm sure they could go for it. Incest FTW!
Is there anything pure in the Bible with you guys?
All you're ever taught to do is view everyone as 'mutants'.
Not really, but if this is a sidelong comment about how believing in evolution devalues people....firstly, not even close, secondly, we're not the ones who have to weakly exclude INCEST for our origins theory to work.....
If you reverse the gene pool, will it not become purer the farther back in time you go?
No idea. Maybe somewhat. How pure it would need to be to avoid the negative effects of breeding with your siblings, if that's even possible - not sure.
Correct --- that is why God did not insist on the Death Penalty in his case.
And then a few generations later decided to inflict the Death Penalty on all but 8 people?
Maybe he should have had a Mt Sinai moment a good bit earlier than he did, get some legislation going?
Paul says where there is no law, there is no transgression of the law.
Sure. But there is still sin. Not the same thing as transgression of the law.
I'm not sure "expect you to" is right --- after all --- if you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, you'd be out there looking for witches to burn, people to enslave, and genociding the rest.
No, we wouldn't necessarily. We just throw those scenarios at self-professed "literalists" to show they cherry-pick as much as everyone else and need to get off their damn high horse.
__________________ ____________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Is there anything pure in the Bible with you guys?
All you're ever taught to do is view everyone as 'mutants'.
If you reverse the gene pool, will it not become purer the farther back in time you go?
if you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, you'd be out there looking for witches to burn, people to enslave, and genociding the rest.
I wonder if you could explain what you mean by "pure". You seem to be using it in two different ways here.
If you reverse the expansion of the universe, you end up at a point.
If you reverse the gene pool, you will end up with some other mammal, or a reptile, or fish, depending on when you decide to stop. Has nothing to do with "purity".
I wish you'd quit using that tired nonsense about "if you guys ran the world like you interpret the bible." Its the bible believers who went out burning and looting, not the ones who see it for what it is.
The whole "interpret the bible' thing reflects way way worse on the believers than on the ones you are trying to point a finger at. A smart move would be to quit bringing it up and highlighting it.
Contrary to popular belief, I was not raised in a Christian setting. Christianity wasn't shoved down my throat. My mom used Sunday School and Church activities as a "babysitter". To be perfectly honest, I don't recall (as a child) being taught about God (which I'm sure I was, I just don't remember). But for reasons I will not discuss on the forum, as a young child I put a lot of faith in God.
My first Bible was a children version of the Bible. Even when reading that book I believed all the stories that were in the book.
I really didn't start reading the (KJV) Bible until maybe 10 yrs ago (give or take a yr). When I first started reading the Bible I took on faith that what I was reading was to be taken literally.
So to answer your question, I suppose it was just me who made the decision to take the Bible literally.
I hope you don't mind, but I would really like to explore this further. (This type of thing really interests me)
First, let me say that I wasn't trying to presume one way or the other regarding how you were raised. I know some people make that assumption (I have made it myself in the past) and I din't want to get off on the wrong foot here.
I was actually raised in an episcopalian setting. I went to church, sunday school, youth group, was confirmed... I even served as a torch bearer and an acolyte, attended the Episcopal Youth Convention, and went on a couple mission trips.
What's interesting is that, throughout all of this... I can never once recall being told that the bible should be read literally. In fact, I can remember that there was a pretty big focus in the church on talking about the stories and different meanings in the bible.
For what it's worth, I actually believed in the stories of Adam and Eve, and Noah's Ark (hey, they were neat stories at that age).... but as I grew older, it gradually occured to me that many of those stories were just stories.
Now, in your case, it sounds like you read the stories early on... but didn't actually begin studying the bible until much later. As you said, when you started reading the KJV, you just "took [it] on faith" that it should be read literally.
I guess what I'm wondering is... what faith? Now, don't take that the wrong way. What I mean is this: If I were to pick up any old book, I would need to make some determinations about that book. Is it fiction or non-fiction? Is it a historcial account or could it be biased? Who wrote it? Where did it come from? If it contains stories, allegories, or metaphors... should they be read as literal happenings, or as metaphors and allegories?
I could probably make some of these determinations by glancing at the book... but some of the more interpretive determinations would require quite a bit of study into the text. However, it sounds like you simply made the assumption that what you were about to read was the literal truth about anything contained within.
I'm just curious how you made that determination... or how you decided to read the bible literally, rather than as a collection of stories. Was it when you picked it up? Or was it after you had read some of it already?
Linear Mode
