Water into Wine.

[DiscipleDave]

My Faith is in the Words of God, therefore i believe what they say.
There are those who put their Faith in what scientists say, and they believe the doctrine of men. Everyone has a free choice to whom they will believe. Whether believing God or believing men. The choice is yours.

IN His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^

 

[Mallon]

Isaiah 40:22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Circles aren't spheres, Dave.

Thanks for dismissing the rest of those passages with a wave of the hand. Encouraging to know you thought long and hard about it. There's no arguing with rigid fundamentalism, I suppose, and so I won't bother continuing with this discussion.

 

[crawfish]

My Faith is in the Words of God, therefore i believe what they say.
There are those who put their Faith in what scientists say, and they believe the doctrine of men. Everyone has a free choice to whom they will believe. Whether believing God or believing men. The choice is yours.

IN His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^

Sorry, but there's more than two choices. I'm gonna stop baiting you.

Problem with the "literalist" stance - by the time you've rationalized away the various seeming inconsistencies in the bible, and between literal translation and scientific facts, you end up with an explanation that's so complicated and convoluted that evolution seems simple by comparison. There is NO WAY to justify it without adding to the scriptures.

God bless,

Chris

 

[DiscipleDave]

[/color]
Circles aren't spheres, Dave.

Thanks for dismissing the rest of those passages with a wave of the hand. Encouraging to know you thought long and hard about it. There's no arguing with rigid fundamentalism, I suppose, and so I won't bother continuing with this discussion.

i am sorry to hear that, i was genuinly wanting to know why you thought as you did.

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ

DiscipleDave

^i^

 

[Mallon]

i am sorry to hear that, i was genuinly wanting to know why you thought as you did.

Questioning the Christianity of your fellow believers and insisting there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" if we do not subscribe to your individual take on Genesis is not a convincing way of learning about our thoughts.

 

[DiscipleDave]

Sorry, but there's more than two choices. I'm gonna stop baiting you.

Problem with the "literalist" stance - by the time you've rationalized away the various seeming inconsistencies in the bible, and between literal translation and scientific facts, you end up with an explanation that's so complicated and convoluted that evolution seems simple by comparison. There is NO WAY to justify it without adding to the scriptures.

God bless,

Chris

Am i then at fault because, as a child, i believe what the Words of God say and teach?
i believe what the Words of God say and teach, and people say i am wrong.
i believe what the Words of God say and teach, and to me they are what is simple and easy to understand.

Here is what is easy to understand, God created the Earth in 6 days, here is the simplicity in that, i believe it, because that is what it says. Who then complicates it? but those who say He did not create the Earth in 6 days, and here is the evidence to prove it? Who then is complicating the issue?
i believe because that is what it says, That is simple in its simplist form, others do not believe, and they complicate what Scriptures says and teach based on what scientist say, and then these say we are the ones being compicated. lol In simplicity i believe God created the Earth in 6 days because, listen to this, you might miss it here, Because HE SAID HE DID. Its that simple, If God says He did it, then i believe He did it, that is too simple, now i have explained to you why i believe the Earth was created in 6 days, please explain to us why you believe it wasn't created in 6 days, Then we will be able to compare who is making it simple and who is making it complicated.

Let us compare which is more simple.

1) i believe God created the EArth in 6 days, because that is what He said He did

or

2) ___________________ _______________ _______ ____ ______________ _________ ____________ ______ ____________ ______________ __________ ______________ ____________________ _______ ______________ __________ ________ ___________ _________ _____________ ____________ _________ ______________ ______________ _______________ __________ _______________ ____________ ____________ _______ ______________ __________ __________.

Please fill in the blanks why you think God did not create the Earth in 6 days, notice i left you much more space to explain, because i know you will need it to explain why you believe He didn't as He said He did.

Then all who will read this, will be able to compare and see who is making things simple and who is making things complicated. Thanks.

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ

DiscipleDave

^i^

 

[Melethiel]

DiscipleDave,

Do you believe that the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper is really Christ's Body and Blood? Just curious.

 

[crawfish]

Dave, I'm assuming you believe the same about the entire bible. That each passage is completely, literally true. Here is the problem with that stance:

You say to each passage, "this is what the Bible teaches, and I believe it". When , inevitably, you hit the point where somebody tells you "you can't possibly believe both passage A and passage B literally, then you'd be conflicting yourself". So you come up with a rationalization that allows both. You see something in the bible that conflicts with reality, so you come up with a rationalization to show why that can be. Eventually, the rationalizations begin to conflict with themselves, so you invent new rationalizations to justify those. Eventually, you have a huge system of rationalizations, all required to support your view of bible interpretation, and you don't even see that the whole thing is so complicated and implausible that it' can't possibly be true. The literalist typically has a pretty small-world view, so they typically don't see the huge problems.

A pure literal approach to the Bible is wrong. It's wrong, because it's impossible. It's wrong, because it weakens God's word by forcing it to say things God didn't intend for it to say. It takes away from the sheer majesty of God's creation by simplifying it.

Like I said, I don't view this as a salvation issue. I imagine we'll stand around and have a big laugh about it in heaven. My concern is that I've known people who can't worship a God when He seems as ridiculous and wrong as Odin or Zeus, when that couldn't be further from the truth.

Later. It's been fun.

 

[DiscipleDave]

DiscipleDave,

Do you believe that the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper is really Christ's Body and Blood? Just curious.

Matthew 26:26: And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27: And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28: For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29: But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

In saying it is actually the fruit of the vine, we know it can't be His actual blood, therefore it is clear it was not His blood but was the fruit of the vine.

Jn:6:35: And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Jn:6:41: The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

Jn:6:48: I am that bread of life.

Therefore we know Through Scriptures that He was not actually bread, but that He is meat for us, so that we may grow if we partake in Him.

So ask >>>> Do you believe that the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper is really Christ's Body and Blood? <<<

Answer, no, because Scriptures clearly say and teach that it was not actually bread, but clearly indicates that it was an analogy. If then Scriptures clearly indicate within its context, that it is symbolic, then it is. But there is nothing in the creation story in Genesis that indicates or suggest it is merely sybolic or alagorical in nature, but in reading the Creation story in Genesis, it is as that is exactly how, and when it was done, There is nothing in Genesis that would cause someone to believe anything other then what it says.

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ

DiscipleDave

^i^

 

[Melethiel]

God clearly said that the bread and wine were his Body and Blood. Why are you making something simple into something so difficult? Isn't that what you accuse us of doing? God also said in Scripture that a 1000 years is as one day.

 

[crawfish]

Actually, I think it means that Jesus bled wine.

 

[busterdog]

Matthew 26:26: And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27: And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28: For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29: But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

In saying it is actually the fruit of the vine, we know it can't be His actual blood, therefore it is clear it was not His blood but was the fruit of the vine.

Jn:6:35: And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Jn:6:41: The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

Jn:6:48: I am that bread of life.

Therefore we know Through Scriptures that He was not actually bread, but that He is meat for us, so that we may grow if we partake in Him.

So ask >>>> Do you believe that the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper is really Christ's Body and Blood? <<<

Answer, no, because Scriptures clearly say and teach that it was not actually bread, but clearly indicates that it was an analogy. If then Scriptures clearly indicate within its context, that it is symbolic, then it is. But there is nothing in the creation story in Genesis that indicates or suggest it is merely sybolic or alagorical in nature, but in reading the Creation story in Genesis, it is as that is exactly how, and when it was done, There is nothing in Genesis that would cause someone to believe anything other then what it says.

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ

DiscipleDave

^i^

While I agree with you in 99% of what you are saying, the meaning of "this is my blood" is a little knotty. That doesn't mean that it is only metaphorical or that circles represent a flat earth. After long, hard thought, I think the TEs and YECs understand one another pretty well on that point.

Wine as blood does have a legal reality. It is the payment required by the justice of God. This is one of those brilliant loopholes that the accuser of the brethren never saw coming!.

 

[busterdog]

Actually, I think it means that Jesus bled wine.

And "raised from the dead" only means he is "remembered fondly," unless you have a clear basis for treating these several figures differently.

Most TEs here do not take the resurrection metaphorically. But, I have yet to see a cogent TE basis for taking some figures literally and some metaphorically. Except -- it is metaphorical if science says it can't be true. It is literal if there are lots of witnesses, suc as to the improbably reality of things like resurrection.

This is the doubting Thomas rule of hermeneutics. Now, Thomas remained a treasured apostle and was apparently not even a heretic. His form of reason was in a way acceptable. But, for many others, the word of God was enough, as Jesus himself announced, and that was an additional blessing.
\
Jhn 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

 

[crawfish]

And "raised from the dead" only means he is "remembered fondly," unless you have a clear basis for treating these several figures differently.

Most TEs here do not take the resurrection metaphorically. But, I have yet to see a cogent TE basis for taking some figures literally and some metaphorically. Except -- it is metaphorical if science says it can't be true. It is literal if there are lots of witnesses, suc as to the improbably reality of things like resurrection.

That's a bad example. The bible itself documents both Christ's death and return among the living, and there is nothing culturally to indicate any difference. I take very little metaphorically - the way to interpret scripture is to find out how the people of the time would have heard it. "literal" to them was many times different that what "literal" is to us. The delineation can be quite difficult to discern at times; however, in the case you point out, that delineation is quite clear.

This is the doubting Thomas rule of hermeneutics. Now, Thomas remained a treasured apostle and was apparently not even a heretic. His form of reason was in a way acceptable. But, for many others, the word of God was enough, as Jesus himself announced, and that was an additional blessing.
\
Jhn 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

Perhaps. But God did not need to give us such a long, complicated document for the simplicity of the cross. It's a document that lives, that provides meaning to us even though that meaning may change throughout time. As our knowledge grows, it gives us greater insight into God's character and purpose.

Literalism is anything but simple. TE's, for lack of a better word, don't tie down the meaning of scripture to the current interpretation; they continually look at what God reveals through his creation by science and discovery to hone and improve their understanding.

 

[gluadys]

Are you then saying all the methods are correct, and can't be wrong? remember not to long ago, the World was flat, and you were mocked if you said differently, And Lo, they had their evidence that it was flat. Here is what i see, people judge things that they see, as to how old it is. We estimate how old something is, by what we see with our eyes. Is it not written:

Jn:7:24: Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

How ironic. You use a statement of Jesus where he condemns a strict literalistic interpretation of scripture to defend a strict literalistic interpretation of scripture. Talk about twisting the meaning of Jesus' teaching!!

Yet Scientists are nortorious for doing just that, They can ONLY judge according to what they see, They base age of things, according to what they have seen, what is presented to them TODAY.

Where does scripture ever suggest that we cannot trust creation to be what it appears to be?

Why do Scientist seek after evidence which is contrary to Scriptures. Because of this, their eyes are hidden from the Truth, because they lack Faith.

Evidence cannot be contrary to scripture, Dave. The evidence scientists look at is part of creation itself. It was made by God. In fact, scripture tells us it was made by the Word of God. (John 1:1-3) So how can evidence, made by the Word of God, be contrary to the scriptures?

Unless, of course, the Word of God is intended to deceive us. Is that what you believe?

Which is better, a person who merely believes the Earth was created in 6 days, because that is what the Words of God teach, and they need no proof of it, but believe. Or a person who, because of what all the humans say about the EArth, do not believe what the Words of God say,

Which is better, a person who believes that God did not create a lie, but that the Word of God made a creation which speaks truly and gave us a scripture which also speaks truly, and seeks to determine the most harmonious way to claim the truth of both without contradiction. Or a person who shuts his eyes to part of God's truth because of what humans have told him about how to read scripture and that he must not question that interpretation even though God's creation tells a different story?

 

[gluadys]

DiscipleDave said >>> My point is this, what people say is a billion year marking on the earth, may not be billions of years at all, but may be 5000 years old. <<<

Gluadys replied >>> And if you can provide evidence of this, you would be a candidate for a Nobel Prize. Meanwhile, there is no reason not to go with the estimate current data suggests. <<<

Aside from the Fact that the current data is contrary to the Words of God, of coarse.

Data cannot be contrary to the Word of God. It was the Word of God that created the data. Why would Christ create data that is contrary to Himself?

But if you believe the Words of God are wrong then it really doesn't matter what one chooses to believe does it?

I have never heard of any Words of God. I know only the Word of God and I know him to be true.

DiscipleDave said >>>> not to mention the air was entirely different then it is now, 4000 years ago, <<<<

Gluadys replied >>>> Scripture doesn't tell you that. Science doesn't tell you that. What makes you think that is true? <<<<

Both Scriptures and Science teaches us that the air was different.

What scripture says the air was different?

Yes, science says the air was different, but not in the way you suggest, nor at the time you suggest. Science shows the air had a great deal less oxygen (not more) and that was nearly 4 billion years ago, not 4,000 years ago.

 

[Melethiel]

Well, at one point in time the atmosphere was ~35% O2. That was still a lot longer than 4000 years ago.

 

[shernren]

Most TEs here do not take the resurrection metaphorically. But, I have yet to see a cogent TE basis for taking some figures literally and some metaphorically. Except -- it is metaphorical if science says it can't be true. It is literal if there are lots of witnesses, such as to the improbably reality of things like resurrection.

Well, why is geocentrism in the Bible metaphorical? Surely not because science says it can't be true, right?

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

In other words, throw away all intelligence and reason given to us by God, and live in ignorance?

No, I'm not saying that. You have no idea what I'm trying to get at. I'm simply saying that sometimes we think about things that out of the will of God concerning his creation especially. Such as Evolutionist thinking and Creationist thinking. They differ so much.

 

[Mick116]

My Faith is in the Words of God, therefore i believe what they say.
There are those who put their Faith in what scientists say, and they believe the doctrine of men. Everyone has a free choice to whom they will believe. Whether believing God or believing men. The choice is yours.

IN His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^

The problem arises that the "Words of God" were written through human agents. In any given biblical text, where do the words of man stop, and the words of God begin?

If only God would drop from heaven a complete and accurate rendering of his will and his words, but alas this has not been the case.

The words of Holy Scripture have a very real human component.