does the phrase 'in the beginning...'

[Deamiter]

the rationale is that God has already presented believers with a model of origin. there is no date though a starting point is obvious.

so the meaning is, that believers should not be doing as the secular world does, trying to pinpoint exactly when creation took place or create origin models, but to preach the truth which states that God created in the time frame mentioned in the account (6 days) and that when is not the issue,{ its investigation is a waste of time as God has hidden that from mankind}, but that God did it as He said with no adaption of secular theories added.

Ah I see where you're going. You mean to conclude that the Genesis 1-2 account must be factual because we agree that a phrase in Gen. 1 does not suggest a timeframe?

Unfortunately you're missing a couple key points. First of all, the Bible starts with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." There is no suggestion that the rest of Genesis 1 follows immediately after -- in fact, rather than saying "then the Earth..." the Bible says "Now the Earth..." As an allegorical refrain pointing out each of the surrounding cultures' gods and showing how each was created by the one true God (as suggested by the framework hypothesis) this makes a whole lot of sense. I won't say it's evidence against a historical narrative, but it's hardly evidence FOR a historical narrative here!

Second, if "in the beginning" was never meant as a detailed record of a particular temporal point, it in no way suggests that the rest of Genesis 1-2 are or were intended as factual. As an example, check out Mat. 19:4 where Jesus says "in the Beginning, the Creator made them male and female." Clearly Jesus' use of the phrase is referring to God's creation, but just as with my interpretation of Genesis 1:1, it neither suggests a specific point in time nor a single event (as male and female were neither created at the Genesis 1:1 "beginning" nor were they created at the same time as each other).

I think God would be quite sad if he found us hung up on insisting that creation happened in six days when he inspired the creation account as a mythological construct designed to show how God created all the things that were attributed to other gods and how we should rest one day out of seven (and year and 50th year). By insisting that the account was factual, you're taking away from the actual inspired message of Genesis 1-2 and inserting your flawed modernist interpretation.

 

[R3quiem]

I don't take Genesis literally. I take it as a story that was written so that people could understand it thousands of years ago.

Basically, what Genesis tells me is that God created the universe and people. All the other details don't matter to me as much, as long as I get the general message.

 

[archaeologist]

I don't take Genesis literally. I take it as a story that was written so that people could understand it thousands of years ago.

how about: God wrote it so even a child could undertand it and believe in God before they die. not all children get to live to be adults (chris benoit's child serves as an example to this).

deamiter:

Ah I see where you're going. You mean to conclude that the Genesis 1-2 account must be factual because we agree that a phrase in Gen. 1 does not suggest a timeframe?

no, neither theory can decide how it was done and that God's word must be taken as stated for He is the nly witness to the fact and He requires faith not science to please Him.

As an allegorical refrain pointing out each of the surrounding cultures' gods and showing how each was created by the one true God (as suggested by the framework hypothesis) this makes a whole lot of sense. I won't say it's evidence against a historical narrative, but it's hardly evidence FOR a historical narrative here!

the former: why does an allegory make sense when it takes away from what God was doing in the beginning? it removes all the answers the creation account provides.
the latter: why not. it is clearly written as a factual statement recording God's action before there were witnesses. plus God told it to the author of genesis--so you are syaing God misled His writer?

if "in the beginning" was never meant as a detailed record of a particular temporal point, it in no way suggests that the rest of Genesis 1-2 are or were intended as factual

'if' is a big word, and all i stated was that NO DATE was given except for 'in the begining'. which is a detailed reference point in time, the beginning but what i smissing is--exactly what year,--- which in ancient times dates were not done by the julian calendar but by king's reigns which cannot be used here as there were no kings ruling at that time. so 'in the beginning' was true, factual and detailed.

Clearly Jesus' use of the phrase is referring to God's creation, but just as with my interpretation of Genesis 1:1, it neither suggests a specific point in time nor a single event (as male and female were neither created at the Genesis 1:1 "beginning" nor were they created at the same time as each other).

you are using the meaning of the word 'beginning' in a very limited capacity, restricting it to the first part of an act. YET, when Jesus said, 'in the beginning' He was referring to the beginning when God did His creative act. Man and woman certainly were not the first ones created but they were created with everything else--in the first part of existence.

to say other wise would be saying that Jesus lied or misrepresented the truth.

I think God would be quite sad if he found us hung up on insisting that creation happened in six days when he inspired the creation account as a mythological construct designed to show how God created all the things that were attributed to other gods and how we should rest one day out of seven (and year and 50th year). By insisting that the account was factual, you're taking away from the actual inspired message of Genesis 1-2 and inserting your flawed modernist interpretation

please prove it with other scriptures and credible sources that God intended that passage to be mythological. no where not one of the other authors of the books of the Bible refer to it, nor does God himself, to it as mythological. it is all treated a literal.

i am taking nothing away nor inserting any modernist interpretation, i am agreeing with God. the only people i see inserting a modernist view are those who treat the passage as mythological, allegorical or metaphorical.

but yet again, the excuse of allegory, mythology and so on get raised yet not one of the people who aise such complaints provide any credible source, documentation, scripture to support their claim.

i cite the whole Bible to support the literal act but i see nothing but empty words and a 'take my word for it' mentality from the dissenters.

if you are going to make such claims please provide something that can be examined instead of this magical contention which has never had any factual basis throughout history.

this is like arguing with those who claim the documentery hypothesis is real even though J,E, P & D have never been shown to exist at any point in time. (kitchen, 'on the reliability of the old testament')

 

[Deamiter]

the former: why does an allegory make sense when it takes away from what God was doing in the beginning? it removes all the answers the creation account provides.

It removes answers no more than our understanding of a heliocentric solar system removed all the answers a geocentric solar system provided. Put another way, yes it removes the answers you're comfortable with, but since your answers are wrong, removing them is glorifying to God.

the latter: why not. it is clearly written as a factual statement recording God's action before there were witnesses. plus God told it to the author of genesis--so you are syaing God misled His writer?

Do you then claim that the entire Bible was not inspired but dictated by God? That's quite an unbiblical concept perpetuated by people who misinterpret the term "theopneustos." The Bible makes it clear that God inspired the Biblical authors to convey certain truths but nowhere does it suggest that God dictated the manner or actual words that were used to convey those truths. Yes, there are direct quotes attributed to God in the Bible, but the vast majority is writing about God's followers or writing about topics that were inspired, not dictated.

'if' is a big word, and all i stated was that NO DATE was given except for 'in the begining'. which is a detailed reference point in time, the beginning but what i smissing is--exactly what year,--- which in ancient times dates were not done by the julian calendar but by king's reigns which cannot be used here as there were no kings ruling at that time. so 'in the beginning' was true, factual and detailed.

Once again, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that the phrase is "true, factual and detailed." You provide none of what you demand later -- other scriptures or credible sources. Simply reiterating your points does not make them better supported.

you are using the meaning of the word 'beginning' in a very limited capacity, restricting it to the first part of an act. YET, when Jesus said, 'in the beginning' He was referring to the beginning when God did His creative act. Man and woman certainly were not the first ones created but they were created with everything else--in the first part of existence.

to say other wise would be saying that Jesus lied or misrepresented the truth.

Absolutely not. When Jesus used the phrase, he was neither misrepresenting the truth nor was he referring to a precise moment in time. In Hebrew writing it is commonplace for a theologian to cite a part of a passage in order to invoke the entire passage. Since everyone was familiar with the same scriptures, quoting entire passages was quite unnecessary. Jesus was using the phrase to reference the creation account. The fact remains, however, that the phrase was not used to refer to a particular point in time.

please prove it with other scriptures and credible sources that God intended that passage to be mythological. no where not one of the other authors of the books of the Bible refer to it, nor does God himself, to it as mythological. it is all treated a literal.

Not ONCE is Genesis 1-11 cited as factual. It is cited to show that God wants us to rest on a Sabbath. It is cited to show that women are subservient to men. Not once is it treated as solely literal and there is not even the slightest hint that it is treated even partially literal.

i am taking nothing away nor inserting any modernist interpretation, i am agreeing with God. the only people i see inserting a modernist view are those who treat the passage as mythological, allegorical or metaphorical.

I see that you do not understand the reference to modernist thought as it was only with the modernist enlightened framework a few hundred years ago that people started to value facts over truth and meaning. The Hebrew people certainly found myth, allegory and metaphor as much more truth-filled than fact as evidenced by their age inflation in the genealogies. Just as the Egyptian and Assyrian cultures that heavily influenced the Hebrew culture of the time, they would record meaningful ages (i.e. 120 was a perfect age in Egypt) rather than actual ages of death and thereby give more information about a person than a simple number ever could.

if you are going to make such claims please provide something that can be examined instead of this magical contention which has never had any factual basis throughout history.

You might look to the Assyrian Kings list and Egyptian literature and note the parallels between their inflated ages and those in the Bible genealogies. The use of symbolic ages in place of factual ages is widely documented in the ancient near east and was never considered the least bit dishonest.

this is like arguing with those who claim the documentery hypothesis is real even though J,E, P & D have never been shown to exist at any point in time. (kitchen, 'on the reliability of the old testament')

Something like arguing with those who claim that the traditional attribution to Moses equals an actual authorship even though there is no evidence whatsoever that Moses wrote any significant portion of the Bible we hold today?

 

[archaeologist]

but since your answers are wrong, removing them is glorifying to God.

please i am waiting for scriptural examples. from keil & Delitzsch are several quotes:

In contrast with all these mythical inventions, the biblical account shines
out in the clear light of truth, and proves itself by its contents to be an
integral part of the revealed history, of which it is accepted as the pedestal
throughout the whole of the sacred Scriptures. This is not the case with the
Old Testament only; but in the New Testament also it is accepted and​

taught by Christ and the apostles as the basis of the divine revelation.

The biblical account of the creation can also vindicate its claim to be true
and actual history, in the presence of the doctrines of philosophy and the​

established results of natural science

So long, indeed, as philosophy
undertakes to construct the universe from general ideas, it will be utterly
unable to comprehend the creation; but ideas will never explain the
existence of things. Creation is an act of the personal God, not a process of
nature, the development of which can be traced to the laws of birth and
decay that prevail in the created world. But the work of God, as described
in the history of creation, is in perfect harmony with the correct notions of
divine omnipotence, wisdom and goodness. The assertion, so frequently
made, that the course of the creation takes its form from the Hebrew week,
which was already in existence, and the idea of God’s resting on the
seventh day, from the institution of the Hebrew Sabbath, is entirely without​

foundation.

Do you then claim that the entire Bible was not inspired but dictated by God? That's quite an unbiblical concept perpetuated by people who misinterpret the term "theopneustos."

again, an accusation without credible sources to base your opinion .

qeo>pneustov,

— theh-op’-nyoo-stos; from (2316) (qeo>v) and a​

presumed derivative of (4154) (pne>w); divinely breathed in: —
given by inspiration of God.

so you are saying that God let His authors misrepresent the truth and basically let all civilizations be deceived without a true witness until modern science came along in the middle ages?

you are just playing those word games mallon likes to accuse me of. mathew henry says:

4. The scriptures we are to know are the holy scriptures; they come from the holy God, were delivered by holy men, contain holy precepts, treat of holy things, and were designed to make us holy and to lead us in the way of holiness to happiness; being called the holy scriptures, they are by this distinguished from profane writings of all sorts, and from those that only treat morality, and common justice and honesty, but do not meddle with holiness.

What is the excellency of the scripture. It is given by inspiration of
God (v. 16), and therefore is his word. It is a divine revelation, which
may depend upon as infallibly true. The same Spirit that breathed reason into us breathes revelation among us:
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men spoke as they were moved or carried forth by the Holy Ghost,
<610121>2 Peter 1:21. The prophets and apostles did not
speak from themselves, but what they received of the Lord that they
delivered unto us. That the scripture was given by inspiration of God
appears from the majesty of its style, &#8212; from the truth, purity, and

sublimity, of the doctrines contained in it, &#8212; from the harmony of its

several parts, &#8212; from its power and efficacy on the minds of multitudes

that converse with it, &#8212; from the accomplishment of many prophecies
relating to things beyond all human foresight, &#8212; and from the
uncontrollable miracles that were wrought in proof of its divine original:
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with
divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will,​

<580204>Hebrews 2:4.
​

​

quite a different scenario than what you and others like to paint. {bold mine}

Once again, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that the phrase is "true, factual and detailed." You provide none of what you demand later -- other scriptures or credible sources. Simply reiterating your points does not make them better supported.

​

i did but people kept saying the scriptures i used could be allegorical or metaphorical which leads me to believe that this concept of A & M is used for convenience and not for finding the truth.​

The fact remains, however, that the phrase was not used to refer to a particular point in time.

please provide sources where you get this idea. obviously jesus was refering to the beginning when creation took place. or is this another one of those convenience A & m inferrences?​

according to mathew henry:​

1. ​

The creation of Adam and Eve, concerning which he appeals to their

own knowledge of the scriptures; ​

Have ye not read? It is some advantage​

in arguing, to deal with those that own, and have read, the scriptures; ​

Ye​

have read ​

(but have not considered) that he which made them at the​

beginning, made them male and female, ​

<010127>Genesis 1:27; 5:2. Note, It will​

be of great use to us often to think of our creation, how and by whom,​

what and for what, we were created. ​

He made them male and female, one​

female for one male; so that Adam could not divorce his wife, and take​

another, for there was no other to take. It likewise intimated an inseparable​

union between them; Eve was a rib out of Adam's side, so that he could​

not put her away, but he must put away a piece of himself, and contradict

the manifest indications of her creation. Christ hints briefly at this, but, in

appealing to what they had read, he refers them to the original record,
where it is observable, that, though the rest of the living creatures were
made male and female, yet it is not said so concerning any of them, but
only concerning mankind; because between man and woman the
conjunction is rational, and intended for nobler purposes than merely the
pleasing of sense and the preserving of a seed; and it is therefore more
close and firm than that between male and female among the brutes, who
were not capable of being such help-meets for one another as Adam and​

Ever were. Hence the manner of expression is somewhat singular




​

​

Not ONCE is Genesis 1-11 cited as factual. It is cited to show that God wants us to rest on a Sabbath. It is cited to show that women are subservient to men. Not once is it treated as solely literal and there is not even the slightest hint that it is treated even partially literal.

again you make statements with nothing to back your opinion. please cite those verses which do not refer to creation as factual. i am waiting.​

from the I.S.B.E.:​

the Old Testament furnishes​

no theoretic account of the manner and order in which creative process is
carried on.​

The Hebrew people certainly found myth, allegory and metaphor as much more truth-filled than fact as evidenced by their age inflation in the genealogies. Just as the Egyptian and Assyrian cultures that heavily influenced the Hebrew culture of the time, they would record meaningful ages

sounds like desperation to prove your A & M convenience. you have yet to prove that the hebrews followed this idea. keil & delitzsch seem to accept 110 for joseph as a real age:​

Joseph lived to see the commencement of the fulfilment of his father&#8217;s

blessing. Having reached the age of 110, he saw Ephraim&#8217;s


​

vLevi &#710;Be &#8220;sons​

of the third link,&#8221; i.e., of great-grandsons, consequently great-greatgrandsons.​

vLevi ​

descendants in the third generation are expressly​

distinguished from &#8220;children&#8217;s children&#8221; or grandsons in Exodus 34:7.​

There is no practical difficulty in the way of this explanation, the only one
which the language will allow​

You might look to the Assyrian Kings list and Egyptian literature and note the parallels between their inflated ages and those in the Bible genealogies

why would God limit their age if the 900 year lifespan was not real? i know about the king's list and since both those nations never followed God why would you expect them to tell the truth whereas scripture comes from God, one would expect Him to tell the truth. after all he commands us not to bear false witness.
what you are saying is, God lies and His word is not to be trusted just like those who do not believe in God.​

​

 

[archaeologist]

part 2 as part one was too long:

Something like arguing with those who claim that the traditional attribution to Moses equals an actual authorship even though there is no evidence whatsoever that Moses wrote any significant portion of the Bible we hold today

​

​

the work is attributed to moses, here is what adam clarke has to say:​

​

EVERY believer in Divine revelation finds himself amply justified in taking for granted that the Pentateuch is the work of Moses. For more than 3000​

years this has been the invariable opinion of those who were best qualified​

to form a correct judgment on this subject. The Jewish Church, from its​

most remote antiquity, has ascribed the work to no other hand; and the​

Christian Church, from its foundation, has attributed it to the Jewish​

lawgiver alone. The most respectable heathens have concurred in this​

testimony, and Jesus Christ and his apostles have completed the evidence,​

and have put the question beyond the possibility of being doubted by​

those who profess to believe the Divine authenticity of the New​

Testament. As to those who, in opposition to all these proofs, obstinately​

persist in their unbelief, they are worthy of little regard, as argument is​

lost on their unprincipled prejudices, and demonstration on their minds,​

because ever willfully closed against the light. When they have proved that​

Moses is not the author of this work, the advocates of Divine revelation​

will reconsider the grounds of their faith

food for thought from the I.S.B.E.:

1. CREATION AS ABIDING:​

Much negative ground has been cleared away for any modern discussion of
the doctrine of creation. No idea of creation can now be taken as complete
which does not include, besides the world as at first constituted, all that to
this day is in and of creation. For God creates not being that can exist
independently of Him, His preserving agency being inseparably connected
with His creative power. We have long ceased to think of God’s creation
as a machine left, completely made, to its own automatic working. With
such a doctrine of creation, a theistic evolution would be quite​

incompatible.

you can’t have your cake and eat it to

 

[theFijian]

so the meaning is, that believers should not be doing as the secular world does, trying to pinpoint exactly when creation took place or create origin models, but to preach the truth which states that God created in the time frame mentioned in the account (6 days) and that when is not the issue,{ its investigation is a waste of time as God has hidden that from mankind}, but that God did it as He said with no adaption of secular theories added.

Ah I see. So this whole thread is really just an excuse to tell us all science is a crock! It is true that we are justified through Grace alone by faith alone (unless you're Catholic ) but that in no way rules out scientific endeavour. Part of the Creation Mandate was for Adam to subdue Creation, this requires mankind to understand Creation and how it works. Please don't propogate a false faith/science dichotomy.

 

[Deamiter]

Wow, cut and paste ad nausium and then ask me to spend hours citing verses you refuse to bring up yourself?

I haven't got a ton of time, so I'll simply support my two major claims -- first that theopneustos should primarily be translated as inspired, not dictated as you seem to claim and that the foundational doctrine of inerrancy. Secondly, that the Biblical authors made use of sacred numbers to impart more truth in their writing than actual counting numbers every could.

From:
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1979/JASA6-79Phillips.html
by Timothy Phillips, Vanderbilt University

The concern underlying such a primary focus upon inerrancy is identified as foundationalism, an epistemological argument which claims that one is able to obtain genuine knowledge only from a foundation of apodictic certitudes. Without such an indubitable and independent principium, the argument continues, what is attained is not absolutely certain and thus no longer knowledge as such. For that reason the biblical foundationalist contends that "without inerrancy ... there is no solid basis for biblical authority and hence no sure word for theology or Christian living." After demonstrating exegetically that this underlying assumption is not biblical, three criticisms of foundationalism are outlined: (1) inerrancy ignores the Holy Spirit's role in grounding Scripture's authority, and such a disregard has historically led to a dead orthodoxy; (2) even granting the conservative results of evangelical Biblical scholarship, the Bible is still unable to assume the role of an indubitable and independent principium; and (3) due to hermcneutical problems, the biblical foundationalist's goal of absolutely certain knowledge is unreachable. One must conclude then that foundationalism is not a proper model for biblical authority.

...

Warfield's exegetical argument that inspiration entails inerrancy is found in "The Biblical Idea of Inspiration."14 The term inspiration is rooted in the Greek word theopneustos found in II Timothy 3:16, meaning God-breathed. However Warfield readily admits that this passage cannot hear the full weight of his defense. Two integral factors left unspecified by this passage suggest the direction of his argument. First, this passage does not determine how Scripture is God-breathed, that is, how God actually produced Scripture. Warfield contends that II Peter 1:19-21 does offer such an account. Secondly, even though Paul indicates that Scripture is spiritually useful in II Timothy, Warfield points out that he "does not tell us here everything for which the Scriptures are made valuable . . . . Whatever other qualities may accrue to them from their Divine origin, he leaves to other occasions to speak."',15 John 10:31-38 is used to specify some of those qualities.

And from: (warning pdf)
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Hill.pdf

The key to understanding the numbers in Genesis is that,
in the Mesopotamian world view, numbers could have both real (numerical) and sacred
(numerological or symbolic) meaning. The Mesopotamians used a sexagesimal (base 60)
system of numbers, and the patriarchal ages in Genesis revolve around the sacred numbers
60 and 7. In addition to Mesopotamian sacred numbers, the preferred numbers 3, 7, 12, and 40
are used in both the Old and New Testaments. To take numbers figuratively does not mean
that the Bible is not to be taken literally. It just means that the biblical writer was trying
to impart a spiritual or historical truth to the text&#8212;one that surpassed the meaning of purely
rational numbers.

Note that both of these articles are heavily referenced and are not simply the personal opinion of any particular author.

 

[Assyrian]

please i am waiting for scriptural examples. from keil & Delitzsch are several quotes:

Interesting that you would quote Delitzsch. Did you know that this renowned Hebrew scholar wrote a second commentary on Genesis, the New Commentary on Genesis, in 1887? There was a lot of debate about the meaning of Genesis in those days, and Delitzsch was convinced the traditional literal interpretation was mistaken. He changed from literal to the 'analogical days' in the new commentary and supported a local flood.

 

[archaeologist]

Interesting that you would quote Delitzsch. Did you know that this renowned Hebrew scholar wrote a second commentary on Genesis, the New Commentary on Genesis, in 1887? There was a lot of debate about the meaning of Genesis in those days, and Delitzsch was convinced the traditional literal interpretation was mistaken. He changed from literal to the 'analogical days' in the new commentary and supported a local flood

two things. one, doesn't mean the change was right.

two, why is it that your side can rarely back up what you say with credible sources? you just make statements like you think everyone should take your word for it.

 

[archaeologist]

deamiter:
haven't ead the whole article yet bu this caught my eye--

(1) inerrancy ignores the Holy Spirit's role in grounding Scripture's authority, and such a disregard has historically led to a dead orthodoxy;

this flies in the face of

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men spoke as they were moved or carried forth by the Holy Ghost,

2 peter 1:21

so is this a choose what you want to believe scenario? the problem with this idea that a door is left open to change scripture to what people want and God is not that way. It is His word for all people for all time.

in the Mesopotamian world view, numbers could have both real (numerical) and sacred
(numerological or symbolic) meaning.

what does this have to do with God writing the scriptures? why would God use their system when he called Israel to be separate from the rest of the world? obviously, we cannot use the mesopotamia style to interpret Holy Scriptures or declare what God did.

i will have time later to read the articles completely.

by the way, there is nothing wrong with cut and paste. i certainly didn't do it dishonestly.

the problem you face is that the Bible says it is from God, so why are you trying to change that fact? unless you want to ignore what God says and pursue what you want to pursue, your own desires...

 

[archaeologist]

it took some doing but i searched vanderbilt university's website and found that there is no Timothy II Phillipson staff or faculty, so this treatise must be a paper for an assignment.

i find that in reading it, it is as biased as he charges Warfield of being. i read the logic and it lacks understanding and looks to split hairs to justify a non-traditional thought.

the second one did not load up to my computer, so i could not read it. a quick search of the name left me with nothing as well.

 

[Mick116]

When it comes to scientific questions regarding cosmology or evolutionary biology, I'll stick with the cosmologists and evolutionary biologists, rather than the theologians. Theologians are still arguing over just how revelation and inspiration are supposed to work, so I'm not about to construct my entire worldview based on their (mixed) conclusions.

 

[Assyrian]

two things. one, doesn't mean the change was right.

No it doesn't, but what is the point in quoting someone as an authority, if they in their expert understanding of Hebrew later come to the conclusion that your view is wrong?

Or what is the point of quoting someone like Adam Clarke who wrote his commentaries before the modern evangelical debate on the meaning of Genesis and knows nothing about the arguments?

two, why is it that your side can rarely back up what you say with credible sources?

You have just answered your own question. These people you quote as authorities can be wrong. As you said yourself when you tried quoting Augustine and found the quotation actually contradicted the point you were making, Augustine is not the bible.

I do quote the bible as authoritative. I will quote Hebrew lexicons or grammar. I will also quote science sources, which can be challenged on the basis of science. I will happily quote Church Fathers, but not that often and not as authoritative, but to show how the bible was interpreted in the past and to glean some of the wisdom of these great men, not that I agree with everything they said.

The reason we do not not argue by cut and paste is because so often it is simply an 'appeal to authority' which is a logical fallacy. It can also be a lazy way to debate. The cut and paster relies on other people's work but expects those he is arguing with to do the actual work of refuting the clipping and writing out the answer.

you just make statements like you think everyone should take your word for it.

No we expect you to argue with us and try to show us where we are wrong. What is the point in pasting a quotation from someone we don't believe, someone we don't accept as an authority? Understand the issue yourself, put the argument in your own words, then we can discuss it with you.

 

[archaeologist]

When it comes to scientific questions regarding cosmology or evolutionary biology, I'll stick with the cosmologists and evolutionary biologists, rather than the theologians. Theologians are still arguing over just how revelation and inspiration are supposed to work, so I'm not about to construct my entire worldview based on their (mixed) conclusions

okay, it isup to you but i would be careful whom you listen to : article title-- scientists clueless over sun's effect on earth

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html

While researchers argue whether Earth is getting warmer and if humans are contributing, a heated debate over the global effect of sunlight boiled to the surface today

seems you have the same problem no matter where you turn.

 

[archaeologist]

i am going to change the direction of this thread a bit and say that that phrase creates a model from God in which believer sin Him are to follow and creates a question:

should believers follow the secular world and create alternative scientific models in hopes that they dovnot look foolish in the eyes of those who are goingto hell?

this seems to be the key issue here that i have seen in my brief participation. why does someone, who says they believe in God, need to worry about how they look to those in need of converting to the kingdom of God?

what do they hold that a christian desperately wants?

 

[theFijian]

i am going to change the direction of this thread a bit and say that that phrase creates a model from God in which believer sin Him are to follow and creates a question:

should believers follow the secular world and create alternative scientific models in hopes that they dovnot look foolish in the eyes of those who are goingto hell?

The phrase does not create that model. Stop reading into scripture what is patently not there.

this seems to be the key issue here that i have seen in my brief participation. why does someone, who says they believe in God, need to worry about how they look to those in need of converting to the kingdom of God?

We should worry how the world sees us. Why else would Peter tell us to always have answer for hope we have taking care to do so with gentleness and respect. If we act in an arrogant, repugnant, ingracious and un-Christlike manner then we cannot expect people to accept the gospel we preach.

 

[crawfish]

We should worry how the world sees us. Why else would Peter tell us to always have answer for hope we have taking care to do so with gentleness and respect. If we act in an arrogant, repugnant, ingracious and un-Christlike manner then we cannot expect people to accept the gospel we preach.

Good point. We won't be bringing many people to Christ when we're observed as being "the bad guys'. When we fight against science by falsifying data or pushing theology into science class, we make the world leery of our true intentions. Are we out to convert the world through evangelism, or through coercion?

For the record, I do agree with you in principle. We should eliminate our attempts to try and tie scientific theory into the bible. They should exist in two separate realms. When the inevitable questions come from some unbeliever, we should address them as matters of faith rather than fact; we should not dictate a scientific belief when we're preaching the Gospel.

However, I don't have any level of confidence that this can happen. Some Christians will have their faith shaken by scientific discovery; some atheists will enjoy showing how scientific discovery conflicts with the literal bible. The ensuing battle will force those who believe as I do to speak up and let people know there is an alternative.

 

[Deamiter]

deamiter:
haven't ead the whole article yet bu this caught my eye--



this flies in the face of
2 peter 1:21

so is this a choose what you want to believe scenario? the problem with this idea that a door is left open to change scripture to what people want and God is not that way. It is His word for all people for all time.

Are you proof-texting again? Unless you claim that all of scripture is prophecy the verse clearly does not apply to all of scripture!

what does this have to do with God writing the scriptures? why would God use their system when he called Israel to be separate from the rest of the world? obviously, we cannot use the mesopotamia style to interpret Holy Scriptures or declare what God did.

I see absolutely nothing in scripture that indicates that the Hebrew people were not allowed to use existing cultural constructs in their writing of the Bible. The Egyptians and Assyrians in no way found using symbolic numbers as dishonest -- in fact they found it more truthful than using counting numbers. Moses (who you claim as the Torah's author) grew up in Egypt and throughout his life was influenced heavily by Egyptian culture and law. Why should I take your word for the assertion that the Hebrew people were called to be different in every way when the Bible clearly laid out ways in which they were supposed to be different and utterly ignores other ways in which they were culturally very similar.
[/QUOTE]the problem you face is that the Bible says it is from God, so why are you trying to change that fact? unless you want to ignore what God says and pursue what you want to pursue, your own desires...[/QUOTE]
The Bible never once says it "is from God." The Bible sometimes quotes God, the Bible contains prophecy given in dreams and visions by God, and the Bible contains writing of followers who were generally inspired by God. That you want to paint the whole Bible with the same brush is both unbiblical and very contrary to the Hebrew understanding of scriptures.

 

[archaeologist]

I see absolutely nothing in scripture that indicates that the Hebrew people were not allowed to use existing cultural constructs in their writing of the Bible. The Egyptians and Assyrians in no way found using symbolic numbers as dishonest -- in fact they found it more truthful than using counting numbers. Moses (who you claim as the Torah's author) grew up in Egypt and throughout his life was influenced heavily by Egyptian culture and law. Why should I take your word for the assertion that the Hebrew people were called to be different in every way when the Bible clearly laid out ways in which they were supposed to be different and utterly ignores other ways in which they were culturally very similar.

the problem you face is that the Bible says it is from God, so why are you trying to change that fact? unless you want to ignore what God says and pursue what you want to pursue, your own desires...

The Bible never once says it "is from God." The Bible sometimes quotes God, the Bible contains prophecy given in dreams and visions by God, and the Bible contains writing of followers who were generally inspired by God. That you want to paint the whole Bible with the same brush is both unbiblical and very contrary to the Hebrew understanding of scriptures.[/quote]
[/quote]


# do you understand what you are saying here and the ramifications that are involved?

think about it.

**had a problem with the quote button, my comments start at the # symbol