Believe the Bible - bend the Bible - deny the Bible... pick one

[BobRyan]

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

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

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, let's see, the Canon determines the content of Scripture.

A circular statement - "the canon of scripture determines the content of scripture" like saying "this book on Chemistry determines what is in this book on chemistry"

Did you mean that the Jews determined the content of the Canon of their own OT text and the first century saints determined theirs?

If so - then many centuries later when the RCC came along -- there is nothing for them to do.

 

[sculleywr]

A circular statement - "the canon of scripture determines the content of scripture" like saying "this book on Chemistry determines what is in this book on chemistry"

No. It is not circular, as the REST OF WHAT I WROTE demonstrated. But you like taking things out of context. Return to the post and respond to the whole thing, because you haven't refuted squat, diddly, or doodah

 

[Colter]

Do you believe in the unscientific non-observable doctrine of the virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ, bodily ascension into heaven - or do you think this was just the writings of non-scientific men who knew other stories from pagan systems about virgin birth and resurrection and they were "borrowing"???




About God coming to earth and "creating" amoebas right on the spot?
About amoebas turning into horses given a sufficiently talented amoeba and a sufficiently long and talented period of time filled with improbable just-so stories??



Hint: Moses lived long before Babylonian captivity -as we all know.

Do you believe in the captive hebrew stories of the Gospel accounts - when Jerusalem was conquered owned-and-operated by Rome?? Or are you saying that their condition in captivity means we should not believe the Gospel accounts?



So then - no " virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ, bodily ascension into heaven"?

in Christ,

Bob

I belive in the original gospel of Jesus, The Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven. I believe The Son of God incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, Mary's baby. I belive he laid down his life and took it up again, appeared to people then returned to his rightful place in heaven where he's in charge.

The 4 accounts of Jesus were written by men about Jesus.

Ameobas don't have talent, they are life endowed with potential by their creator.

 

[Extraneous]

This General Theology section is a "debate board". But there are plenty of areas of CF that do not have that feature.

Debate boards are great for finding out how various opposing beliefs compare to each other - what is "irrefutable" and what survives only via "ad hominem, side-stepping and avoidance". But it is a poor place to find complete unity on points of doctrine.

You missed my point Bob.

 

[Extraneous]

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction and instruction" -- I believe you are ok with that statement of Paul being in perfect harmony with Galatians 5-6. I would argue that Titus 1 is also in perfect harmony with Galatians 5-6.

Of course.

 

[Extraneous]

I'll say this point blank that dividing oneself from the Body does not connect one to Christ. As I have asked before, how can one have connection to the head and not the body? Can you accept the head of your wife without her body? Why then would you accept the head of the Church without the body it is attached to?

There is no such thing as an assembly of perfect humans. If you are looking for a museum of saints, then you will never find such. The Church is a hospital for the sick, where the sick help eachother to get better. Sure, the nurses and doctors around here are sick, themselves, but they are given the prescription which saves us and they are taught how to administer it. That is the Church. If you wish to never meet sin sick people, to never encounter division, then you will divide yourself not only from the people of the Church, but from Christ Himself, for meeting with Him is never separated from Communion with His people.

So I would not take pride in being a denomination unto myself, because doing so does not put Christ in the throne, but myself.

I'll tell you point blank that you are doing the same thing. You divide yourself against SDA for example, and would never join their Church because you don't agree with their doctrine. I dont agree with any church today and so i dont need to join any of them. Im doing no different than everyone else is doing, only somehow you convince yourself that you are doing better than me.

 

[Extraneous]

I'll say this point blank that dividing oneself from the Body does not connect one to Christ. As I have asked before, how can one have connection to the head and not the body? Can you accept the head of your wife without her body? Why then would you accept the head of the Church without the body it is attached to?

Here is what im saying. If something causes you to offend, cut it off. If your eye causes to to offend, cut it out. if your foot causes you to offend, cut it off.

 

[Colter]

 

[tickingclocker]

Protestant Reformation "sola scriptura" cannot be abandon quite that easily.

I never said that. You did.

You were working the room so well in teaching everyone who exactly God is. (I figured one less person in your audience for the day wouldn't offend your pride.) BTW, I'm off to volunteer at our town's community farm tomorrow in case you don't hear from me and wish to comment further. You know, the type where they grow food to help needy people, where you put God's love in action instead of just talking about how you have figured everything out--all neatly charted backwards and forwards, with cross-referenced color coded tabs? You have a great time, too. Because those people don't consider the Jesus offered to them as "fluff".

Bob, for all your head knowledge, how many people have asked you to lead them to the foot of the Cross within the past year? There is no animosity in my heart when I ask you that either. You seem to have this peculiar mindset where nobody can win against your scheme. Everyone must go down your chosen path or they are a heretic? Never mind. Don't bother to answer.

 

[BobRyan]

I never said that. You did.

You were working the room so well in teaching everyone who exactly God is. (I figured one less person in your audience for the day wouldn't offend your pride.) BTW, I'm off to volunteer at our town's community farm tomorrow in case you don't hear from me and wish to comment further. You know, the type where they grow food to help needy people, where you put God's love in action instead of just talking about how you have figured everything out--all neatly charted backwards and forwards, with cross-referenced color coded tabs? You have a great time, too. Because those people don't consider the Jesus offered to them as "fluff".

Bob, for all your head knowledge, how many people have asked you to lead them to the foot of the Cross within the past year? There is no animosity in my heart when I ask you that either. You seem to have this peculiar mindset where nobody can win against your scheme. Everyone must go down your chosen path or they are a heretic? Never mind. Don't bother to answer.

You seem to have fallen for the failed idea that one cannot 'contend earnestly for the faith" as Jude 1 insists - and still be a Christian that wins souls to Christ. You also seem to assume you know what I do when not on this board.

I am curious as to how this idea came to you.

IN any case - do you have a response to the subject of this thread that is "not" ad hominem?

 

[BobRyan]

3.5Billion years of sediment -- 100 miles deep.... vanished from the face of the earth... so then merely "believed".

 

[BobRyan]

Well, let's see, the Canon determines the content of Scripture.

A circular statement - "the canon of scripture determines the content of scripture" like saying "this book on Chemistry determines what is in this book on chemistry"

Did you mean that the Jews determined the content of the Canon of their own OT text and the first century saints determined theirs?

If so - then many centuries later when the RCC came along -- there is nothing for them to do.

No. It is not circular

how informative.

as we all know - the Jews determined the content of the Canon of their own OT text. The RCC did not write that text and the Jews were not going to wait 700 years for the RCC to come along and tell them what to read.

Thus in Luke 24:27 Christ was teaching from "all of scripture"

 

[Colter]

3.5Billion years of sediment -- 100 miles deep.... vanished from the face of the earth... so then merely "believed".

I don't know what you mean, it took about 3.5 billion years of meteoric acreation for the earth to reach roughly its present size.

 

[BobRyan]

* I'm a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, I believe he is Christ.

Do you believe in the unscientific non-observable doctrine of the virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ, bodily ascension into heaven - or do you think this was just the writings of non-scientific men who knew other stories from pagan systems about virgin birth and resurrection and they were "borrowing"???

* Evolution is based on observable facts

About God coming to earth and "creating" amoebas right on the spot?
About amoebas turning into horses given a sufficiently talented amoeba and a sufficiently long and talented period of time filled with improbable just-so stories??

, young earth creation theory is a faith in captive Hebrew writers in Babylon.

Hint: Moses lived long before Babylonian captivity -as we all know.

Do you believe in the captive hebrew stories of the Gospel accounts - when Jerusalem was conquered owned-and-operated by Rome?? Or are you saying that their condition in captivity means we should not believe the Gospel accounts?

* The Bible says different, contradictory things about the same events as the beliefs of it's authors evolved over time.

So then - no " virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ, bodily ascension into heaven"?

Basic question - how much of the Bible do "you allow" to be true? if any?

I belive in the original gospel of Jesus, The Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Is that a gospel found in the actual Bible?

Was it written by misguided, mis-informed but well-intentioned authors as you claim for creation and the fall of mankind?

I believe The Son of God incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, Mary's baby.

Because you believe the Gospels - ? as written?

Because you believe that the gospel writers had an advanced knowledge of genetics, incarnation, virgin birth?

Because you don't think they were borrowing at all from prior pagan myths about virgin births and incarnations of deities?

I belive he laid down his life and took it up again, appeared to people then returned to his rightful place in heaven where he's in charge.

Because the Bible says that - and you believe whatever the Bible says?

The 4 accounts of Jesus were written by men about Jesus.

Were they in error? Did their account match the video?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I don't know what you mean, it took about 3.5 billion years of meteoric acreation for the earth to reach roughly its present size.

I am talking about sediment - sedimentation layers that would naturally build up over time on any planet with the sort of atmosphere and oceans that we have - - not meteors piling up on earth.

 

[BobRyan]

So then you think that observable science supports the idea that "a single celled animal (Amoeba) - will sure-enough turn into a horse over time, given a sufficiently talented amoeba - and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories""?? Is that your faith-based claim?

Ameobas don't have talent, they are life endowed with potential by their creator.

Does the Bible say "and in 7 days God created an amoeba -- and waited 3.5 billion years"?

Or -- "and in 7 days God created a very tiny creature - then left"??

Is that what you find in Genesis 1?

In Exodus 20:11 when God Himself speaks it - in legal code?

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

If all amoeba's have that same talent - and they have been around for 3.5 billion years - then are they constantly spawning off the chain of events to become a horse in your faith system?

 

[Colter]

I am talking about sediment - sedimentation layers that would naturally build up over time on any planet with the sort of atmosphere and oceans that we have - - not meteors piling up on earth.

The world oceans date to about 1 billion years ago after sufficient cooling and subsequent condensation.

 

[Colter]

Does the Bible say "and in 7 days God created an amoeba -- and waited 3.5 billion years"?

Or -- "and in 7 days God created a very tiny creature - then left"??

Is that what you find in Genesis 1?

In Exodus 20:11 when God Himself speaks it - in legal code?

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

If all amoeba's have that same talent - and they have been around for 3.5 billion years - then are they constantly spawning off the chain of events to become a horse in your faith system?

I believe the Bible was written by holly men, some more holy than others. The 6 day creation narrative came from the ancient story of Adam and Eve spending their first 6 days in the garden.

 

[Colter]

Do you believe in the unscientific non-observable doctrine of the virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ, bodily ascension into heaven - or do you think this was just the writings of non-scientific men who knew other stories from pagan systems about virgin birth and resurrection and they were "borrowing"???




About God coming to earth and "creating" amoebas right on the spot?
About amoebas turning into horses given a sufficiently talented amoeba and a sufficiently long and talented period of time filled with improbable just-so stories??



Hint: Moses lived long before Babylonian captivity -as we all know.

Do you believe in the captive hebrew stories of the Gospel accounts - when Jerusalem was conquered owned-and-operated by Rome?? Or are you saying that their condition in captivity means we should not believe the Gospel accounts?



So then - no " virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ, bodily ascension into heaven"?

Basic question - how much of the Bible do "you allow" to be true? if any?



Is that a gospel found in the actual Bible?

Was it written by misguided, mis-informed but well-intentioned authors as you claim for creation and the fall of mankind?



Because you believe the Gospels - ? as written?

Because you believe that the gospel writers had an advanced knowledge of genetics, incarnation, virgin birth?

Because you don't think they were borrowing at all from prior pagan myths about virgin births and incarnations of deities?



Because the Bible says that - and you believe whatever the Bible says?




Were they in error? Did their account match the video?

in Christ,

Bob

No, I don't believe everything the Bible says.