well, you're just being a smart aleck (not really in fact) and accusing people who don't share the same opinions or interpretations as you. Who does that?
I take everything as literal.First of all, you acknowledge that not everything in the Bible is literal so by your own words in post191, you yourself are not a bible believing christian.
I know you don't believe that the moon is technically a body of light in the same sense as the sun and moon, nor do you think Gen 1:16 technically means that.
What about Gen 3:1 and 3:14: is satan literally and originally a reptile, do snakes literally eat dirt, will we be literally punching/kicking satan in the head? Should we literally believe this to be bible believing christians?
The reason why we know the world was not literally created in 6 days is because it is scientifically proven false. It's all metaphorical just like the examples given in this post.
You can't be literally compared to a tornado, that is what you call a figure of speech. It looks like you don't know what literal means just by what you said in the beginning of your post.I take everything as literal.
You can "literally" be compared to a tornado if you are a fast moving destructive person in the kitchen.
The only difference is how obvious those Jesus metaphors are but they are not literal. The point being is that you yourself do not accept everything in the Bible literally, Which is very inconsistent to your posts most importantly on #191.I stated, quite clearly, that denying that creation was six literal days... and saying that it should not be taken literally... is quite different than expecting someone to believe that Jesus is the "lamb" or "door" or "vine".
But Gen 1:16 is part of the creation story, it is part of the "6 days" that you say is literal. It's odd how you think this that has nothing to do with the discussion. I think you just do not want to admit that there are details in that 6 day creation story that you don't accept is exactly factual.Another cast and another empty hook... If you want to debate the "Moon as it's own light source".. go to that thread.
This thread is about creation and evolution.
Wrong. In order for something to be scientifically proven false there has to be counter evidence, more importantly proof. There is no counter evidence against Jesus' divinity, so any miracle he did is not scientifically proven false yet... but there is counter evidence against a literal 6th day creation.It's also scientifically proven that you cannot make water into fine wine in a millisecond.. snip
You were the one who brought up the whole "vine" comparison.You can't be literally compared to a tornado, that is what you call a figure of speech. It looks like you don't know what literal means just by what you said in the beginning of your post.
The only difference is how obvious those Jesus metaphors are but they are not literal. The point being is that you yourself do not accept everything in the Bible literally, Which is very inconsistent to your posts most importantly on #191.
But Gen 1:16 is part of the creation story, it is part of the "6 days" that you say is literal. It's odd how you think this that has nothing to do with the discussion. I think you just do not want to admit that there are details in that 6 day creation story that you don't accept is exactly factual.
It is physically impossible and unscientific to produce great wine with only water and a clay pot.. let alone in an instant, simple due to the material that would be necessary.Wrong. In order for something to be scientifically proven false there has to be counter evidence, more importantly proof. There is no counter evidence against Jesus' divinity, so any miracle he did is not scientifically proven false yet...
but there is counter evidence against a literal 6th day creation.
BTW: I don't believe because "my soul depends on it". I don't view
Dear Simon D
Here is a video series presented by a converted Scientist. He was an atheist and evolutionist who gave lectures at a university and then he got converted and now gives lectures to show that creation is the truth, rather than evolution.
Click: The Genesis Conflict
I think you will enjoy it.
That was in reference to your post in #191, so i'm challenging your statement on that. How you view the comparison doesn't mean anything, the point is you don't take everything in the Bible literally either, such as "I am the vine".You were the one who brought up the whole "vine" comparison.
I was the one who stated that comparison's to such metaphorical content was moot.
But the context Gen 1:16 is against your arguments about the 6 days, because it's part of it.You have already correctly stated my feelings on the moon. It is not just Genesis 1:16.. but:
Mark 13:24
No, that is only when you are making an innovation that has not been documented yet but when it's about debunking something that is historical then you would need evidence against the claim. There is no evidence against Jesus, but there is evidence against the world being made in just 6 days.It is physically impossible and unscientific to produce great wine with only water and a clay pot.. let alone in an instant, simple due to the material that would be necessary.
It is physically impossible to feed 5000 people and produce baskets of left overs due to the law of the conservation of mass.
In order for you to state that they are not scientifically impossible.. you would have to prove them scientifically possible. Which.. they are not.
And you are one of those who hold to the wisdom of men. You are standing by your own views. Bible literalists minimized and falsifies God, it makes him to be nothing greater than a few sentences while ignoring how he has shown his greater brilliance through the universe that he created, while at the same time making him refutable.I hold very strongly to the idea that, when we meet our savior and we learn all there is to know of the history and events of the past and future... it will not be those that held to God's word that will be surprised and corrected...
It will be those that held to the wisdom of men.
He could, but he did not... if he did, the universe would show such.Could God create our universe like the Bible says He did?
That was in reference to your post in #191, so i'm challenging your statement on that. How you view the comparison doesn't mean anything, the point is you don't take everything in the Bible literally either, such as "I am the vine".
But the context Gen 1:16 is against your arguments about the 6 days, because it's part of it.
No, that is only when you are making an innovation that has not been documented yet but when it's about debunking something that is historical then you would need evidence against the claim. There is no evidence against Jesus, but there is evidence against the world being made in just 6 days.
Which men?And you are one of those who hold to the wisdom of men.
Which views are my own?You are standing by your own views.
Bible literalists minimized and falsifies God, it makes him to be nothing greater than a few sentences while ignoring how he has shown his greater brilliance through the universe that he created, while at the same time making him refutable.
He could, but he did not... if he did, the universe would show such.
Read your post at #191 because you are confused on what is being talked about. Even if you think there is a difference in the metaphors, the point is you acknowledge that not everything in the Bible is literal.Oh my goodness... a metaphor is way different than stating that He created the universe in six literal days.
You cannot say that God told us that He created the universe in six days... and have a metaphor to anything. Especially not when He described each day and ended with "there was evening, there was morning, the first day".
How can you not understand this whole thing about the moon in Gen 1:16?What?
Since I think there is evidence of Christ then yes, i think the same with those miracles. The way to disprove something of a historical claim is by providing evidence against it. I need evidence that Jesus was not what I believe him to be first before I can cast doubt on his miracles.there is evidence for Christ walking on water? Feeding 5000 people and collecting 12 baskets of leftovers, making large jugs of wine in an instant with only water? Raising the dead? Healing the deaf, dumb, lame and sick? ... Other than the same book that states that He created the universe in six days?
You and Everything you've just been arguing.Which men?
Which views are my own?
You believe what you've interpreted, not what the scriptures truly teach. I think you really need to know what "literal" means for you to think that is the same as a lie is wrong (not to mention the tornado part). Why are you arguing when you do not know what the word means?Actually, believing what is written in the scriptures can only exhault God as a truthful, solid, righteous and all powerful God.. Only He could do all that is written in those pages... as they are written.
People that don't take the bible as literal make Him a liar and take the power from Him to do exactly what He said... as He said it.
But the universe is also a testament to him, and this universe provenly shows he did more than what Moses wrote. We have factual proven evidence that God is more brilliant than what a few sentences describes but you literalists shrink him to be so small that he is perfectly understood by just a chapter..you make him look obtuse and fictional... hence causing others not to believe in him.So, you state that He could.. and we know that He told us that He did.
And you are one of those who hold to the wisdom of men.
Accepting the Bible as written is 'holding onto the wisdom of men' are you kidding?
Believe whatever you want but we will continue to believe what the Bible says regardless of what scientists (who are just men and women) think they know.
What you think the Bible is saying is based off your own narrow understanding. God is never wrong, and since your views on what you think the Bible says is obtuse then your views are not of God or his word.
Sure, the days are being made symbolically to represent the creation, but it's not confirming God made it in literal 6 days.Then you tell me what this means, since according to you us poor creationists can't understand a word of scripture but you can.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Please enlighten us to what it actually means.
Since I think there is evidence of Christ then yes, i think the same with those miracles.
Here are some of my thoughts about this topic.
It says in Genesis that on the *first day* God said "let there be light". If there was no division between light and dark, then how could there even be a *first* day by our measure?
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day".
So we know a day for God can be a lot longer than our concept of a day. Perhaps even long enough to account for things like evolution (if you want to believe in that)... the Bible doesn't go into this level of detail. For me personally, I believe in creation, but I also believe in some aspects of evolution e.g. the constant battle between predators and prey where the weak and slow die and the strong and fast survive... this results in a survival of the fittest.
Since there is evidence of Christ I will believe in the miracle of the six literal days due to the simple fact that Christ was the one who created the universe in those six days.. Just as He walked on water, fed the 5000, turned water to wine and all the other miracles that you state that you believe based on the evidence of Him.
But then in doing so, you are shrinking Christ because now God is subjected to 24 hour day that we go by. A day is like a thousand to the Lord, yet here you are making his concept of time to be just exact to ours. If you are out in outer space, there is no such thing as day because there is no morning or evening.. so what more for God who is in heaven and exists before time?
That's your opinion and you have every right to it.Your views in regards to the 6 days are practically your own, it isn't just evidence that shows it's false but even common sense. It is literalism that makes God's word look like a lie because it denies the proven truth which God has shown in the universe and limits him to being a small concept that man managed to grasp in a few sentences.
God is not subject to any space time continuum. He created it for us but He exists outside of the confines of it. The day is as long as it is for the simple purpose of the human body and it's limits. God made the "day" and the "year" for our world.
He created the "day" and then....... He placed the lights in the firmament to measure it and mark the time, years and seasons.
Nowhere did I say or indicate that this limits God... God has never been confined to the dimension He created for us or it's physical laws.
My opinion is God is true and every man a liar. Just because someone puts on a lab coat...doesn't make them more knowledgeable than what God says.
God Bless.