Upvote
0
The Flood
- Thread starter oddchild
- Start date
Wasp Christ never taught "from" the bible. The New Testament was written after his death. God Bless
Upvote
0
Karl - Liberal Backslider
Senior Veteran
- Jul 16, 2003
- 4,157
- 297
- 56
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Labour
Why not? I can teach from a book without believing it's the word of God.Wasp said:
The Bible itself says what the Word is - "and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Now - that passage from John. Is it about a book or a man? Did a book become flesh and walk among us?
Upvote
0
troodon
Be wise and be smart
- Dec 16, 2002
- 1,698
- 58
- 39
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
It is conclusive because no one can explain it. And, when you couple that single falsification with all the others that abound on this website and elsewhere, it becomes painfully clear (to me at least) that a global flood and the notion of a young earth have been falsified.Wasp said:
I always make itI hope you made it to your class, I skipped mine
No denomination thanks; following Christ is challenging enough
Upvote
0
Michali
Teleologist
Jesus is the Word and he taught from the prophets. He continually said "is it not written in your law..." and "you have heard that it was said ... but I say to you..." If you believe the Bible is the Word of God then don't let the Son of God get dusty on the shelf. Such an object is by no means divine. Jesus is divine, the Bible is a collection of usefull books and accounts to abide by and learn from.Wasp said:
Upvote
0
It must have been the old testament then, huh? The New Testament was written quite some time AFTER Jesus. I still do not find one place i nthe Bible where Jesus tells these people top "write a Bible", do you?Wasp said:
Upvote
0
For Wasp-
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." --Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
I borrowed this from Lucaspa's sig line. I like it so much and I think it speaks volumes
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." --Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
I borrowed this from Lucaspa's sig line. I like it so much and I think it speaks volumes
Upvote
0
Why would Jesus have said for someone to write a Bible? The books of the Bible came through many different humans, but all by the same author -- the Holy Spirit.LorentzHA said:
Q. How do you know the words of Jesus???
A. Through someone who witnessed them and was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Upvote
0
Who said that the Bible is up for interpretation?LorentzHA said:
Considering that there is nothing that has been scientifically proven that contradicts anything that the Bible says, I would always lean on the truth of the Bible before I chase wild theories. But you do what you gotta do.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Upvote
0
Ahhhh, I see. What if someone wanted to get in their two cents and claimed to have been contacted by the, "Holy Spirit" ?Wasp said:
Upvote
0
Really? Well, in a way you are right. Nothing has dispoved the bible. Things have disproved an interpretation of the bible. Most commonly its the Literal interpretation. Lets just see,
Literal Interpretation of the bible, The earth is flat.
Science, The earth is round.
Science is correct.
Literal Interpretation of the bible, The geocentric model is correct.
Science, the Heliocentric model is correct.
Science is correct.
Literal interpretation of the bible, Animals do not adapt or change.
Science, animals do adapt and change.
Science is correct.
Three famous examples, that even most christian groups agree with science on.
When ever you read the bible, you interpret it. Even a "literal" reading is an interpretation.
Literal Interpretation of the bible, The earth is flat.
Science, The earth is round.
Science is correct.
Literal Interpretation of the bible, The geocentric model is correct.
Science, the Heliocentric model is correct.
Science is correct.
Literal interpretation of the bible, Animals do not adapt or change.
Science, animals do adapt and change.
Science is correct.
Three famous examples, that even most christian groups agree with science on.
When ever you read the bible, you interpret it. Even a "literal" reading is an interpretation.
Wasp said:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Yawn, I've heard these "refutations" hundreds of times. But of course, this isn't what the Bible really says. It is a manipulation by nonbelievers to try to make a point.Arikay said:
In essence, your argument is lamer than FDR's legs.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Um, Please read up on your history, it might help.
World is flat-Was believed by the ancient hebrews that wrote the bible. Unless they are non believers. Is still believed by the Flat earth society using a literal interpretation of the bible. It is also supported better than a 6000 year old earth in the bible.
Geocentric model-Was believed by the church and the preceding battle has many parallels with the Evolution/creationism debate. Is still supported by some geocentrics. They use a literal interpretation of the bible to support their belief. Some would even consider You a Heretic for believing otherwise.
Pure creationism-(using the term "pure" just to seperate it from creationism of today) Believed by many for quite some time. Believed by the entire church before Darwin, and some time afterwards. There are a few that still believe it today, but most creationists have moved on. They use a literal interpretation of the bible to support their ideas.
Again, check up on history before you call the majority of christians Nonbelievers.
Moving into present day, we have people like AIG who say a literal reading of the bible supports their views. Yet much of their evidence has been shown to be false. Their "literal interpretation" doesn't even agree with other "literal interpretations"
When was the flood? using the same literal method, different groups have come up with largely different answers. Maybe we should stop using the literal interpretation of certain things.
World is flat-Was believed by the ancient hebrews that wrote the bible. Unless they are non believers. Is still believed by the Flat earth society using a literal interpretation of the bible. It is also supported better than a 6000 year old earth in the bible.
Geocentric model-Was believed by the church and the preceding battle has many parallels with the Evolution/creationism debate. Is still supported by some geocentrics. They use a literal interpretation of the bible to support their belief. Some would even consider You a Heretic for believing otherwise.
Pure creationism-(using the term "pure" just to seperate it from creationism of today) Believed by many for quite some time. Believed by the entire church before Darwin, and some time afterwards. There are a few that still believe it today, but most creationists have moved on. They use a literal interpretation of the bible to support their ideas.
Again, check up on history before you call the majority of christians Nonbelievers.
Moving into present day, we have people like AIG who say a literal reading of the bible supports their views. Yet much of their evidence has been shown to be false. Their "literal interpretation" doesn't even agree with other "literal interpretations"
When was the flood? using the same literal method, different groups have come up with largely different answers. Maybe we should stop using the literal interpretation of certain things.
Wasp said:Yawn, I've heard these "refutations" hundreds of times. But of course, this isn't what the Bible really says. It is a manipulation by nonbelievers to try to make a point.
In essence, your argument is lamer than FDR's legs.
Upvote
0
troodon
Be wise and be smart
- Dec 16, 2002
- 1,698
- 58
- 39
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Everyone says so. That's why there are so many denominations based on varying interpretations.Wasp said:
Just because you refuse to accept the falsification does not mean it does not exist.
Cool; I'm an unbeliever again...
Family Guy? Or did you get that from someplace else?In essence, your argument is lamer than FDR's legs.
Upvote
0
Family guy of course, what a grand show. Hopefully that is one thing we can all agree on
Upvote
0
Arikay, where are their scriptures to justify those beliefs? If you don't show me Biblical support, than I am going to assume that it was just a human error. You know, kinda like Darwinism has proven itself to be.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
