Did you read the verses?
Where there's ships, there's people, and apparently a leviathan.
Besides that, you didn't offer any explanation or verses to support your claims.
What claims did i make? You ask why didn't the bible mention dinosaurs? One the term was not coined till recently. So the actual term "Thunder lizard" or any variation their of will not be found literally translated in a text that is several thousand years old.. So the next best thing is to look for a physical description. Here are two that do not match anything currently living, or have known to have lived in the time frame "science/historeans" has allowed for these events to have taken place.
"Do not look to read the bible like a paleontologists text book."
I looked up all of the verses that had those words in them specifically because that was what you gave as evidence. I find nothing that I would consider "describing them in detail" as you put it.
Then re read Job 40. their is detail listed their. Whether you can compare this detail to a modern resource or not, is not the issue. i simply said their was greater detail that what your findings orginally presented.
I believe the verses you're referring to are Job 40:15-24. The only problem is that in those verses god is describing a creature to Job that is living. So if it was supposed to be a dinosaur, it's historically inaccurate.
OK what dinosaur like/size creature that was alive 3500 to 4500 years ago that is not alive now?
You want to get on my about not responding to you line by line, so what about carnivorous dinosaurs? They didn't all eat grass.
Out side of a lion or a leopard the bible does not make a great listing of any carnivores. Does that mean they do not exist?
So according to what you're saying, god created Adam and Eve and everything was great.
So far so good.
Then, he decided to create an evil serpent to test the faith of Adam and Eve and at the same time, according to what you said, god created free will because now there was a choice between god's will and the not god's will. So why did he feel the need to create free will when everyone was totally happy with the way things already were?
"The serpent" was the form Lucifer decided to take when he approached Eve. Lucifer on his own was malcontent with the station God gave Him in life. He wanted more. This apparently is a side effect of all sentient beings eventually. So rather than let Adam and Eve develop a discontent in which their was no return (as with Satan and the fallen) He allowed Satan to introduce a controlled choice, in their lives. One that He could work with and eventually atone for.
It's still counterintuitive.
again only if you can not fathom the plan of salvation.
If he created man who was already 100% under god's will then he created free will only to deceive man by allowing Satan in serpent form to convince Adam and Eve to defy god.
How is this a deception?
If you father tells you when you were a child not to play in the street, but allows you the freedom to be outside. does it mean He deceives you when you are talked into playing in the street by someone else outside? doesn't your Father know that there could potentially be those who would try and talk you into playing on the street with them? Does it mean He fail you or deceived you because YOU decided to go against His word?
No, this is not a deception. This is merely a consequence of having the freedom of being outside. You were given this freedom by your father much like Adam and eve were given this freedom. Both were given conditions of this freedom. If you like Adam decide to go against the conditions of your freedom then the sin here is not with the father in either case.
Why didn't he just give them free will and then ask if they wanted to follow the will of god or do otherwise?
Have you ever eaten Thak-to-gee, Moo-my-langie or Sak-jang-bo-kum? It's not expensive. The ingredients can be bought/found in any major city. so why haven't you tried these things? Could it be because you did not know to try them? If you have only ever been exposed to western or the westernized versions of food then grubs, bugs and semi rotted vegetables are not generally considered food.
the same is true here. If all Adam and Eve knew was God will, then they would never have known anything outside of God's will.
Take the tree for instance. They were told not to eat from it. and did not for an undisclosed amount of time.. Till one day they were told how not to be satisfied with what God gave them. They had no desire to eat from that tree till they were awaken to the idea of discontent.
That's a lot more believable than a talking snake telling people to eat fruit that will curse them forever.
to who you and say maybe the last 300 years of "civilized man?" What of all of those who became before this doubting generation? Is God not to consider them and what constitutes structure for them? Are you suggesting that hundreds of generations/billions of people should be lost to time so that you and other's like you in this generation can find it easier to scrutinize what you want to believe or disbelieve anyway?
Also, do you honestly believe that snakes could talk and that the story of Adam and Eve actually happened the way it is depicted in the Bible?
Yes. I believe that a serpent(Which may or may not be what we know to be a literal snake.) tempted Eve. I approach the bible with the knowledge that I do not Know anything about it other than what is written. I can not speak in an absolute when the bible does not. however i can when it does. In this case my translation refers to satan's incarnation as a serpent. The word can mean snake but in the Hebrew it can also mean one who is twisted or it can describe a motion. When things are sometimes unclear, I do not lock my faith around a passage that can be interpreted several ways. In this case my faith does not hing on Satan being a snake in the garden. At the same time if somehow i found out that he was, my faith will still not be moved.
I know he was there and what he did. That is what i take from this story. Not the shape he took. Because truthfully what does it matter what he looked like?
But without free choice we would have by default been good people and would have chose to spend an eternity with god.
What of those who did not want to be there? Satan was not given this option and yet took it anyway, simple because He wanted what God did not want for him to have. Because he took this path, he is beyond anytype of salvation.
By giving free choice to people he's practically condemning some people to hell, everyone is not going to choose to be Christian. This could be for a multitude of reasons such as they were born in a region of the world where Christianity wasn't popular and as such, they subscribe to a different religion, say Islam. Now if this Muslim person lives a moral life and is kind and helpful to others he is still going to burn in hell just because god made him be born in a region where there wasn't a heavy Christian influence. That's not too fair.
Hebrews 4:
12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from Gods sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
We know "The Word" in verse 12 refers to Christ as in "The Word" mentioned by John 1:1.
So The Word/Christ Will divide us from our soul and spirit/Intent and intention. Our joints and Marrow/our actions and our core deeds against the attitudes of the Heart. These things all sound closely related, because they are. What the verse is saying is that Christ will slice the sum total of our lives all of our thought actions intentions feelings and prejudices, lay them out like paper thin deli slices and weigh all that we were exposed to, did do, did not do and give us the most complete and fair trial anyone will ever get.
All of this to answer two primary questions. What did you do with your exposure to Christ/the gospel, and do you love God with all of your being?
Christ said "I am the way truth and the life, no one gets to the Father, but by me." He did not say this specific brand of religion/Christianity is the way truth and the life...
Why would he set a standard that no one could meet?
It is the nature of "free will." If you are in "God's expressed will" all of the time then your will is not free. If you have a will of your own then you are no longer in God's expressed will. Only those who are in the Expressed will of God are worthy to enter Heaven. Because no one is other than God then that means by allowing us the choice to decide for ourselves to be in Heaven with God for an eternity, disqualifies us from being their.
That sounds sadistic. It's even more sadistic that he sacrificed his only son (which was also him) to prove to himself that humanity was worth saving,
He didn't have to prove anything to himself. The wages of Sin is death. Blood was needed to absolve the sin debt. Their was only one who could do this for all of man kind. This attonement gave us the Righteousness we need to be worth to be with God. So now we have the ablity to choose our eternal fate on your own, and the righteousness to allow our choice to be full filled.
and yet, Catholics are still required to go to confession and Christians are told to ask for forgiveness. Redundant.
Who requires this? If you keep studying you will find or start to see the rule of "religion" or religious practice taught alongside biblical commands.
Bible verses aside, I see no reason why humans should, by default be considered sinners or why it is more important to god that we believe he exists then that we do our best to be good people.
Probably because you do not acknowledge the standards of what "good" is that was originally established by God. Your idea of "good" is based on what our society deems as "Bad."
This is fine and dandy if you do not mine regulating your morals to peer pressure. But, Look at what peer pressure did to 1930's and 40's Germany. Their were many who lived their who considered themselves to be "Good" by the standards in which their society allowed. Does this make them "good" even by the peer presure you are under?
It is only when we yield to God's standard do we know or have an unchanging definition of "Good.'
That is full of opinion and metaphorical conjecture. I will continue to live pursuing a "thinkers life", as you put it. It isn't until I die (according to your belief system) that I will suffer. I'd actually bet that atheists live more than religious people based on the simple fact that atheists aren't constrained to obeying a bunch of anti-human rules that go against their very nature. Instead, I am free to do as I see fit without feeling guilty about it. "Those who seek to live without dying, die without living."
If by metaphorical conjecture you mean the Bible then I guess I will have to concede your point.
"Those who die in this life without knowing God, remain dead no matter how well their peers judged their comrade's life spent."
-drich0150
This doesn't say that I don't have a moral code, I do, but I definitely don't derive it from the Bible.
What is the point of morality if it is not based on what God has given us? That is like saying their is honor amongst thieves.. Even if you are well liked by your peers you are still a thief. If you are a thief how is it that you are indeed "good?"
Anyone. I would hardly call that "lashing out" as I didn't insult anyone personally, I just made a casual observation which you've confirmed by saying I'm trying to live a "thinker's life".
"Thinker" is the moniker that you all have given yourselves. Since I am not here to insult I did not see a need to make a needlessly derogatory remark. I simply allowed you a courtesy that was taken from us by your
bonus question, and again by your last comment.
Perhaps a little more
thought would have seen you to this fact on your own...