Adam & Eve

[dad]

If he were, I would concede but his arguments were similar to your and I similarly disassembled them. His phrase, " I'll do everything I can to agree with you, but I draw the line at saying the Bible is wrong." indicates that he'll agree with me if he sees the logic or reason in my arguments but that he won't admit that the Bible is wrong even if he agrees with me.

Whether he agrees with you matters not. Whether you agree with God matters. I think you can relax. The bible is actually God's book, and it is right. As in the only example you gave, and I expounded on. No worries at all.

 

[sandwiches]

Whether he agrees with you matters not. Whether you agree with God matters. I think you can relax. The bible is actually God's book, and it is right. As in the only example you gave, and I expounded on. No worries at all.

Allrighty.

So, are you gonna answer my other post or just disappear like AV?

 

[dad]

Allrighty.

So, are you gonna answer my other post or just disappear like AV?

Must have missed it. What was the question?

 

[sandwiches]

Must have missed it. What was the question?

Check out post #119.

 

[dad]

I do hope that you realize that to quote the Bible to prove that Bible is true is a bit pointless to someone like me.

Here's the meaning of 'immovable' from dictionary.com

1. Incapable of being moved; firmly fixed; fast; -- used of material things; as, an immovable foundatin. Immovable, infixed, and frozen round. --Milton.
2. Steadfast; fixed; unalterable; unchangeable; -- used of the mind or will; as, an immovable purpose, or a man who remain immovable.
3. Not capable of being affected or moved in feeling or by sympathy; unimpressible; impassive. --Dryden.
​

Or from Strong's Concordance:
It's from the Hebrew mowt meaning:

to totter, shake, slipa) (Qal) to totter, shake, slip
b) (Niphal) to be shaken, be moved, be overthrown
c) (Hiphil) to dislodge, let fall, drop
d) (Hithpael) to be greatly shaken
​

The word used in the Bible and the word used in the modern translations are all talking about LITERAL and ACTUAL movement. They are saying that the Earth can literally not be shaken, moved, or dislodged. However it does move, shake, and it's definitely not lodged into anything.

Ha. I don't see anyone shaking the earth, do you? No one will ever disturb it much, God is moving here. It is protected.

Job 37:1 -At this also my heart trembleth, and is moved out of his place. Do you think the guy's heart moved out of his body!?? No. We need to get the spirit of what is being said. And meant.


Ps 13:4 -Lest mine enemy say, I have prevailed against him; and those that trouble me rejoice when I am moved.
Here. it almost seems like moved means sort of out of the place God has for him. It takes many verse sometimes to shed light on what a word can be used for.

Ps 16:8 -I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
Ps 15:5 -He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved. So, what, good guys will be frozen and never move???? No.



Ps 21:7 -For the king trusteth in the LORD, and through the mercy of the most High he shall not be moved. The king...what, sat on the throne, never batting an eyelash for the rest of his life?? Not walking to his bed even?? Absurd.


Ps 55:22 - Cast thy burden upon the LORD, and he shall sustain thee: he shall never suffer the righteous to be moved. So if someone moves, we know he is not righteous?


Ps 96:10 - Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously. In the same book, we see this. In other words this world is established, it ain't going anywhere, or those that believe. Ever. Yes, we will move. No we will not be moved. Get it yet? I can go on. And on, and on if needed.




The bible was right after all. God is a smart cookie.

 

[sandwiches]

Ha. I don't see anyone shaking the earth, do you? No one will ever disturb it much, God is moving here. It is protected.

Do you think the guy's heart moved out of his body!?? No. We need to get the spirit of what is being said. And meant.

Here. it almost seems like moved means sort of out of the place God has for him. It takes many verse sometimes to shed light on what a word can be used for.

So, what, good guys will be frozen and never move???? No.

The king...what, sat on the throne, never batting an eyelash for the rest of his life?? Not walking to his bed even?? Absurd.

So if someone moves, we know he is not righteous?

In the same book, we see this. In other words this world is established, it ain't going anywhere, or those that believe. Ever. Yes, we will move. No we will not be moved. Get it yet? I can go on. And on, and on if needed.

The bible was right after all. God is a smart cookie.

Coolness.

Basically, what you're getting at is that the Bible can be metaphorical, poetic, and allegorical in its writings and it's up to each of us to find out what it means. Got it.

With this new information, how do you distinguish the parts to be taken literally (6 days of creation, etc) and which ones are just for flair (immovable earth, etc)?

 

[dad]

Coolness.

Basically, what you're getting at is that the Bible can be metaphorical, poetic, and allegorical in its writings and it's up to each of us to find out what it means. Got it.

No. It is up to the spirit to reveal it to us. We need to get the spirit of the word, the letter kills. Behind the appearances of dead words, is a vibrant, living, hot contact with another world, and God, and the future and the past.

With this new information, how do you distinguish the parts to be taken literally (6 days of creation, etc) and which ones are just for flair (immovable earth, etc)?

If it means what it means...it means what it means. If it merely seems to mean what some would prefer it to mean, it is better to stick with what it obviously means. The idea that neither us nor the earth actually moves physically is absurd. But the time of creation is fact.

If all else fails ask for God's help to get it.

 

[theFijian]

No. It is up to the spirit to reveal it to us. We need to get the spirit of the word, the letter kills. Behind the appearances of dead words, is a vibrant, living, hot contact with another world, and God, and the future and the past.

Phew...for a moment there I thought you were saying we had to interpret the bible literally!

 

[Assyrian]

No. It is up to the spirit to reveal it to us. We need to get the spirit of the word, the letter kills. Behind the appearances of dead words, is a vibrant, living, hot contact with another world, and God, and the future and the past.

Ah so the Holy Spirit can reveal the metaphorical meaning of scriptures. I like that. Very few Creationists realise this.

If it means what it means...it means what it means. If it merely seems to mean what some would prefer it to mean, it is better to stick with what it obviously means. The idea that neither us nor the earth actually moves physically is absurd. But the time of creation is fact.

If all else fails ask for God's help to get it.

Was a time when the earth not moving made perfect sense. People believed the earth was fixed at the center of the universe. That is what they thought the passage obviously meant. It does not make sense any more because we know the earth rotates and orbits the sun. But neither does six day creationism make sense any more. Yet you chose to stick to the dead words of literal interpretation instead looking to the Holy Spirit for a deeper meaning? Why rely on the Holy Spirit to teach you the meaning of fixed earth passages, but rely on you own idea of what makes sense for Genesis?

 

[Assyrian]

No --- your brain would "reprogram" your heart.

It would be like getting a new hard drive.

So, how does the brain reprogram an artificial heart?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah so the Holy Spirit can reveal the metaphorical meaning of scriptures. I like that. Very few Creationists realise this.

The Holy Spirit can reveal the deep things of God in a passage.

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

In my own personal Bible study one day, I came across this passage [again]:

And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

That passage to me seems almost out of place, until you study bdellium, and learn that frankinsense and myrrh are made from it.

Gold, frankinsense and myrrh --- get it?

It's saying that Jesus is there.

Was a time when the earth not moving made perfect sense. People believed the earth was fixed at the center of the universe.

I don't think appealing to the ignorance (by comparison) of the people back then is an effective way of making a point; especially when comparing ourselves to an omniscient God.

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

My apologies. Regardless of my own opinions, I did not mean to suggest that the label applied to the bible. My reference to "any old book" was only in reference to "any book".

However, you have somewhat answered my question... I just need a little clarification. When you first picked up the bible, how did you know it was the word of god? This goes back to my previous question about how you knew it should be interpretted literally.

No apology needed, I too at times mean to say one thing but it ends up coming out the complete opposite

I don't ever remember making a conscious choice to start believing the Bible is the Word of God, so I really can't give you an answer. But my beliefs are confirmed with the following.

2 Peter 1:21
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

1 Peter 1:25
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

2 Timothy 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I do remember at one point and time being told (when and by whom is beyond me) that when reading the scriptures, you either believe it as a whole or you don't believe it at all. So I choose to believe the Bible as whole and until I feel convicted for doing so, that is exactly how I will read it

 

[Jester4kicks]

No apology needed, I too at times mean to say one thing but it ends up coming out the complete opposite

I don't ever remember making a conscious choice to start believing the Bible is the Word of God, so I really can't give you an answer. But my beliefs are confirmed with the following.

Now I'm confused... you previously said this:

When I first started reading the Bible I took on faith that what I was reading was to be taken literally.

So to answer your question, I suppose it was just me who made the decision to take the Bible literally.

But now you're saying that you never made a conscious choice? First, let me quickly point out that you are probably right. There is a good chance that you never made a conscious choice. That choice was already made for you... programmed into you during sunday school and church.

Don't take that the wrong way... I was in the same position. I cannot ever recall making a conscious choice to believe the bible... but I sure do remember my conscious choice to question the bible and everything I had been taught.

My concern about folks that don't make the conscious choice to engage their beliefs is that they have probably never truly considered possibilities that contradict their beliefs. In extreme cases, this kind of close-mindedness (sp?) is exactly what turns people into the type of person that gives religion a very bad name.

2 Peter 1:21
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

1 Peter 1:25
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

2 Timothy 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I'm not sure what these quotes were supposed to prove. Even if you were aiming to prove that the bible is the written word of god, nothing you cited indicates that god is incapable of metaphor or allegory.

Think of it this way... If Aesop had dictated his fables rather than writing them himself, would they have to be interpretted literally? Or, when Aesop tells us about the Ant and the Grasshopper, can we simply read it for the value of the allegory, and not actually assume that Aesop thought all grasshoppers were jerks who didn't know how to plan ahead?

I do remember at one point and time being told (when and by whom is beyond me) that when reading the scriptures, you either believe it as a whole or you don't believe it at all. So I choose to believe the Bible as whole and until I feel convicted for doing so, that is exactly how I will read it

That's actually not far from the truth. Choosing to only believe certain parts of the bible certainly has its pitfalls. I know, I've won a few debates by pointing out the subjectivity of drawing the line anywhere. However, that doesn't mean that one must absolutely believe the bible literally either. Furthermore, believing the entire bible in a literal translation has its pitfalls too. (Aside from the small issue your jesus declaring he is a loaf of bread ) Seriously though, AV and I had a very nice debate about this a while ago (before I put him on ignore), and I pointed out how a literal translation of the bible forces a fundamental contradiction with actual observation. No two ways around it. It is no different than if the bible said "All carrots are blue".

Now, let me ask you this... have you ever considered that you could still believe in the entire bible, without having to take all of it literally? Why or why not?

 

[AV1611VET]

My concern about folks that don't make the conscious choice to engage their beliefs is that they have probably never truly considered possibilities that contradict their beliefs. In extreme cases, this kind of close-mindedness (sp?) is exactly what turns people into the type of person that gives religion a very bad name.

If it turned you into a Taoist, someone else into a Buddhist, someone else into an Agnostic, and someone else into an Atheist --- I want no part of it.

And, off the record, I've always wanted to ask a Taoist this: What caused Hurricane Katrina?

 

[Hespera]

If it turned you into a Taoist, someone else into a Buddhist, someone else into an Agnostic, and someone else into an Atheist --- I want no part of it.

And, off the record, I've always wanted to ask a Taoist this: What caused Hurricane Katrina?

You want nothing to do with conscious choice? Funny.

Im not a Taoist, but I'd guess that if you asked an educated one, he'd say something about meteorology and maybe ask why you chose Katrina since the cause is the same as any other hurricane.

 

[Hespera]

Now I'm confused... you previously said this:



But now you're saying that you never made a conscious choice? First, let me quickly point out that you are probably right. There is a good chance that you never made a conscious choice. That choice was already made for you... programmed into you during sunday school and church.

Don't take that the wrong way... I was in the same position. I cannot ever recall making a conscious choice to believe the bible... but I sure do remember my conscious choice to question the bible and everything I had been taught.

My concern about folks that don't make the conscious choice to engage their beliefs is that they have probably never truly considered possibilities that contradict their beliefs. In extreme cases, this kind of close-mindedness (sp?) is exactly what turns people into the type of person that gives religion a very bad name.




I'm not sure what these quotes were supposed to prove. Even if you were aiming to prove that the bible is the written word of god, nothing you cited indicates that god is incapable of metaphor or allegory.

Think of it this way... If Aesop had dictated his fables rather than writing them himself, would they have to be interpretted literally? Or, when Aesop tells us about the Ant and the Grasshopper, can we simply read it for the value of the allegory, and not actually assume that Aesop thought all grasshoppers were jerks who didn't know how to plan ahead?




That's actually not far from the truth. Choosing to only believe certain parts of the bible certainly has its pitfalls. I know, I've won a few debates by pointing out the subjectivity of drawing the line anywhere. However, that doesn't mean that one must absolutely believe the bible literally either. Furthermore, believing the entire bible in a literal translation has its pitfalls too. (Aside from the small issue your jesus declaring he is a loaf of bread ) Seriously though, AV and I had a very nice debate about this a while ago (before I put him on ignore), and I pointed out how a literal translation of the bible forces a fundamental contradiction with actual observation. No two ways around it. It is no different than if the bible said "All carrots are blue".

Now, let me ask you this... have you ever considered that you could still believe in the entire bible, without having to take all of it literally? Why or why not?

Something that I find totally weird is the idea of "choosing to believe".
How do you just decide to believe something? How is that different from self deception? Doesnt work for me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Im not a Taoist, but I'd guess that if you asked an educated one, he'd say something about meteorology and maybe ask why you chose Katrina since the cause is the same as any other hurricane.

I find it interesting that you clarified here.

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

Originally Posted by GuidanceNeeded

No apology needed, I too at times mean to say one thing but it ends up coming out the complete opposite

I don't ever remember making a conscious choice to start believing the Bible is the Word of God, so I really can't give you an answer. But my beliefs are confirmed with the following.
​

Now I'm confused... you previously said this:


Originally Posted by GuidanceNeeded

When I first started reading the Bible I took on faith that what I was reading was to be taken literally.

So to answer your question, I suppose it was just me who made the decision to take the Bible literally.
​

But now you're saying that you never made a conscious choice? First, let me quickly point out that you are probably right. There is a good chance that you never made a conscious choice. That choice was already made for you... programmed into you during sunday school and church.

I read your last posting yesterday and literally sat last night trying to remember if I made a "conscious" choice to believe the Bible is the word of God. As I said I don't believe it was a conscious choice. So to me I suppose I have always believed the Bible was the word of God. When I started reading the Bible (KJV) I don't think I picked it up and said "ok these are Gods words". Again this may be a case of not being able to explain what I am trying to say.

Maybe it was Sunday school and I just don't recall. Regardless though, whether it was a conscious choice or not or how I came to that conclusion, its how I read it now and thats what is important to me.

Don't take that the wrong way... I was in the same position. I cannot ever recall making a conscious choice to believe the bible... but I sure do remember my conscious choice to question the bible and everything I had been taught.

I guess that is where we differ. I do not question the Bible for I believe I would be questioning God. Now I do at times (a lot of times) have questions about what I am reading. If my question cannot be answered, then I will take it for what it says and not give a second thought to it.

My concern about folks that don't make the conscious choice to engage their beliefs is that they have probably never truly considered possibilities that contradict their beliefs. In extreme cases, this kind of close-mindedness (sp?) is exactly what turns people into the type of person that gives religion a very bad name.

If I am considered closed minded for not believing in something that contradicts the Bible, then so be it. I believe the word of God, not the word of man

I've read through evolution, to me it contradicts the Bible. In all honesty I believe it is a sin to believe in evolution.

I'm not sure what these quotes were supposed to prove. Even if you were aiming to prove that the bible is the written word of god, nothing you cited indicates that god is incapable of metaphor or allegory.

Think of it this way... If Aesop had dictated his fables rather than writing them himself, would they have to be interpretted literally? Or, when Aesop tells us about the Ant and the Grasshopper, can we simply read it for the value of the allegory, and not actually assume that Aesop thought all grasshoppers were jerks who didn't know how to plan ahead?

You asked me why I thought the Bible was the Word of God. I believe those scriptures, tell us the Bible is the Word of God.

Did Jesus use parables and metaphors? Sure He did. But I do agree with AV on the point just because Jesus used a parable to get His point across, does that mean the parable He used wasn't true? No of course not.

That's actually not far from the truth. Choosing to only believe certain parts of the bible certainly has its pitfalls. I know, I've won a few debates by pointing out the subjectivity of drawing the line anywhere. However, that doesn't mean that one must absolutely believe the bible literally either. Furthermore, believing the entire bible in a literal translation has its pitfalls too. (Aside from the small issue your jesus declaring he is a loaf of bread ) Seriously though, AV and I had a very nice debate about this a while ago (before I put him on ignore), and I pointed out how a literal translation of the bible forces a fundamental contradiction with actual observation. No two ways around it. It is no different than if the bible said "All carrots are blue".

Oh yes the obvious metaphors, just like the one where Jesus said He is a door, do I believe He became a door? NO

So what you are saying is, if a scripture goes against science, then that scripture must not be taken literally? How about trying to change it to if science goes against the Bible, then someone made an error with science?

Now, let me ask you this... have you ever considered that you could still believe in the entire bible, without having to take all of it literally? Why or why not?

When you read the scriptures do you sit and think, ok does this agree with what I believe? Or "oh this is just so impossible to believe, so I am just not going to take it literally?"

Let me ask you: What has believing in evolution done for you, besides having the capability of arguing that evolution is true and the Bible shouldn't be taken literally?

 

[AV1611VET]

Something that I find totally weird is the idea of "choosing to believe".

Didn't you just say this?

You want nothing to do with conscious choice? Funny.

 

[Hespera]

I find it interesting that you clarified here.

for your notebook, i dont look at avlinks