Another look at the moon landing.

[ozso]

No - discerning through careful study and with the help of the Spirit.

But it might seem like picking and choosing to some who have decided to take it all literally.

Here's the thing tough. When it comes to not taking scripture literally, there's an explanation regarding the allegory or analogy or whatever. Is Jesus literally a lamb? No. Then why is he called a lamb? Explanation of what calling Jesus a lamb means follows.

However when it comes to Genesis 1-8 that doesn't happen. Instead the explanation for what's supposedly not to be taken literally is 'people were ignorant so they made stuff up about what they didn't understand'. See the difference?

Now when it comes to what's possible and impossible according to science; the resurrection of Jesus is impossible. So are we to conclude that the resurrection is not to be taken literally? That it's just a myth?

 

[Apple Sky]

On a lighter note;

Ireland are going to send men to the sun to see if there are other life forms there! The interviewer for the British Corporation said to their spokesman Paddy McGinty
'surely the rocket and the astronauts would be instantly incinerated by the Sun's extreme heat'? Paddy McGinty replied 'Oh well, we've thought of that, they'll be going at night'

 

[trophy33]

All of the Law was given by Moses though God.

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
Matthew 19:8-10

This was something new even for the disciples. However, notice that they did not wonder how can Jesus so easily change it. Jesus had a higher authority than the law of Moses - why, if the law was God's word, literally?

A simpler explanation is that many things from the Mosaic law were just civic laws, given by Moses and his advisors, if you believe in a traditional author. Which actually makes sense, regarding some strangely detailed (like what to do going on toilet), morally perplexing or cruel rules which are contradictory to what Jesus taught.

 

[trophy33]

Again if you're going to stay within that bubble and block out the rest of the entirety of scripture regarding the Law, then you're going to have a very limited perspective. You're basically doing what the other person who's saying firmament means such-in-such and nothing else is doing.

The Christian perspective is outside of the Jewish bubble and more authoritative. Not sure what bubble I am staying in exactly, in your opinion.

 

[ozso]

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
Matthew 19:8-10

This was something new even for the disciples. However, notice that they did not wonder how can Jesus so easily change it. Jesus had a higher authority than the law of Moses - why, if the law was God's word, literally?

A simpler explanation is that many things from the Mosaic law were just civic laws, given by Moses and his advisors, if you believe in a traditional author. Which actually makes sense, regarding some strangely detailed (like what to do going on toilet), morally perplexing or cruel rules which are contradictory to what Jesus taught.

You're viewing that as Moses made it up on his own, rather than God allowed it even though he was against it.

Saul and then David became the king of Israel against the will and plan of God. God wanted to be the one and only king of Israel. But the people kept insisting on having a flesh king like all the other kingdoms had. So God relented and let them have what they wanted.

And he had Samuel orchestrate it because Samuel was the leader of Israel through God. In other words Samuel permitted it even though it meant turning over his rule of Israel to someone else. But God told Samuel, they're not rejecting you, they're rejecting me. So even though Samuel was in charge, and Samuel permitted it, it was really God who was in charge of the whole affair.

Following that pattern of God, prophet/law-giver and Israel, God allowed Moses to permit divorce, just as God allowed Samuel to permit and arrange for Israel to have a flesh and blood king. Both of which went against God's will and plan.

The one time Moses did do something on his own, God punished him by not allowing him to enter the promise land.

 

[Strong in Him]

From a purely scientific view, that doesn't touch upon Genesis at all, there's a short version of how the world was created and a very lengthy complex detailed version of how every last little thing came into being.

There is? Where's that then?

Where are we told how God made the animals; how he decided which should have fur, which should have feathers and how he created all that from nothing?
Where are we told how God created insects; some quite large, and some so small they can live and die without even being seen? How did God create their digestive and reproductive systems?
Where does it tell us how he made humans, decided what organs to give us and where to place them in our bodies?
Where does this "lengthy complex version" of the creation of the universe tell us how trees were made? Did they start as saplings and grow at normal speed? Did they grow rapidly? Or were they created as mature trees and God chose to put rings into them, so that, if they had been cut down it would have looked as though they were several hundred years old?
What about plants, seaweed, weeds; how did God create those?

Genesis 1 says that God spoke and the universe came into being.
He does not tell us how he created it.

 

[Strong in Him]

Here's the problem. This is where Christians start appealing to the atheist view. Where they both start sounding alike.

You think that reading the word of God with the help of the holy Spirit; asking for his discernment and wisdom is "sounding like an atheist"?

 

[ozso]

There is? Where's that then?

It's in the theory of evolution.

Where are we told how God made the animals; how he decided which should have fur, which should have feathers and how he created all that from nothing?
Where are we told how God created insects; some quite large, and some so small they can live and die without even being seen? How did God create their digestive and reproductive systems?
Where does it tell us how he made humans, decided what organs to give us and where to place them in our bodies?
Where does this "lengthy complex version" of the creation of the universe tell us how trees were made? Did they start as saplings and grow at normal speed? Did they grow rapidly? Or were they created as mature trees and God chose to put rings into them, so that, if they had been cut down it would have looked as though they were several hundred years old?
What about plants, seaweed, weeds; how did God create those?

Genesis 1 says that God spoke and the universe came into being.
He does not tell us how he created it.

Genesis 1 is a synopsis. It's the condensed short version of how God created everything. A synopsis doesn't cover every minute detail.

There's a synopsis for how the moon landings took place for instance. It can be explained by addressing the highlights. There doesn't have to be a detailed explanation of every piece of equipment and how it works to explain what happened. You can say a rocket carried the astronauts into space without having to explain how every single part of a Saturn V rocket works.

 

[ozso]

You think that reading the word of God with the help of the holy Spirit; asking for his discernment and wisdom is "sounding like an atheist"?

I'm saying going with Genesis being a bronze-age myth is going with how atheists view it. It puts you on their page. I think you're confusing Holy Spirit discernment with human resoning.

 

[Strong in Him]

I'm saying going with Genesis being a bronze-age myth is going with how atheists view it. It puts you on their page.

Who said that Genesis is a bronze age myth?
I didn't.

I think you're confusing Holy Spirit discernment with human resoning.

Nope.
The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible; he can show us what it means, apply it to our lives and give us wisdom to discern and understand.
Do you not believe that?

 

[ozso]

Who said that Genesis is a bronze age myth?
I didn't.

@trophy33 said bronze-age and you're both talking about Genesis being a myth. That it says what it does, because when it was written (which was during the bronze-age) people didn't know what we now know about science.

Nope.
The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible; he can show us what it means, apply it to our lives and give us wisdom to discern and understand.
Do you not believe that?

Yes I believe that. But I also know sometimes people attribute their own resoning to being something the Holy Spirit showed them. Isn't the person saying the earth is flat according to scripture, also claiming discernment from the Holy Spirit?

 

[ozso]

On a lighter note;

Ireland are going to send men to the sun to see if there are other life forms there! The interviewer for the British Corporation said to their spokesman Paddy McGinty
'surely the rocket and the astronauts would be instantly incinerated by the Sun's extreme heat'? Paddy McGinty replied 'Oh well, we've thought of that, they'll be going at night'

That brings up questions.

Are all the other moon rocks petrified wood? Or did someone just mess up and mix up a chunk of petrified wood with a moon rock?

Was Nixon's phone call to the moon an ordinary phone call back then that used a land-line, or was it hooked up to a radio transmitter?

How could the continents of global earth match flat earth being filmed through a round window?

Why should I believe in Van Allen Belts that are said to surround global earth? Doesn't that go against the earth being flat? Why only believe that piece of science is true when the rest of science is all a lie?

Am I supposed to ignore this photo of Aldren's astronaut suit?

Those are moon-boots in the lower right corner. They go over the pressure suit shoes like galoshes go over shoes.

 

[trophy33]

@trophy33 said bronze-age and you're both talking about Genesis being a myth.

Genesis is a real book. Genesis is not a myth.

Genesis 1 is a mythological creation drama and Genesis 2 is a mythological creation narrative.

The Bronze Age is a historical period lasting from approximately 3300 to 1200 BC. Genesis is estimated to be composed somewhere between 10th and 8th century BC (i.e. in the Iron Age), but the oral tradition behind the text is older. I am fine with calling it an iron-age mythology, if you insist. However, the more glorious era was the Bronze Age (The Akkadian Empire, Ur, The Old Babylonia...).

 

[ozso]

Genesis is a real book. Genesis is not a myth.

Genesis 1 is a mythological creation drama and Genesis 2 is a mythological creation narrative.

The Bronze Age is a historical period lasting from approximately 3300 to 1200 BC.

Yes I knew that already. I learned it from arguing with atheists over 20 years ago on the usenet newsgroup called alt.atheism. It was one of their arguments against the validity of the Bible.

That's why I'm bothered by seeing Christians repeating them. In your case I suppose it's being done to explain why the Bible doesn't seem compatible with the theory of evolution and other aspects of modern science.

 

[trophy33]

Yes I knew that already. I learned it from arguing with atheists over 20 years ago on the usenet newsgroup called alt.atheism. It was one of their arguments against the validity of the Bible.

That's why I'm bothered by seeing Christians repeating them. In your case I suppose it's being done to explain why the Bible doesn't seem compatible with the theory of evolution and other aspects of modern science.

Its the mainstream scholarship regarding the book:

Book of Genesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You will find the similar info in Bible dictionaries, theological seminaries, in schools etc.

 

[ozso]

Its the mainstream scholarship regarding the book:

Book of Genesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't know who compiled that article. Do you?

You will find the similar info in Bible dictionaries, theological seminaries, in schools etc.

I'll find all kinds of heresy in dictionaries, theological seminaries, in schools etc. But that doesn't validate it.

Can you name the well known theologian bible scholars who hold such views?

 

[Apple Sky]

I am fine with calling it an iron-age mythology, if you insist. However, the more glorious era was the Bronze Age (The Akkadian Empire, Ur, The Old Babylonia...).

Well I'm not fine with any of this nonsense, the firmament is as real today as it was yesterday.

Pieces Of The Sky.​

 

[Strong in Him]

@trophy33 said bronze-age and you're both talking about Genesis being a myth.

Not exactly.
I was challenging your definition that myth = fiction; something made up.
I said that one definition of myth is story. And stories aren't necessarily things that are made up; stories from the war/childhood etc.

Yes I believe that. But I also know sometimes people attribute their own resoning to being something the Holy Spirit showed them. Isn't the person saying the earth is flat according to scripture, also claiming discernment from the Holy Spirit?

If you're talking about Apple Sky, she says that flat earth cannot be proved from Scripture.

 

[ozso]

Not exactly.
I was challenging your definition that myth = fiction; something made up.
I said that one definition of myth is story. And stories aren't necessarily things that are made up; stories from the war/childhood etc.

Have you ever heard the story of something that really happened being called a myth?

If you're talking about Apple Sky, she says that flat earth cannot be proved from Scripture.

Oh really? Most flat earth Christians I know of here reject global earth because they say it goes against scripture, whereas flat earth fits scripture.

 

[Strong in Him]

Have you ever heard the story of something that really happened being called a myth?

I'm sure it has been known.
The trouble is that we overuse, and therefore devalue, certain words today. Now days if someone says "myth" then probably mean, and people seem to think of, your definition - i.e. myth = false or fantasy.
Just as the word "depression" can mean anything from a mild case of the blues to "can't get out of bed and anyway the world would be better off without me."
Even the word "Christian" has become devalued. Some people describe themselves this way because they were born in a Christian country, go to church sometimes, do good deeds and believe they are generally good people. Others would say that a person is not a Christian unless they are born again, Spirit filled and fully devoted to God.

Oh really? Most flat earth Christians I know of here reject global earth because they say it goes against scripture, whereas flat earth fits scripture.

You'll have to take that up with @Apple Sky , but I'm fairly sure she said it couldn't be proved from Scripture.