Any other book

[Criada]

Good grief!
I've rarely seen such an aggressive OP... I am not sure how you chose your user name, but it seems somewhat inappropriate.
Do you actually want to discuss how different Christians see the Bible, or do you want to simply berate those who don't agree with you on every point? The former may be an interesting conversation, but I don't want to get involved if it's the latter...

 

[Jase]

no one is saying the Bible is God. We are saying the Bible is God-breathed! (2 Timothy 3:16).

Timothy only refers to the Tanakh, not the entire Bible. The New Testament didn't exist yet.

This means it is the thoughts of God and are therefore perfect and infallible.

Plenty of the Bible is not the thoughts of God, but the thoughts of fallible humans. Psalms are entirely thought up by Solomon for example. The historical accounts in the Bible are from a human perspective. You're treading on dangerous territory by claiming everything in the Bible is directly from God.

God would not put his thoughts into human writers minds and have them write it down and then let it get all twisted and transformed into something He never intended it to be. If He let that happen, He would be weak, and therefore, not God.

Apparently he did, since that's exactly what happened.

Why do you assume the Protestant Bible is the correct version, when not every scripture was included in it, and that decision was made by the Catholic Church and not God? The Jews have books in their Tanakh that Protestants don't have. Why is your book right, and theirs is wrong?

 

[peace4ever]

Actually, the words in the bible are God as John 1:1-2 explains. As Jesus tells us God is Spirit. And God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all one. That means that none of them will disagree with the other.

Hebrews 4:12 also tells us that "The word is living and active..." and Jesus tells us that His words will never pass away. So the Word of God is as alive and eternal as God is. So once we receive the Holy Spirit in our hearts, we also receive Jesus and the Word in our hearts as well.

 

[Criada]

The words in the bible are God??


You do know the early Christians didn't have the bible, don't you? Does this mean that they didn't have God??
As has been said, several times, John 1 is referring to Christ, the Word of God, not to a book!!

 

[wayseer]

Let's engage in fantasy for a moment like Darwinists do and pretend that the bible wasn't written by God

Let's not. Let us, instead, stop throwing out unfounded statements without any reference or backing. Please show me where any 'Darwinist' has advocated the Bible is 'fantasy'. Better still, you might explain what you mean by 'Darwinist'. Or is it you are actually talking about the theory of evolution?

Better still, why not cut to the chase?

I've asked this same question before to atheists and their response was;

"We're not afraid of the bible, we're afraid of Christians who believe the bible.'

I have to agree with them. I am also terrified of Bible thumping Christians who claim they have all the answers.

My response to them is; Are you afraid of "Trekkies" (Star Trek fans) Are you afraid of the fans of Harry Potter books? And better yet, do you curse the "Big Bad Wolf", Darth Vader or any other fiction character you consider a villain? If they tried to convince you that those books are true, would you argue with them?

You make a valid point here but you loose the impact of that point by what you have written above.

What you are saying - If you of the secular world believe the Bible is nothing more than any other work of fiction, how come you pick on the Bible and tear it to sheds rather than, say, Harry Potter?

Good question. And your answer is ....

 

[wayseer]

Catherineanne writes ....

I have rejected nothing from Scripture.

Andross77 responds ...

i gave you Scripture, you rejected it.

I do not see where Catherineanne as 'rejected' scripture as Andross77 claims. If fact she says as much but I note that it is Andross77 who does the rejecting here.

Catherineanne has stated her case clearly and succinctly. In doing so she has raised questions to which no adequate response has been made.

 

[herev]

Actually, the words in the bible are God as John 1:1-2 explains. As Jesus tells us God is Spirit. And God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all one. That means that none of them will disagree with the other.

Hebrews 4:12 also tells us that "The word is living and active..." and Jesus tells us that His words will never pass away. So the Word of God is as alive and eternal as God is. So once we receive the Holy Spirit in our hearts, we also receive Jesus and the Word in our hearts as well.

oh dear. As many people as I've had this conversation with, i've never met anyone who believed that John 1's reference to the Word actually referenced the Bible--wow, just wow. amazing. really. Tell me more of how the word, "logos" means scripture (especially since it seems you think it refers to both OT and NT)
please. Tell me more

 

[ebia]

Of course not...unless you had some kind of mental disorder. Yet that's what the secular world tries to do with the bible that they claim is fiction. So either the secular world is so deluded that they can't tell fact from fantasy, or they know deep inside that the bible is the infallible Word of God, or both.

Or they simply recognise that it has been hugely influential, not always in ways they see as positive.

People do get upset about books that they percieve as non-factual and non divine. Some groups, for instance, get upset about children's story books that portray families with "two dads" (or two mums). But they aren't tacitly accepting such a book is factual or divinely inspired.

People in different places also have very similar conversations about the Koran as the ones you mention about Scripture, yet I'm sure you wouldn't accept that as proof that the Koran is factual or divinely inspired.

I have no doubt that Scripture is everything the letter to Timothy says it is, but the argument you present is so badly flawed as to be irretrievable

It might also be better not to begin your argument with remarks that are pointlessly offensive (to many Christians as well as anyone else) in a way that has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument presented. Beginning an argument by insulting your audience is rarely a good way to get taken seriously.

 

[ebia]

Actually, the words in the bible are God as John 1:1-2 explains. As Jesus tells us God is Spirit. And God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all one. That means that none of them will disagree with the other.

Hebrews 4:12 also tells us that "The word is living and active..." and Jesus tells us that His words will never pass away. So the Word of God is as alive and eternal as God is. So once we receive the Holy Spirit in our hearts, we also receive Jesus and the Word in our hearts as well.

What???

Wow. It's a while since I've seen a poster actually say that.

You might want to go away and have a bit of a rethink on that one. Jesus is the Word of God. If one wants to call the bible "God's word" that's okay providing one remembers that is not in the same sense.

The first sentence in your post, if you mean it, is idolatory.

 

[peace4ever]

Please show me where any 'Darwinist' has advocated the Bible is 'fantasy'.

So if Darwinists believed that God formed the human from the dust of the ground, then why in the world did they dream up the fantasy that humans came from apes or better yet, some unknown, animal?

So you are incorrect when you claim that Darwinists believe the bible. If they did, they wouldn't come up with an alternate story about the origin of man. So you've made another false statement.

 

[Hentenza]

Evolution (Darwinism) does not attempt to prove abiogenesis. They can't. Is not in their theory. No one has yet been able to debunk the genesis account that God created man. No one. No one has yet been able to prove scientifically that man originated from ex materia or some other way. No one. No one has yet been able to prove scientifically that the universe did not originate ex nihilo. No one. All that everyone has is a bunch of unproven theories with not observable scientific evidence.

Until someone can prove scientifically that man evolved or that the universe was created other than ex nihilo, the scientific facts of genesis are accurate (I am OEC not YEC, btw).

 

[Jase]

Evolution (Darwinism) does not attempt to prove abiogenesis. They can't. Is not in their theory. No one has yet been able to debunk the genesis account that God created man. No one. No one has yet been able to prove scientifically that man originated from ex materia or some other way. No one. No one has yet been able to prove scientifically that the universe did not originate ex nihilo. No one. All that everyone has is a bunch of unproven theories with not observable scientific evidence.

Until someone can prove scientifically that man evolved or that the universe was created other than ex nihilo, the scientific facts of genesis are accurate (I am OEC not YEC, btw).

What scientific facts are you referring to?

And you seem to be committing the same fallacy that every other fundamentalist commits Hentenza. What is a bunch of "unproven theories" supposed to mean? A theory is not a hypothesis. A theory is the strongest anything ever becomes in science. In the case of evolution, gravity, germs, atoms, cells, etc. those theories are as close to proven as you can get ( with evolution being the strongest of them all).

Science doesn't attempt to prove that God didn't create anything. That isn't in the realm of science, that's the realm of philosphy. Science tells us the what and how, philosophy tries to explain the why.

Science has pretty strongly proven that the universe began as a singularity almost 14 billion years ago, but it has yet to be make any claims as to what happened prior to the expansion of the universe. As for the Genesis account, science has quite strongly shown a literal interpretation of Genesis to be wrong. The entire creation order is wrong, we know without a doubt there was no global flood, humans never walked with dinosaurs, and the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. There is no wiggle room here. These are all facts.

I really would suggest yourself, or anyone else who wishes to argue against science to at least learn the basics of what you are arguing against. Coming into these threads claiming "they are just unproven theories" or "monkeys didn't give birth to humans" does not help the cause whatsoever. It merely shows that you all don't actually understand that which are you challenging.

And another little pet peeve of mine. Why do you all keep calling us Darwinists, like that is some sort of insult? Most creationists use it as a pejorative term. Evolution was occuring long before Darwin, and Darwinism refers to many things not even associated with Charles Darwin.

 

[wayseer]

I asked if you could provide some evidence or reference where your so-called 'Darwinists' believed the Bible is fantasy. You have failed to do so. Well you might as I know of esteem scientists that are Christians and your generalization is an offense to their personal belief.

You have also failed to elaborate on what you mean by 'Darwinists'.

So if Darwinists believed that God formed the human from the dust of the ground, then why in the world did they dream up the fantasy that humans came from apes or better yet, some unknown, animal?

There you go again. Scientists do not 'dream up fantasies'. The only person doing any dreaming is you. If you do not agree with science at least have the courage to say so. After all, scientists have the courage of their convictions - you might like to return the favour.

So you are incorrect when you claim that Darwinists believe the bible.

I am? As I said, show where scientists do not believe the Bible. Professor Paul Davies, an immanent physicist, and an Australian, is a Christian. That's one - which destroys your generalization.

If they did, they wouldn't come up with an alternate story about the origin of man. So you've made another false statement.

All you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance of such matters.

As I said, initially you make a good point ...

What you are saying - If you of the secular world believe the Bible is nothing more than any other work of fiction, how come you pick on the Bible and tear it to sheds rather than, say, Harry Potter?

... but now you have not only derailed the thread you have derailed your own thinking.

So, do you want to stay with the issue you raised or have another thread on evolution?

 

[Hentenza]

What scientific facts are you referring to?

And you seem to be committing the same fallacy that every other fundamentalist commits Hentenza. What is a bunch of "unproven theories" supposed to mean? A theory is not a hypothesis. A theory is the strongest anything ever becomes in science. In the case of evolution, gravity, germs, atoms, cells, etc. those theories are as close to proven as you can get ( with evolution being the strongest of them all).

Science doesn't attempt to prove that God didn't create anything. That isn't in the realm of science, that's the realm of philosphy. Science tells us the what and how, philosophy tries to explain the why.

Science has pretty strongly proven that the universe began as a singularity almost 14 billion years ago, but it has yet to be make any claims as to what happened prior to the expansion of the universe. As for the Genesis account, science has quite strongly shown a literal interpretation of Genesis to be wrong. The entire creation order is wrong, we know without a doubt there was no global flood, humans never walked with dinosaurs, and the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. There is no wiggle room here. These are all facts.

I really would suggest yourself, or anyone else who wishes to argue against science to at least learn the basics of what you are arguing against. Coming into these threads claiming "they are just unproven theories" or "monkeys didn't give birth to humans" does not help the cause whatsoever. It merely shows that you all don't actually understand that which are you challenging.

And another little pet peeve of mine. Why do you all keep calling us Darwinists, like that is some sort of insult? Most creationists use it as a pejorative term. Evolution was occuring long before Darwin, and Darwinism refers to many things not even associated with Charles Darwin.

All that you say you know without a doubt is heavily debated and remains unproven. There is no proof. Again, how has science proven that the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are wrong?

 

[Jase]

All that you say you know without a doubt is heavily debated and remains unproven. There is no proof. Again, how has science proven that the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are wrong?

Every piece of evidence in existence disproves the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2. There are far too many specifics to go into detail with here, but if you have something specific you'd like an answer to...

 

[peace4ever]

Every piece of evidence in existence disproves the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2. There are far too many specifics to go into detail with here, but if you have something specific you'd like an answer to...

So where do you live that the sun doesn't give light by day, the moon and stars don't provide light by night and mark the months, seasons and years, where each animal doesn't breed its own kind, where man doesn't decay back into dust when he dies? A new made-up planet? I'd love to hear the new name because it's not planet earth. I bet it's a long Greek name to make it sound authentic. You and scientists really do live in your imaginations.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

What exactly does "inspired by" means to people?

 

[peace4ever]

What exactly does "inspired by" means to people?

That means that the words that are "inspired" by God (like scripture) don't come from the human mind but from the Spirit of God.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

That means that the words that are "inspired" by God (like scripture) don't come from the human mind but from the Spirit of God.

I believe that the scripture is God's word, but people seem to be using "inspired by" in an odd way. And I was just curious to know what they think "inspired by" means.

By the way, is: "inspired by God" and "inspiration of God" the same thing?

 

[Hentenza]

Every piece of evidence in existence disproves the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2. There are far too many specifics to go into detail with here, but if you have something specific you'd like an answer to...

I tell you what. When macroevolution is proven and when the creation of the universe from ex materia is proven then I will reevaluate my position. Until then all the scientists have is a bunch of theories.