Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Absolutely not -- I would stick with the English term, 'cream cheese'.So you would infer an alternate definition of the Hebrew word for 'cream cheese', in order to keep the Bible literally correct?
Yes -- like the word, 'Easter' in Acts 12:4.Sort of a variation of a hapax legomenon?
Still, you'd add a definition in the dictionary under 'cream cheese', right?Absolutely not -- I would stick with the English term, 'cream cheese'.
Let's say, for example, that the moon was actually solid iron, but the Bible calls it 'cream cheese'.
I would be in favor of calling Fe on the Periodic Table -- as it applies to the moon -- 'cream cheese'.
My Bible uses the word 'passover'Yes -- like the word, 'Easter' in Acts 12:4.
Ya -- that makes sense to me.Still, you'd add a definition in the dictionary under 'cream cheese', right?
Still, you'd add a definition in the dictionary under 'cream cheese', right?
My Bible uses the word 'passover'
A point you haven't demonstrated.There is no contradiction at all. The point is God created the plants before he placed them in the earth and before man was created.
The question is when the plant grew in the ground, not whether you can build a doctrine of the pre-existence of plants from you interpretation of the the AV's translation, a translation that is not supported by modern Hebrew scholarship. In Genesis 1 we have the plants sprouting growing and bearing seeds three days before God created man. In Genesis 2 you don't have any plants in the land before God makes Adam.The earth was commanded to bring forth the plants, not create them. As is clearly read in all the versions above. Man was created a few days later.
This sounds more like a problem for a literal interpretation of Genesis not evolution. and a lack of rain was the reason there were no plants in Genesis 2, but not in Genesis 1. Incidentally Genesis does not actually mention the sun.Keep in mind there was neither the sun or rain at that time. Kinda hard for plants to grow without them. No Evolution to be found.
Now? You are quoting chapter 1 there. In that chapter plants had been in that position since verse 12.Genesis 1:29
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Notice the position of the plants now.
1611AV, I have a couple of questions (which might have been asked already, but oh well):
How do you determine what parts of the Bible should be read literally, and which parts metaphorically?
What do you do when God's Creation and God's Word contradict? What if, say, the Bible said the Moon was made of cheese (it doesn't, obviously, but y'know)?
Ta
Passover would have already passed since theses were the days of unleavened bread. The feast of unleavened bread follows the Passover. Further, Herod being a Roman official observed the Pagan holiday "Easter" as did all the Babylonian Priests in the past.
"passover" is incorrect.
A point you haven't demonstrated.
The question is when the plant grew in the ground, not whether you can build a doctrine of the pre-existence of plants from you interpretation of the the AV's translation, a translation that is not supported by modern Hebrew scholarship. In Genesis 1 we have the plants sprouting growing and bearing seeds three days before God created man. In Genesis 2 you don't have any plants in the land before God makes Adam.
This sounds more like a problem for a literal interpretation of Genesis not evolution. and a lack of rain was the reason there were no plants in Genesis 2, but not in Genesis 1. Incidentally Genesis does not actually mention the sun.
Now? You are quoting chapter 1 there. In that chapter plants had been in that position since verse 12.
Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Except you haven't actually addressed any of the points in my previous post, and what I said in that post already answers your points here. You can't use the timetable of Genesis 1 to contradict evolution when Genesis 2 contradicts the literal interpretation of Genesis 1.Great, now the truth that vegetation precedes sunlight goes against the evolutionary fables of plants evolving from the cooling of the sun in the big bang hoax. The truth that plants need sunlight proves the days were 24 hour literal days, not ages (John 11:9)
So thank you for helping clear up this evolution thing. I agree there was and is No Evolution. Biblically speaking of course.
I've always been puzzled by that (maybe that's the pointGreat question. First off the Bible is a spiritual book and one must first be a Christian to fully discern it. Even the Jews could not see that the OT was all about Jesus. That mystery has been given to us Christians and is accepted by others as well when read in that light. The Holy Ghost gives light. (understanding)
But it doesn't have such clarifications for each and every verse, surely?OK now some plain talk, The Bible tells us when it is speaking "metaphorically" or literally. for instance:
When Jesus said in John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Later the Bible made it clear Jesus spoke of himself
Doesn't my cheesy Moon hypothetical count?As far as a contradiction, give me a example.
Genesis does not mention 'the sun'.And since the Genesis does not specifically mention the sun...
Pssst... note to self: when starting your own religion, make sure you don't call moon, stars and god the same as other religions, 'cause then it won't be yours.Note how the Sun and Moon are not named in Genesis 1. They are just called 'lights'.
What people often overlook is that in the earliest pagan religions all around the world - the sun or moon are venerated and named. You will find for example Sun or moon deities throughout virtually all ancient world mythologies - yet it is completely absent in Genesis 1.
Therefore those atheists who repeatedly are claiming Genesis borrowed from pagan egyptian or mesopotamian myths are completely wrong. If Genesis 1 was pagan in origin the sun and moon would be named.
Excellent point --Note how the Sun and Moon are not named in Genesis 1. They are just called 'lights'.
What people often overlook is that in the earliest pagan religions all around the world - the sun or moon are venerated and named. You will find for example Sun or moon deities throughout virtually all ancient world mythologies - yet it is completely absent in Genesis 1.
Therefore those atheists who repeatedly are claiming Genesis borrowed from pagan egyptian or mesopotamian myths are completely wrong. If Genesis 1 was pagan in origin the sun and moon would be named.
I've always been puzzled by that (maybe that's the point). What understanding do Christians acquire that non-Christians reading the Bible do not? Do Christians who deconvert lose this knowledge?
The Holy Ghost reveals truth.
Can Christians transcribe or otherwise relate this information to non-Christians?
Yes but wether they would receive or believe is another story.
It does not have to say King James on the cover, just has to have the Holy word within. I have found no other Bible thus far that has the Holy word of God besides the King James. I have read many.Would a carbon copy of a Bible, but printed under a different name, yield the same 'knowledge'?
I can. And many others can as well. There are subtle changes.Could you, for instance, get a hundred seemingly identicle Bibles, ask Christians to read the Book of Ruth (it's quite short, if memory serves), and see who notices that some of the Bibles are, in fact, phonies - apart from the Book of Ruth, the other pages of the book are from Moby Dick.
God sheds light more abundantly to those who seek him with the whole heart. So not all Christians would have the same understanding of all things except of course the Gospel. One must understand and Believe the Gospel to be Saved.Maybe that's just the scientist in me. Or maybe I'm fundamentally misunderstanding what this 'understanding' is.
It is not all contained within one book. Like the Genesis discussion we are having. There is more revelation given throughout the Bible regarding Genesis. As well as all the books of the Bible. I think the confusion comes from the term literal. I believe the Bible literally in the sense that if God calls it cheesecake then its cheescakeBut it doesn't have such clarifications for each and every verse, surely?But things can have a literal earthly meaning and also a spiritual meaning. Sort of like a second dialogue.
Doesn't my cheesy Moon hypothetical count?
Note how the Sun and Moon are not named in Genesis 1. They are just called 'lights'.
What people often overlook is that in the earliest pagan religions all around the world - the sun or moon are venerated and named. You will find for example Sun or moon deities throughout virtually all ancient world mythologies - yet it is completely absent in Genesis 1.
Therefore those atheists who repeatedly are claiming Genesis borrowed from pagan egyptian or mesopotamian myths are completely wrong. If Genesis 1 was pagan in origin the sun and moon would be named.
When the pentateuch was written, Israel was a monotheistic religion and would have no use for the names of the sun and moon used by the pagans. The Jews were creating their own myth to uplift their god Yahweh.
Then why all the confusion among 'believers,' do you think?If God said thats what he made it out of then I would go with it
Back on topic for a sec. The problem I have with Bible believers going with evolution is to discount the fact that God could also be continuing to create things like a monkey, then a monkey man, and finally a man. without having to let nature take its course in evolution but creating directly in a pattern that would suggest a process of natural evolution.
Thats not biblical of course but for a Christian who believes in evolution to discount that process seems lacking.
But the Bible for arguments sake, "right or wrong" only speaks of direct creation. Any other interpretation is pure speculation.
Then why all the confusion among 'believers,' do you think?
At least you realize that one of the biggest problems with religion is its divergent nature.A big part of it IMO is all the different bible translations out there. They all contradict each other and all but one contradict themselves.
2 Tim. 2:2-4 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?