• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Biblical literalism vs. science - Why is evolution the sticking point?

Jan 23, 2013
408
130
✟24,894.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The Big Bang theory is diametrically opposed to a literal six-day creation.

So the following theories are in contrast to the Bible:

1. Theory of evolution.
2. Theories of how we got our moon.
3. The Big Bang theory.

Is that the totality, in your opinion?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,283
52,673
Guam
✟5,161,615.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,283
52,673
Guam
✟5,161,615.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Is that the totality, in your opinion?
How many do you want?

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

The following aren't "theories" per se, but they are ways science operates to sterilize the word of God:

1. Calling a "child in the womb" a "fetus."
2. Calling "miracles" "magic."
3. Defining FAITH as: "Something someone believes, knowing it isn't true."
4. Refusing to employ general relativity, so they can claim Joshua spoke of geocentrism.
5. Giving false deities the same weight as God (diabolical mimicry).

Among others.
 
Reactions: Yennora
Upvote 0
Jan 23, 2013
408
130
✟24,894.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Sure.

God did not make anyone deliberately misinterpret the Bible for centuries.

He allowed it.

So you do agree that they misinterpreted the Bible? Okay. But if God did not cause them to misinterpret the Bible, then how was God the cause of Galileo being imprisoned?
 
Upvote 0
Jan 23, 2013
408
130
✟24,894.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
How many do you want?

All of them, if you could.

At the moment, all the places that you have stated you believe the Bible to be incompatible with the current scientific consensus are from Genesis. That might be an interesting route to explore, but unless your list is exhaustive then I don't even know if it's true.

You're right - none of these are relevant to this thread.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,283
52,673
Guam
✟5,161,615.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So you do agree that they misinterpreted the Bible? Okay. But if God did not cause them to misinterpret the Bible, then how was God the cause of Galileo being imprisoned?
He hardened their hearts, like He did Pharaoh.

In other words, He flushed out of them their intolerance and made them take action they were going to take in the first place.

In other words, He simply said, "Move it! Let's go! Do something! Stop standing around!"
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,283
52,673
Guam
✟5,161,615.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
All of them, if you could.
I think I've given you enough to satisfy your requests.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
At the moment, all the places that you have stated you believe the Bible to be incompatible with the current scientific consensus are from Genesis.
Then by all means, let's go elsewhere.

God pwned thermodynamics in the following places:

Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

Daniel 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.


In addition, the law of gravity is going to take a hike at the Rapture.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
 
Upvote 0

dysert

Member
Feb 29, 2012
6,233
2,238
USA
✟120,484.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I doubt I'll get too involved in this thread, but I feel compelled to point a couple of things out. Squeegee, you haven't defined "literalism" so I'm not sure you're using the term the way we literalists use it. You've mentioned apparent problems with literalism, so I'll offer up some more. Jesus isn't a lamb, even though the Bible calls Him that. Jesus isn't a door, even though the Bible calls Him that. Jesus isn't a lion, even though the Bible calls Him that.

The Bible must be read with spiritual eyes, and, no offense, you don't have them. For a Christian to take you seriously when you offer interpretations of spiritual themes, they'd be making a serious mistake.

Please see my sig if you need further clarification. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

Excellent responses to all the issues raised!
 
Upvote 0
Jan 23, 2013
408
130
✟24,894.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

So he didn't cause them to misinterpret the Bible, but he did cause them to imprison Galileo when they otherwise might not have? Is that right?
 
Upvote 0
Jan 23, 2013
408
130
✟24,894.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I think I've given you enough to satisfy your requests.

It is, of course, entirely up to you whether you choose to participate fully in this thread or not.


I would have thought that miracles fall into a different category. Or are you seriously arguing that God should have to obey the laws of physics? Or, conversely, that the laws of physics should be able to describe God?

If not, then these examples don't really fit the thread.
 
Upvote 0

dysert

Member
Feb 29, 2012
6,233
2,238
USA
✟120,484.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you feel you could offer a definition that would contribute meaningfully to this thread, I'd certainly appreciate it.
You probably won't think it's meaningful, but interpreting the Bible literally (as I do) is to interpret it the way the Spirit of God wants us to. Note that this means a person must have the Spirit of God within them as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.

On a purely natural basis understanding the Bible properly means a bunch of different things. For example, it means you must believe that God exists; that you're diligently seeking Him; that your study considers metaphor, simile, idioms, etc.; that you're accounting for the knowledge gaps introduced by the passage of time; that you're seeking the meaning as it would have been understood by the original audience; that you incorporate proper hermeneutics; that you understand the context of the passage under consideration.

And above all that, you must allow the Holy Spirit to lead you into the truth.

I'm a literalist, and I can check off all these boxes. Somehow I don't think you can say the same.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There is a huge problem with literalism. To be a literalist means ultimately that one believes in a lying God. There are mountains of evidence that tell us that a literal interpretation, meanwhile scientific evidence that supports literalism is totally missing. Ultimately your version of God would have had to have created that evidence.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,283
52,673
Guam
✟5,161,615.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So he didn't cause them to misinterpret the Bible, but he did cause them to imprison Galileo when they otherwise might not have? Is that right?
No.

Let me say it again, with emphasis:
In other words, He flushed out of them their intolerance and made them take action they were going to take in the first place.
He just made them do it sooner.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 23, 2013
408
130
✟24,894.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You probably won't think it's meaningful, but interpreting the Bible literally (as I do) is to interpret it the way the Spirit of God wants us to.

How do you know how God wants it to be interpreted? In fact, if it is literally true, then why does it need interpreting?

Also, if your interpretation is entirely as God wishes it to be interpreted, does that necessarily imply that you have never changed your mind about anything written in the Bible? Your interpretation now is 100% the same as it was the first time you read it once you have the Spirit of God inside you?

[...] that your study considers metaphor, simile, idioms, etc.; that you're accounting for the knowledge gaps introduced by the passage of time;[...]

These both lead right back to the questions that I wrote in the OP as pre-emptive responses to what I labelled as the two most common defences. Why can you not say that the story of Creation as outlined in Genesis was metaphorical? Why can you not say that it was set out that way in order to explain to people who did not yet have the understanding that we have in the modern world?

How do you determine that when the moon is described as a "light" that it means a reflector which acts as a light, yet when Eve is described as being made out of Adam's rib that this is a literal description of what occurred? How do you determine that when the sun is described as going around the Earth or the sky as a solid dome that it is being presented that way because that was the understanding of the people of the time, yet when it is said that God created the birds that it means that God literally fashioned every single species of bird as it exists today (as well as those which have become extinct since this creation event occurred)?

I'm a literalist, and I can check off all these boxes. Somehow I don't think you can say the same.

Since my profile clearly states that I'm an atheist, I don't think it will come as much of a surprise that I agree with you that I don't believe in God.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,283
52,673
Guam
✟5,161,615.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
My raisin bread challenge shows otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,283
52,673
Guam
✟5,161,615.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As in God made them arrest him sooner, or that they would otherwise have delayed his trial or his sentencing?
Why do I feel like I'm trying to nail jello to the wall?
 
Upvote 0
Jan 23, 2013
408
130
✟24,894.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Why do I feel like I'm trying to nail jello to the wall?

I just want to be perfectly clear on what your claims are, as I don't want to build up a false picture of what you believe, or to misrepresent your beliefs. If you are happy for me to not fully understand your position, or for me to attribute beliefs to you that you do not hold, you don't have to clarify your position, but you should do so on the understanding that I may well do those things - not on purpose, but still potentially.

It would be helpful for me if you could describe in detail what you believe the chain of events was in Galileo's incarceration, from his advocacy of heliocentrism to his sentencing, including the events that occurred to and actions which were carried out by the various parties involved - Galileo, the Church, and God. I don't believe that you will be willing to do this, though, so instead of asking this, I've been asking a few questions in order to try to get your position clear in my mind. It is, of course, entirely up to you whether or not you answer them.
 
Upvote 0