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.
A bunch of strawman fallacies mixed with nonsensical claims (like "the bible is the Spirit of God").It is not the 'knowledge' of bible seminaries that matters. Regardless of how elevated that may be above God's word in the minds and hearts of some people. No one needs lack knowledge of creation, God up and told us. Also, what we need for understanding the bible is the Spirit of God. It will then be clear to us that God is neither senile and contradictory and pathetic by giving contradictory versions of creation. Anyone pretending otherwise is indeed talking out of their hat.
Literally the same chapter talking about creation in six days talks also about lights placed into the firmament. You just see only what you want to see.Except that the Bible doesnt have a flat earth worldview (start a new thread on that topic)...and the Bible specficially teaches us that Man and Woman were created (in the image of God) at the beginning - they didn't evolve from anything. The purpose of the Bible is not scientific but rather the purpose of the Bible is to record historical events to server a purpose towards Salvation.
If you think those are the choices, you don't understand the question. Christians who accept evolution believe that God created everything, including every human, and that humans are the product of billions of years of evolution.Its a joke if you believe that everything evolved from a single cell organism instead of God creating it.
Looking at the article it seems to focus on how Satan is not an animal. I never suggested he was. No more than Satan is a man like Judas. However he can and did inhabit various bodies for a time in history. That includes the creature in Eden. Also various men. EtcProbably. But possibly not. I don't hang my Christianity on it, the age of the earth, etc. I'll throw this out: I don't think he was a snake.
There is enough in the bible so that we do not need to wonder so much about some basics.I've learned, by losing arguments over the decades, to be very careful about what I state from the bible as an absolute fact. As one pastor of a large church with a lot of christian professor members said, the more someone knows about the bible and its origins, the less sure they are about their opinion on secondary issues. And he and I were talking about it because I brought up the unbelievable dogmatism I came up against in the tiny churches I visited in Kentucky when I first moved there from Seattle - on some of the most minor issues. And yet often they simply could not back it up - at all. It was like they were told this stuff in VBS when they were children and stuck with it their entire life with no increase in understanding through research.
He was better off somewhere else where there might be actual believersThe guy I bought my house from was a young pastor. He got his first congregation at a small church a few months after we moved here. He told me that in his new church there were members that were elderly and had been going there regularly their entire life, yet they could not tell you the difference between the old and new testaments. He was trying to change that. They fired him a few months later.
Adam was a special creation in a special time as was woman. Evolution had nothing to do with it or billions of years.If you think those are the choices, you don't understand the question. Christians who accept evolution believe that God created everything, including every human, and that humans are the product of billions of years of evolution.
Your post ended with this quote "he did the temptation (dirty) works for God" Actually, he works against God and the salvation of mankind. God allowed him to do some things over history, but it was more like letting a dog loose for a few minutes than having God tempt us.
So basically, at the end of the day, you and I are in agreement.Looking at the article it seems to focus on how Satan is not an animal. I never suggested he was. No more than Satan is a man like Judas. However he can and did inhabit various bodies for a time in history. That includes the creature in Eden. Also various men. Etc
Michael S. Heiser On What Eden Tells Us About Satan | GCD
There is enough in the bible so that we do not need to wonder so much about some basics.
He was better off somewhere else where there might be actual believers
I suggest this is a tad misleading. Let's take dark matter. The hypothesized existence of dark matter explains phenomena that will otherwise have no explanation, at least yet. So, yes, we do not detect dark matter directly, but it is a very reasonable hypothesis in that it makes predictions that are consistent with the facts. So I think it's rather unfair to call it "faith" .The dark matter and energy one is funny. It's invented to help hypotheses hold together. We've never seen it or detected it in any way. It's a faith thing.
Not true. I actually said "what we need for understanding the bible is the Spirit of God" Be honestA bunch of strawman fallacies mixed with nonsensical claims (like "the bible is the Spirit of God").
Not true once again. You said thisSaying what somebody said "in other words" is actually how strawman fallacies are produced.
See? You described well how you arrived to the strawman fallacy. You changed my words from "not literal" to "false", which are from totally different worlds ("not literal" is from the area of genres, "false" is from formal logic)Not true once again. You said this
"And you have never heard that those do not need to be literal. If you mean scientific life spans, then those are actually growing."
So the issue to address is the claim here that the life spans were not factual or real. I addressed that directly and said this
"In other words the scores and scores of precise life spans, when they had babies, when they died, are all false and not to be believed according to you."
Now if that is not precisely what you are saying and you do accept the life spans as real, then just say so. (Although there would be no honest way to reconcile that with what you said)
Whining and pretending you are being misunderstood is childish.
If the bible says Noah lived, for example 930 years and had a child when he was say, 40 years old, that is either true or false. Waving it away (and the host of other lifespans given in the bible) as not 'literal' is just a cowardly way of rejecting what is stated clearly and repeatedly.See? You described well how you arrived to the strawman fallacy. You changed my words from "not literal" to "false", which are totally different worlds.
You have created another fallacy - false dilemma. Its not "either true or false", again, you are confusing it with formal logic.If the bible says Noah lived, for example 930 years and had a child when he was say, 40 years old, that is either true or false. Waving it away (and the host of other lifespans given in the bible) as not 'literal' is just a cowardly way of rejecting what is stated clearly and repeatedly.
You cannot declare statements repeatedly recorded in the bible to be something other than true or false. Either men had a baby when they were the age the bible states, say, 35 years old, or not. Either they died at the age stated or not.You have created another fallacy - false dilemma. Its not "either true or false", again, you are confusing it with formal logic.
That makes no difference. If I lived 944 years, and a year was 360 or 365 days is not an issue here. the difference would be something like 13 years. The only question is whether we believe it or not. The same is true of the years given to the time their first child was born. The difference between a 360 and 365 day years is only something like 5.8 months. So If a child was born in the fall, the year, for example would not even change regardless of what calendar we used.Its either literal or symbolic, either complete or telescoped, either lunar or solar years etc. - these would be proper questions. Not "true or false".
You still do not seem to understand that true-false categories are from formal arguments. They do not belong there.You cannot declare statements repeatedly recorded in the bible to be something other than true or false. Either men had a baby when they were the age the bible states, say, 35 years old, or not. Either they died at the age stated or not.
That makes no difference. If I lived 944 years, and a year was 360 or 365 days is not an issue here. the difference would be something like 13 years. The only question is whether we believe it or not. The same is true of the years given to the first child was born. The difference between a 360 and 365 day years is only something like 5.8 months. So If a child was born in the fall, the year, for example would not even change regardless of what calendar we used. Now what we could debate would be the length of the year, I assume it was 360 days at the time of Noah. But as pointed out here that cannot affect the long lifespans recorded, so it would not matter.
We already know a year was 360 days. So that leaves you with believe it or not once again. They either lived way over 900 years or not. True or false.You still do not seem to understand that true-false categories are from formal arguments. They do not belong there.
If somebody lived 912 years literally or if its lunar years, i.e. 76 years, it does not make it false or true. It makes it either lunar or solar, for example.
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?