chaoschristian
Well-Known Member
Proselyte said:
<calls for help as Proselyte is crushed under several hundred pounds of lamb-skin scrolls>
Indeed, there are advantages to have scripture in codex form.
Upvote
0
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.
Proselyte said:since I don't have a nice set of ancient scriptures in my computer room)
Proselyte said:Hehe I gotcha.
It just seems we have gotten off track of what the original poster intended, because I said Bible instead of Scriptures. (Though I quoted Timothy regarding Scriptures, which is what I was implying when saying Bible...since I don't have a nice set of ancient scriptures in my computer room)
That sounds like a reasonable and sound practice. I have enjoyed this thread.Willtor said:I totally understand. I'm just saying that application of the Timothy passage changes, subtly, when we make the distinction between the Scriptures and the Bible (as the form in which the Scriptures appear, together, today).
I suppose this actually leads into something of Mark's thesis. It is my experience that scientists are profoundly interested in accuracy and precision. When I have made an error in these forums, regarding evolution, or genetics, or whatever else, another TE is quick to jump in and correct me. It's not because the other TE's don't like me, but it's because they are interested in accuracy and precision more than they are interested in defending me when I am in error.
One makes observations about a thing that piques his interest. While observing, he reasons about it. Now, his reasoning may be mistaken, so it is best if he reasons in a community setting, in which his views can be confirmed or falsified. This community setting values accuracy and precision, semantically. If we all use the same technical words in different ways, we will almost certainly talk past each other.
This observation and reason, in a community setting, is my understanding of the foundation of science. This, of course, includes many social sciences which some people might not consider science, but such a semantic difference typically arises from a different philosophy of science.
Did you ever wonder if creationists might come around if they learned a little more about how science works?
Matthew 12:39-41 But He answered and said to them, An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.
Matthew is acknowledging Jonah was in the belly of the great fish. That would seem scientifically unprobable, but the Bible says it happens.
I don't think all of us fathom the great miracles that have occurred:
That God turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt.
That God parted the Red Sea.
That Jesus healed thousands of people of diseases considered incurable at the time.
That Jesus brought Lazarus back from the dead.
That Jesus rose from the dead.
Why is it we can accept some of these miracles, but not accept that God did what is said in Genesis about literal 6 day creation? We get so caught up in the hows and whys of the Flood, yet think about how God brought all the animals to Noah, and divinely made the whole thing work without the chaos ensuing. Sometimes 3 cats are enough for me, imagine all those animals!
Proselyte said:The Bible was good enough for Jesus. Jesus and key supporters all turn to the Bible to answer questions that people have.
They may not be the answers some want but...
Let's have a look:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
That is a telling statement there. In my opinion, some would spin Genesis to read into it as some symbolism for Evolution and Old Earth, but why wouldn't it just talk about that then? Literally, Genesis says creation was achieved in 6 days. The Bible is very direct about how it happened, and no where does the Bible directly say anything about Evolution or the Old Earth which has only recently come into fashion, relatively speaking.
Matthew 24:37-39 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
In my opinion, Matthew refers to Noah and affirms the story of the Flood. His statement is acknowledging Noah as an actual historical figure, and the Flood as a real event. Biblical evidence against this is not favorable.
Luke 11:51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.
Luke is acknowledging Abel and his murder by Cain. The argument might be made that Abel is just a literary figure that Luke is referring to, but Genesis does not depict it that way.
Matthew 12:39-41 But He answered and said to them, An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.
Matthew is acknowledging Jonah was in the belly of the great fish. That would seem scientifically unprobable, but the Bible says it happens.
I don't think all of us fathom the great miracles that have occurred:
That God turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt.
That God parted the Red Sea.
That Jesus healed thousands of people of diseases considered incurable at the time.
That Jesus brought Lazarus back from the dead.
That Jesus rose from the dead.
Why is it we can accept some of these miracles, but not accept that God did what is said in Genesis about literal 6 day creation? We get so caught up in the hows and whys of the Flood, yet think about how God brought all the animals to Noah, and divinely made the whole thing work without the chaos ensuing. Sometimes 3 cats are enough for me, imagine all those animals!
It just seems we have relegated the Bible and the literal interpretation to the back seat of theories that provide a comfort zone with people's world views. The Bible doesn't contradict itself, why take only parts that seem applicable, and dismiss others as myth or symbolism? (Aside from the obvious like parables.)
John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.
Jesus was there in the beginning! He knew the Bible inside and out. He used it as a foundation for teaching and prophecy. He never said the Bible was in error about anything, nor did he belittle it. I would encourage that we as Christians follow His example and treat the Bible with the reverance Jesus did.
This is my opinion, some may agree, some may not. In good faith I am open to hear opposing views, and I respect opposing views. Let us though not belittle each other and harbor prejudice for our differences. Let us lovingly come together with this and discuss in a calm manner.
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?