Creation, seven "literal" days?

[MagusAlbertus]

When you read a book, do you look for meaning in each sentence, or do you look for the over-all theme of the chapter? Books in the Bible and chapters in a book are divided as they are because they each give a single part of the overall message.

Because the red badge of courage is about being shot, does not mean that the shirt wasn’t blue before being red… crazy as it sounds I honestly read the books I read, I don’t just summarize them rejecting the bits that I didn’t like. That would not be an honest view of what the author has written.



in this case the author is God, if not then you've got no basis of faith other than self-worship.. see Romans ch 1. on nature worship.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Magus - are you Arkguy? This is so familiar. Or maybe as Karl said, you're just falling in with the typical pattern. You keep saying that if God is not the author of the Bible, we have no basis for faith. We say that God is indeed the ultimate author of the Bible, and is the touchstone of our faith - but the object of our faith is Jesus himself. How would we know Jesus apart from the Bible?

What we're suggesting is something that goes on around the world daily. A number of typical, imperfect people tell Bill that they're the friends of some guy named Joe, whom they think that Bill should get to know. Once Bill meets Joe, it doesn't matter what lack of absolute perfection any of Joe's friends had (or even what misconceptions they had about Joe). Introducing Bill to Joe was all that mattered. They can still go to Joe's friends (now Bill's friends) to get some background information on Joe, but it's best to ask Joe to back up what his friends were saying about him. I'm not going to stretch the analogy any further than that, but this is what it points to: our faith is in Jesus, whom we have met because of the testimony of a few of Jesus' human, imperfect, but honest friends.

 

[Bushido216]

He's not Ark Guy, I can attest to that.

 

[lucaspa]

Magus: There is one God, who's given us the words from him that he would have us know: the bible. If you disagree then you have no basis for faith.
wow, trying to start a flame war

It's not a flame war, Magus. It's a conclusion from what you stated. In stating that the Bible is the basis of faith you have denied a basic tenet of Christianity that Christianity is based on the Living Word that is Jesus, not on the Bible.

Let's just say you have faith in the inerrancy of worldly wisdom, and i have faith that God didn't leave us without a basis of rebuke and understanding from Him that we may lean on.

And God didn't create that we can look at His Creation and tell how He created?

you *without consulting God*

We are consulting God. God created. Everything in creation was put there by God. Who else put it there?

you condescend and insult those who have faith in the teachings from which we know Jesus to be who he is.

Not used to being told that creationism is a bad guy, are you? Also, you have the does not follow that to reject your literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 calls Jesus into question. it doesn't. The Rev. McCosh of the second quote in my signature rejects a literal Genesis, accepts evolution, and has has faith that the gospels teach us about Jesus.

no sr. i reject your rejection of the truth as nothing more than the view of a faithful man who's had to spend a lot of time justifying why he doesn’t agree with the words of God... you're prerogative.

I agree with the words of God. I just don't agree with your interpretation of those words. You've never given us a reason that you reject that God created.

Honestly, i know that both of us are wrong about something and in the end we'll not have any of our wisdom or knowledge to save us, just our acceptance of grace via Jesus.

The difference is that you think we have to accept your interpretation of the Bible to have that grace. I know the Bible tells me I don't have to accept your interpretation.

Magus, this is reaching the point of diminishing returns. You are not engaging me in discussion but simply repeating what you have already said. And now I am simply repeating myself.

I have served my purpose in doing my best to keep others from following you off the theological cliff to spiritual suicide. Any of them can go thru the threads and see my comments. So unless you actually intend to address my points about
1. You are stating your interpretation and not 'the Bible" or "the words of God"
2. Tell us why you don't think you are worshipping the Bible and not God.
3. That God's Creation is not also God's Word and gets used in interpreting the Bible.

then we have nothing more to discuss.

 

[lucaspa]

Because the red badge of courage is about being shot, does not mean that the shirt wasn’t blue before being red…

But was there really a Union soldier with that name? Did that regiment exist? No. Yet you are taking truths away about being shot from a fictional story about a shooting that never happened!

I don’t just summarize them rejecting the bits that I didn’t like. That would not be an honest view of what the author has written.

And taking quotes out-of-context from the Bible to fit a theology you made up is not an honest view of what is there either.
Neither is imposing your view on the author.

I think, Magus, that you just completely destroyed your own position.

in this case the author is God if not then you've got no basis of faith other than self-worship.. see Romans ch 1. on nature worship.

1. Mark 10 and Matthew 19 clearly state the Pentateuch was written by Moses, not God. What's more, there are parts of Paul's letters where he clearly states it is only Paul talking with no inspiration. The Bible itself contradicts your claim that the author is God.
2. Romans 1 is not about nature worship. False witness about what the Bible says. Romans 1:22 "for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, ... and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling man or birds or animals or reptiles. ... 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever."

Now, remember who Paul was writing to: the Romans. The Roman pantheon had many gods. These were in the form of humans or of animals. In short, they were graven images. Paul is telling the Romans that these images are not God, but just images -- creature and not Creator.

Magus, you make a big deal about "the word of God", but when we check you on what those words say, we find they don't say what you say they do. Paul's admonition to the Corinthians in Chapter 4, verses 1-2 would apply here.

Also, maybe it is time to recall the words of St. Augustine:
"Even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]"
" Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1, Chapter 19.

 

[lucaspa]

Or maybe as Karl said, you're just falling in with the typical pattern.

I think it is the typical pattern. Bibliolatry and defense of it.

You keep saying that if God is not the author of the Bible, we have no basis for faith. We say that God is indeed the ultimate author of the Bible, and is the touchstone of our faith - but the object of our faith is Jesus himself. How would we know Jesus apart from the Bible?

Apparently Magus does not. He forgets that Paul knew Jesus outside the living person Jesus and outside the Bible, since Paul's letters hadn't been written yet when Paul knew the Risen Jesus.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Magus - are you Arkguy? This is so familiar. Or maybe as Karl said, you're just falling in with the typical pattern. You keep saying that if God is not the author of the Bible, we have no basis for faith. We say that God is indeed the ultimate author of the Bible, and is the touchstone of our faith - but the object of our faith is Jesus himself. How would we know Jesus apart from the Bible?

What we're suggesting is something that goes on around the world daily. A number of typical, imperfect people tell Bill that they're the friends of some guy named Joe, whom they think that Bill should get to know. Once Bill meets Joe, it doesn't matter what lack of absolute perfection any of Joe's friends had (or even what misconceptions they had about Joe). Introducing Bill to Joe was all that mattered. They can still go to Joe's friends (now Bill's friends) to get some background information on Joe, but it's best to ask Joe to back up what his friends were saying about him. I'm not going to stretch the analogy any further than that, but this is what it points to: our faith is in Jesus, whom we have met because of the testimony of a few of Jesus' human, imperfect, but honest friends.

your right, salvation does not requier that you acept the bible as true, i'd not get into this argument if it was a mixed board as what's most important is the Love that's freely avalable to anyone who repents and acepts Jesus as Lord... but not having the bible leads you down a path of servatude to the flesh, the antithisis of living by faith.

disbelief of the bible is something that should not be spread, espshaly not as a matter of faith! It's the work of lucifer and i think romans 1 explaines those who worship nature *or rather have a faith in the infalability of mans opservations of nature* as the anti-biblical faithfull have sugested.

I started posting as a very moderate person, but the faithfully anti-biblical have cornerd me into a pointless faith vs. faith argument... because they are afraid that the logic and functionality argument is a failing one for them.

He forgets that Paul knew Jesus outside the living person Jesus and outside the Bible, since Paul's letters hadn't been written yet when Paul knew the Risen Jesus.

<scarcasm>i'm sorry lulu, i didn't know you had constant domasucs road experences to give you the direct word of God.. man, sorry! someone who God constantly comes to like that sure does deserve enough respect so as to allow him to speak as the word of God outside the bible</scarcasm> but if this is true, watch out, last guy who was talking like that started the mormon cult.

 

[lucaspa]

disbelief of the bible is something that should not be spread, espshaly not as a matter of faith! It's the work of lucifer and i think romans 1 explaines those who worship nature *or rather have a faith in the infalability of mans opservations of nature* as the anti-biblical faithfull have sugested.

You didn't read my post that shows that Romans 1 doesn't say this, did you? Go back up and read it, please.

I started posting as a very moderate person, but the faithfully anti-biblical have cornerd me into a pointless faith vs. faith argument... because they are afraid that the logic and functionality argument is a failing one for them.

Actually, the logic and functionality argument is working just fine. What we have done is something that needs to be done: creationism is really bad theology! However bad creationism is as science, it is infinitely worse as theology. Rather than being an aid to Christianity, creationism is an aid to atheism.

<scarcasm>i'm sorry lulu, i didn't know you had constant domasucs road experences to give you the direct word of God.. man, sorry! someone who God constantly comes to like that sure does deserve enough respect so as to allow him to speak as the word of God outside the bible</scarcasm>

Are you saying you have had such an experience? Notice that Paul never claimed that God continually talked to him. The Damascus road experience was a one-time thing. Again, please read your Bible. If you are going to claim the Bible is true, then you can't go around passing off your untrue statements about the Bible as the Bible itself!

Paul is a very impressive person. He made up a religion from scratch. That's pretty impressive. He grafted bits of Judaism onto what he understood about Jesus and then preached the amalgamation to Gentiles that didn't know a thing about Judaism!

However, a Rule of Interpretation is to understand the historical context. Paul was writing specific letters to specific churches with specific problems. However, we don't have those specific problems, only hints of them in the letters. It's very dangerous to generalize from a letter that is meant to be specific. As a friend told me: taking Paul as universal would be like taking the Session minutes of a particular Presbyterian church and making them Scripture.

but if this is true, watch out, last guy who was talking like that started the mormon cult.

Actually, one guy who talked like that started the Jesus cult. Jews look upon Jesus exactly as you look on Joseph Smith! Pot, meet kettle. Again!

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Actually, one guy who talked like that started the Jesus cult. Jews look upon Jesus exactly as you look on Joseph Smith! Pot, meet kettle. Again!

yea, but one is based on God and the other on man.

It's odd to me that you so viametly defend not trying to be Godly, insult the devine insparation of paul, and then mis-quote him to justify doing exactly what he spoke against.

no matter, just go about your wonderfull evangelical campaign and i'll go about mine.

 

[lucaspa]

yea, but one is based on God and the other on man.

Not according to the Jews. To them, both are based on men.

Magus, this is another place where you are unable to distinguish between belief and knowledge.

Having a belief is OK. Pretending that belief is absolute universal knowledge and condemning anyone not of your belief is tyranny. The US was founded by people who had memories of what this type of tyranny could do in the Reformation Wars. They had also come from a country who taxed anyone not of the Anglican faith just because they were not of the Anglican faith.

It's odd to me that you so viametly defend not trying to be Godly, insult the devine insparation of paul, and then mis-quote him to justify doing exactly what he spoke against.

Nice assertion, but would you kindly back this up with some reasoned argument? I showed, with the words of Paul, how you misquoted Paul, but you just asssert without evidence. Read the thread A Discussion about Discussions. You are not discussing.

Once again, when I argue Biblically, I get flamed. I don't get an opposite Biblical argument. I have to wonder just what Bible you are reading. I think it is the "Magus" bible, not the real one.

 

[lucaspa]

but not having the bible leads you down a path of servatude to the flesh, the antithisis of living by faith.

Adam didn't have the Bible. Did he lead a life of servitude to the flesh? Moses didn't have the Bible, according to you. Did he go down a path of servitude to the flesh.

Buddha, Gandhi, Marcus Aurelius (a leading Stoic), Aristotle, and Plato, to name just a few, did not have the Bible. Yet all of them denied the flesh.

Magnus, you simply have to learn to test your statements before you make them. You would save yourself a lot of embarrassment.

disbelief of the bible is something that should not be spread, espshaly not as a matter of faith!

But no one here is spreading disbelief of the Bible. We are just trying to make sure your warped version of the Bible isn't believed.

It's the work of lucifer and i think romans 1 explaines those who worship nature *or rather have a faith in the infalability of mans opservations of nature* as the anti-biblical faithfull have sugested.

But that isn't what Romans 1 says. That is what we mean by a warped view of the Bible.

You never have addressed the issue that God created and thus what we study in nature is God. Why not? You keep calling it "man's observations". Well, when you look at the Bible, isn't it "man's observations" of the words that are there? Why is one OK and the other not?

I submit the difference is that you worship the Bible. The Bible is no longer messages from God, but to you the Bible is god. And nothing can challenge your god. Therefore anything we say to challenge your interpretation of the Bible -- your god -- is treated as blasphemy.

Now, would you care to discuss this? Denial is not sufficient. I expect you will deny. But what I want to see is a reasoned discussion about why the idea that you worship the Bible is wrong. I want to see you explain why nature isn't also from God. I want to see you explain why man's observations of nature isn't also reading a book of God. And explain why some men's observations of what the Bible says is really, truly, what the Bible says and how you know it is. You have said that your Biblical interpretation could be wrong. But you never admit anywhere that it is wrong.

I started posting as a very moderate person, but the faithfully anti-biblical

That's false witness. No one here is "faithfully anti-biblical".