Denying all evidence

[Sphinx777]

.​

Why Do You Support Global Communism?​

​

.​

 

[Jase]

So, how do you know about Jesus, Jase? You can call me names and keep throwing ad homs my way but it does not change the fact of where you got your knowledge of the one that you call your Lord and Savior.

I had an epiphany - happy?

 

[Hentenza]

I had an epiphany - happy?

In other words you don't want to reply simply because the logical answer goes against what you mistakenly believe. Oh, the horror.

 

[Jase]

In other words you don't want to reply simply because the logical answer goes against what you mistakenly believe. Oh, the horror.

Nope, I don't ever recall reading the NT when I became Messianic. How about you just get to the point of why you keep asking this question? The Bible is not 1 book. Genesis can be 100% wrong, and it has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of any other book. Every book of the Bible is independent.

 

[Hentenza]

Nope, I don't ever recall reading the NT when I became Messianic.

I didn't ask you how you became messianic, I asked you how do you know about Jesus Christ.

How about you just get to the point of why you keep asking this question?

You haven't gotten it yet?

The Bible is not 1 book. Genesis can be 100% wrong, and it has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of any other book. Every book of the Bible is independent.

Nope. Wrong again. Without Genesis, Exodus would make no sense. Without Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy would make no sense. Without the first 5 books the rest of the OT would make no sense. Without the OT the NT would make no sense. It is one bible. All encompassing.

 

[Jase]

Nope. Wrong again. Without Genesis, Exodus would make no sense. Without Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy would make no sense. Without the first 5 books the rest of the OT would make no sense. Without the OT the NT would make no sense. It is one bible. All encompassing.

Have it your way. We know as a 100% fact Genesis is not literal. The earth is not 6,000 years old, it was not created in 6 days, there was no Adam and Eve, and there most certainly was no global flood. Therefore, the entire Bible is worthless.

 

[rcorlew]

Have it your way. We know as a 100% fact Genesis is not literal. The earth is not 6,000 years old, it was not created in 6 days, there was no Adam and Eve, and there most certainly was no global flood. Therefore, the entire Bible is worthless.

Was the Bible written to be a science book, no but there are bits here and there; was the Bible written to be a history book, no but there is quite a bit of that; in order to make a claim on value you must first define the purpose.

 

[Jase]

Was the Bible written to be a science book, no but there are bits here and there; was the Bible written to be a history book, no but there is quite a bit of that; in order to make a claim on value you must first define the purpose.

Hentenza is the one trying to pawn it off as a flawless science book, not me.

 

[rcorlew]

Hentenza is the one trying to pawn it off as a flawless science book, not me.

I do see what you are saying and I know also what Hentenza has been saying as well. I suppose that in order to determine whether or not the Bible is inerrant (which is the jest of the debate as I see it) one must approach the matter from a much wider perspective that what is being employed in this debate. You must first understand an overarching principle of the Bible, it was written for the Jews, it was written for the early church, it is written for us now, and it is written for generations to come.

When faced with the task of determining whether or not any portion of the Bible is in error you must first define the purpose and the audience; does the audience have advanced knowledge or is it very limited. Bearing in mind that understanding of context, you can then define the purpose of the text, is it specifically written for the audience or is it written for us to have the same understanding as the audience. Specifically, is the Genesis account written to explain to a 21st century Christian how God did what He did, or is it also written for the 13th century Christian and the 5th century Christian as well as the 6th century BC Jew and post exodus Israelite as well. Taking special note of all the intended audiences, how could a single event (creation) be described to give the exact same meaning to all groups yet remain factually true all the same?

The problem you have with the Bible is not what the Bible itself says, but what others say that it says. For an example, you show me anywhere in the Bible that a claim of the age of the earth is made, not what some theologian has calculated it to be, use only the Bible itself (hint, it cannot be done)

 

[Jase]

I do see what you are saying and I know also what Hentenza has been saying as well. I suppose that in order to determine whether or not the Bible is inerrant (which is the jest of the debate as I see it) one must approach the matter from a much wider perspective that what is being employed in this debate. You must first understand an overarching principle of the Bible, it was written for the Jews, it was written for the early church, it is written for us now, and it is written for generations to come.

When faced with the task of determining whether or not any portion of the Bible is in error you must first define the purpose and the audience; does the audience have advanced knowledge or is it very limited. Bearing in mind that understanding of context, you can then define the purpose of the text, is it specifically written for the audience or is it written for us to have the same understanding as the audience. Specifically, is the Genesis account written to explain to a 21st century Christian how God did what He did, or is it also written for the 13th century Christian and the 5th century Christian as well as the 6th century BC Jew and post exodus Israelite as well. Taking special note of all the intended audiences, how could a single event (creation) be described to give the exact same meaning to all groups yet remain factually true all the same?

The problem you have with the Bible is not what the Bible itself says, but what others say that it says. For an example, you show me anywhere in the Bible that a claim of the age of the earth is made, not what some theologian has calculated it to be, use only the Bible itself (hint, it cannot be done)

You're right in that the Bible never directly claims Earth's age. That was based on what someone else decided based on the genealogies. However, for a literalist, that genealogy dating method is entirely accurate, which is why they believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old - which we know for a fact it isn't.

I believe Genesis, considering it was an Oral mythical song meant to convey a message to the Hebrews, was their description of how they understood the universe. I don't believe the Hebrews were being dishonest - it's merely that they had no clue what the Earth really looked like or how it operated. However, scientific evidence has proven without a doubt that their view of the universe was very wrong, which in turn makes Genesis scientifically in error.

Had God wanted the Bible to be inerrant and perfect - he would have 1) wrote the entire thing himself, and 2) He would described Genesis in scientific terminology including quantum theories, string theory, evolutionary theory, geophysics, etc.

Of course, no one except the Stephen Hawkings of the world would ever understand the majority it, let alone the primitive ancients, so it would have been pointless to employ such methods. Instead, God chose to allow the authors to explain the universe as they saw it, and use that story as a metaphor for greater theological meanings. That way, even the common man could glean value from it, without having to be a genius.

 

[7steps]

Have it your way. We know as a 100% fact Genesis is not literal. The earth is not 6,000 years old, it was not created in 6 days, there was no Adam and Eve, and there most certainly was no global flood. Therefore, the entire Bible is worthless.

Not that I am getting into this argument because I believe most of what we call the NT is just a commentary and it should be treated as so. Not scripture. That said why can't the Genesis account be literal. I think a major problem people are running into is (which am guilty of as well) is reading scripture from our already tainted view. We read it and understand it from our Christian colored glasses and the apply our understanding of science to it. We believe that it is either six days or 6 thousand years. That their were no humanoids besides Adam and Chawe and that it was a global flood. All which are English translation problems with Christian or rabbinical Jewdiistic glasses. I believe it has several layers. God was trying to explaining his plan of redemption using a factual accurate story. It seems like no one is taking into account the fact that time is relative. We did not know that 60 years ago- and most likely the people taking dictation from God did not know that either because it was not relevant. But with what we know about science now we can ask ourselves from who's perspective is the account in Gen 1 written from. Who was there at the beginning of time and space?, who was there at the beginning of the spiritual and the physical? Who was there witnessing the birth of galaxy and eventually after billions of our years the earth.
Something that was irrelevant to us seeing the bigger meaning of what God wanted us to know. Scripture is not trying to explain the details of science it is there to show us God's plan, The neat thing is that it is historically and scientifically accurate. And that shows us who we can trust and rely on.

Either way the more important thing to see is the 7 step plan God has for our redemption. From the beginning of Genesis to the same theme being carried out in the biblical stories, to his seven biblical feast, to history. Don't miss the big picture because you get hung up on things that we might not have full understanding of yet. Science had "proof" that the universe always existed until a scientific priest told them it did not. That it had a beginning as it states in scripture. Science did not know that time is relative until 60 years ago now we can see that it is accurate. The problem is not scripture, it is people failing to give in to their religious interpretation of it. Whether their religion is Christianity, Science or any other. Check out The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder, a man with doctoral degrees in nuclear physics and earth science from M.I.T., and check out Yada Yhaweh by Craig Winn and the Owners Manual by Ken Powers. These men (error prone humans) made me look at scripture differently. They made me question. They helped me think for myself. (I always have a problem with giving resources because people on forums read them and thinking that they are clever will argue points from the writings of these people assuming that I agree with everything they say. These people are not my God and and whether I agree or don't agree with their point of view they give everyone information to think about.) So I am not a follower of these people but I do read their work and the work of many others.

 

[Hentenza]

Have it your way. We know as a 100% fact Genesis is not literal. The earth is not 6,000 years old, it was not created in 6 days, there was no Adam and Eve, and there most certainly was no global flood. Therefore, the entire Bible is worthless.

So now the entire bible is worthless? Wow

You still have not answered the question. How do you know about Jesus?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Have it your way. We know as a 100% fact Genesis is not literal. The earth is not 6,000 years old, it was not created in 6 days, there was no Adam and Eve, and there most certainly was no global flood.

This is more or less true.

Therefore, the entire Bible is worthless.

This is not, though I suspect that's not your actual line of thought.

The books of the Bible are interdependent on one another, but Genesis, or at least the creation account, is certainly not literal. That does not mean it is invalid, nor does it mean the rest of the Bible falls apart.

 

[rcorlew]

You're right in that the Bible never directly claims Earth's age. That was based on what someone else decided based on the genealogies. However, for a literalist, that genealogy dating method is entirely accurate, which is why they believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old - which we know for a fact it isn't.

I believe Genesis, considering it was an Oral mythical song meant to convey a message to the Hebrews, was their description of how they understood the universe. I don't believe the Hebrews were being dishonest - it's merely that they had no clue what the Earth really looked like or how it operated. However, scientific evidence has proven without a doubt that their view of the universe was very wrong, which in turn makes Genesis scientifically in error.

Had God wanted the Bible to be inerrant and perfect - he would have 1) wrote the entire thing himself, and 2) He would described Genesis in scientific terminology including quantum theories, string theory, evolutionary theory, geophysics, etc.

Of course, no one except the Stephen Hawkings of the world would ever understand the majority it, let alone the primitive ancients, so it would have been pointless to employ such methods. Instead, God chose to allow the authors to explain the universe as they saw it, and use that story as a metaphor for greater theological meanings. That way, even the common man could glean value from it, without having to be a genius.

You are more right than you think, in reality you are very close to being exactly right. The only quirk is your view on inspiration of Scripture, God did not just have Joe Shmoe (sp) write the Bible, instead He picked somebody whom He had crafted through experiences and knowledge in order to give them the exact words to write. It would be like taking a baby and only exposing them to tennis with the goal that in all of their thoughts and communications would be based on tennis, they would undoubtedly relate everything to tennis with its boundaries and rules, points and serves back and forth. All that would then come out in their writing which is what the ultimate goal was, so it is the same as the potter with the clay, He molds our lives into the exact shape that fits His ultimate purpose, and I highly doubt that our purpose includes understanding the "how" of creation amongst other things.

 

[7steps]

You're right in that the Bible never directly claims Earth's age. That was based on what someone else decided based on the genealogies. However, for a literalist, that genealogy dating method is entirely accurate, which is why they believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old - which we know for a fact it isn't.

Pertinent human history is basically 6000 years old, but that has nothing to do with Earth's age. It has to do with human kind since the first human with a conscious to have a relationship with God.

I believe Genesis, considering it was an Oral mythical song meant to convey a message to the Hebrews, was their description of how they understood the universe. I don't believe the Hebrews were being dishonest - it's merely that they had no clue what the Earth really looked like or how it operated. However, scientific evidence has proven without a doubt that their view of the universe was very wrong, which in turn makes Genesis scientifically in error.

But it is not you don't have to know what you are writing about when you are taking dictation.

Had God wanted the Bible to be inerrant and perfect - he would have 1) wrote the entire thing himself,

He dictated it.[/QUOTE]

2) He would described Genesis in scientific terminology including quantum theories, string theory, evolutionary theory, geophysics, etc.

Why it was not a science book.
He was not trying to explain science.

Of course, no one except the Stephen Hawkings of the world would ever understand the majority it, let alone the primitive ancients, so it would have been pointless to employ such methods. Instead, God chose to allow the authors to explain the universe as they saw it, and use that story as a metaphor for greater theological meanings. That way, even the common man could glean value from it, without having to be a genius.

I agree except explain the universe as they saw it.

 

[7steps]

You are more right than you think, in reality you are very close to being exactly right. The only quirk is your view on inspiration of Scripture, God did not just have Joe Shmoe (sp) write the Bible, instead He picked somebody whom He had crafted through experiences and knowledge in order to give them the exact words to write. It would be like taking a baby and only exposing them to tennis with the goal that in all of their thoughts and communications would be based on tennis, they would undoubtedly relate everything to tennis with its boundaries and rules, points and serves back and forth. All that would then come out in their writing which is what the ultimate goal was, so it is the same as the potter with the clay, He molds our lives into the exact shape that fits His ultimate purpose, and I highly doubt that our purpose includes understanding the "how" of creation amongst other things.

You are more right than you think, in reality you are very close to being exactly right. The only quirk in your view is that God would not interfere with someone's free will. Their were people through scriptural history had a certain personality, and certain qualities that made them God's favorite but it does not mean that he controlled all their lives without them having free will. I suspect that you agree with this anyway.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Pertinent human history is basically 6000 years old, but that has nothing to do with Earth's age. It has to do with human kind since the first human with a conscious to have a relationship with God.

You don't consider ancient Egyptian civilization (which goes back > 6,000 years) and the neolithic era (which goes WAY farther back than 6,000 years) pertinent?

 

[sfs]

But you claim to follow Jesus by self identifying as a Christian, surely you must have learned about him from somewhere. You see, your arguments are self defeating and untenable. The more you deny scripture the more you deny the very source of the knowledge of the one you call your Lord and Savior. Is a slipper slope you are on Jase.

I've seen this kind of argument many times, but it has never worked for me. Perhaps you can explain it more clearly. In particular, you could address several problems I have with it.

First, the approach it represents ("believe in Jesus because we have an infallible book that talks about him", roughly speaking) strikes me as thoroughly unbiblical. The New Testament pattern is that people repent because of the work of the Holy Spirit, upon hearing the gospel preached. Nowhere does Jesus say, "I will give you an infallible book, and it will tell everything you need to know about me." What he does say is to preach the good news, and that he will give us the Holy Spirit who will guide us into all truth. And that's how most people actually come to believe: they respond to being told about Jesus, whether by ministers or priests, by parents, or by friends. Almost no one believes because they first become convinced that the Bible is infallible.

To be sure, much (but by no means all) of the content of what is preached as gospel comes from the Bible. Clearly, the existence of the New Testament and the authority given to it keeps succeeding generations from gradually changing the content of the gospel beyond all recognition -- but the NT is not unique in that regard. Various creeds, theological traditions and church structures have played and continue to play a similar role.

After all, the gospel was preached before there was a New Testament, and the New Testament was largely based on that preaching. Consistency between a book's teaching and the gospel as it was widely believed in the church was the basis for deciding whether the book belonged in the canon of the NT, so both in theory and in practice it was the content of the gospel that gave authority to the NT, and not the other way around. I think the NT has an important role to play in maintaining the consistency of the gospel, but I don't see why that role makes it and not the Nicene Creed infallible.

Second, the argument as I usually see it -- we have to believe that the Bible is infallible, or we won't have any reason to believe in Jesus Christ -- doesn't actually make sense to me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding it, but what the argument seems to be saying that I should believe the Bible to be true, because I want what the Bible says to be true. That's obviously not a good reason for believing anything. I suppose it could simply be an argument for consistency -- how can you believe in Jesus if you don't believe the source that tells us about him -- but that strikes me as more of an argument against believing in Jesus than an argument in favor of believing the Bible.

Finally, there's the simple point that believing something a book tells us does not entail believing the book to be infallible. I have no real doubt that the gospels tell us some true things about what Jesus did and said, while finding it very unlikely that they're completely accurate records. Why is that a problem? I have a book on my shelf called Two Lives of Charlemagne. One life is by a contemporary of Charlemagne, and contains much accurate information; the other was written later, and has some basic facts right, but also has a great deal of legendary matter. Between them, they tell me a lot about the real Charlemagne, but neither of them is infallible. Why should the Bible have to be infallible in order to tell us something about Jesus?

 

[7steps]

You don't consider ancient Egyptian civilization (which goes back > 6,000 years) and the neolithic era (which goes WAY farther back than 6,000 years) pertinent?

It is not me not considering it. It is scripture not considering it. Scriptures history of man with the ability to have a relationship with God starts at the fall of man. We don't even know how long Adam and Chawa were in the garden. Scripture gives us what is pertinent to our salvation. Scripture is not about homo-sapiens or any other humanoids in general. And the 6,000 year timeline is not concerned with civilization. It is about salvation and redemption not a blow by blow account of all of human history. Scripture is God's story of the control group in humanity the Jews. Scriptures main purpose is to show us his first relationship with man how it fell and how we can get it back. Not the history of Asia, Egypt, America, Africa or any other. When they are mentioned if they are mentioned it is in relationship to the redemptive plan.

 

[Dark_Lite]

It is not me not considering it. It is scripture not considering it. Scriptures history of man with the ability to have a relationship with God starts at the fall of man. We don't even know how long Adam and Chawa were in the garden. Scripture gives us what is pertinent to our salvation. Scripture is not about homo-sapiens or any other humanoids in general. And the 6,000 year timeline is not concerned with civilization. It is about salvation and redemption not a blow by blow account of all of human history. Scripture is God's story of the control group in humanity the Jews. Scriptures main purpose is to show us his first relationship with man how it fell and how we can get it back. Not the history of Asia, Egypt, America, Africa or any other. When they are mentioned if they are mentioned it is in relationship to the redemptive plan.

Your viewpoint seems to be a less extreme version of the OEC hypothesis that the Earth is old, but was only recently "recreated" 6,000 years ago. What is your opinion on evolutionary theory?