Dinosaurs/Dragons

[DynamicDrummer]

You missed the point. Does the Holy Spirit lie? Of course not! Then why did the Holy Spirit inspire the Church to not declare the Bible 100% literally infallible and instead only declare it so in terms of religion (salvation, doctrine, and faith)? Why also did the Holy Spirit inspire the Church to interpret the Scriptures non-literally when applicable?

That's the point. Did the Holy Spirit lie? I don't think so; He cannot lie for He is God the Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

If you say that He does lie, then the following happens:

1. You accept all heresies condemned by the Church as authentic Christianity
2. You deny the authority God gave to the Apostles, the first bishops in the Church
3. You accept that Christianity disappeared immediately after Jesus
4. You accept that the day of Pentecost was a fraud
5. You deny that Christianity existed until only ~100 years ago.

Pretty powerful consequences. So did the Holy Spirit lie?

No, the Holy Spirit does not lie. But you are saying that your church is right along with what the Holy Spirit says. When Martin Luther sparked the reformation, Luther was right about being saved by grace and not by works. However they forgot to look at their eschatology and see the things that the Catholic Church tweaked. A lot of Christians were burned at the stake for holding the claim that salvation is by faith alone and not by works. It is offensive to say to a Roman Catholic/Anglican, etc. that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. You rely on what your church says to be right. I rely on what the bible says to be right. If the church I was going to right now starting teaching something other than what the bible explicitally taught, then I would either leave, or confront he/she for what they are saying. What you are trying to get me to do is disagree with you, and thus since you think everything in your church teaches is right, you'll blame me for calling the Holy Spirit a liar.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Bwahahahaha..I can't believe you just said that !

LOL...this guy is excellent. But yeah, he does have a point about us arguing and arguing. Instead of arguing, we need to be out winnings souls. Yes, I am preaching to myself too when I say this.

 

[jameseb]

Nice work, Alternate Carpark.

 

[PaladinValer]

No, the Holy Spirit does not lie. But you are saying that your church is right along with what the Holy Spirit says.

Since it does abide by the Ecumenical Councils, I would say it is. Fair statment.

When Martin Luther sparked the reformation, Luther was right about being saved by grace and not by works.

Since Catholicism doesn't say works alone, I don't see the difference. In fact, both Lutherans and Catholics believe that it is only by the Grace of God that people are saved. If you don't believe me, go right over to OBOB and ask any of the Catholics there, as many of them are quite conservative. They'll tell you exactly what I am telling you now.

However they forgot to look at their eschatology and see the things that the Catholic Church tweaked.

Um, Lutherans are amillennialists just like the Catholics.

A lot of Christians were burned at the stake for holding the claim that salvation is by faith alone and not by works. It is offensive to say to a Roman Catholic/Anglican, etc. that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven.

Oh where is that rolling-eye emoticon? This is totally rediculous.

You rely on what your church says to be right. I rely on what the bible says to be right.

And what did you think the Early Church taught? That Jesus' divinity is more important than His humanity? Or that Jesus was a man who was adopted by God upon His baptism?

Who declared these to be heresies? The Church. Yet what was the source of these heresies? Unfortunately, the Holy Bible. Not because the Bible is wrong or fallable in matters of salvation, doctrine, and faith, but because the heretics, who claimed to have the Holy Spirit as well, interpreted the Scriptures incorrectly. The Holy Spirit gave the Church authority; there's no way out of it.

If the church I was going to right now starting teaching something other than what the bible explicitally taught, then I would either leave, or confront he/she for what they are saying.

Yet what did the Holy Spirit influence the Early Church to believe? If the Early Church taught even one thing that they shouldn't have, then the Holy Spirit must have lied. But since the Early Church declared the very basis of orthodoxy with the aid of the Holy Spirit, they couldn't have been wrong; their doctrines were pure.

Now what if those inspired doctrines are against your interpretation? There's the problem. By disagreeing, it is saying the Early Church was wrong and wasn't inspired. If the Church wasn't inspired, then how are the Gnostics, the Arians, and the Montanists heretics? Without authority, the Church couldn't condemn their doctrines and their beliefs that were clearly against Scripture.

And yes, I said Scripture. The Early Church used Scripture in their debates; the same Scripture you, I, and everyone else here reads. They didn't have "Tradition" yet! They used the Holy Bible to show where the heretics were wrong, what is required for salvation, and what the nature of the Eucharist is. And it was all inspired by the Holy Spirit.

So Tradition is simply what the Holy Spirit inspired the Church to set as orthodox. And without these Traditions, Christianity wouldn't have survived; the "Church" would have been in utter chaos, and God isn't the Author of confusion. He is the Author of Order and the Author of Law. No Law=No God.

What you are trying to get me to do is disagree with you, and thus since you think everything in your church teaches is right, you'll blame me for calling the Holy Spirit a liar.

No. I'm trying to show you how you need to get a firm grasp on the Early Church and what the Holy Spirit directed it to teach and state as orthodox doctrine and faith. It has nothing to do with "my church" or "your church" or "anyone's church." It has everything to do with Christianity.

 

[PaladinValer]

In response to pthalomarie's link
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/bible/flatearth.htm

**cut for length and for brevity**

You missed the entire reason for the posting of that link. It was to show how a 100% literalist reading of the Bible can only come to the conclusion of a flat Earth. The poster of the link didn't believe the Earth is flat because the poster isn't a literalist. The link was to disprove a literalist reading, not prove it.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Since it does abide by the Ecumenical Councils, I would say it is. Fair statment.


Since Catholicism doesn't say works alone, I don't see the difference. In fact, both Lutherans and Catholics believe that it is only by the Grace of God that people are saved. If you don't believe me, go right over to OBOB and ask any of the Catholics there, as many of them are quite conservative. They'll tell you exactly what I am telling you now.


Um, Lutherans are amillennialists just like the Catholics.


Oh where is that rolling-eye emoticon? This is totally rediculous.


And what did you think the Early Church taught? That Jesus' divinity is more important than His humanity? Or that Jesus was a man who was adopted by God upon His baptism?

Who declared these to be heresies? The Church. Yet what was the source of these heresies? Unfortunately, the Holy Bible. Not because the Bible is wrong or fallable in matters of salvation, doctrine, and faith, but because the heretics, who claimed to have the Holy Spirit as well, interpreted the Scriptures incorrectly. The Holy Spirit gave the Church authority; there's no way out of it.


Yet what did the Holy Spirit influence the Early Church to believe? If the Early Church taught even one thing that they shouldn't have, then the Holy Spirit must have lied. But since the Early Church declared the very basis of orthodoxy with the aid of the Holy Spirit, they couldn't have been wrong; their doctrines were pure.

Now what if those inspired doctrines are against your interpretation? There's the problem. By disagreeing, it is saying the Early Church was wrong and wasn't inspired. If the Church wasn't inspired, then how are the Gnostics, the Arians, and the Montanists heretics? Without authority, the Church couldn't condemn their doctrines and their beliefs that were clearly against Scripture.

And yes, I said Scripture. The Early Church used Scripture in their debates; the same Scripture you, I, and everyone else here reads. They didn't have "Tradition" yet! They used the Holy Bible to show where the heretics were wrong, what is required for salvation, and what the nature of the Eucharist is. And it was all inspired by the Holy Spirit.

So Tradition is simply what the Holy Spirit inspired the Church to set as orthodox. And without these Traditions, Christianity wouldn't have survived; the "Church" would have been in utter chaos, and God isn't the Author of confusion. He is the Author of Order and the Author of Law. No Law=No God.


No. I'm trying to show you how you need to get a firm grasp on the Early Church and what the Holy Spirit directed it to teach and state as orthodox doctrine and faith. It has nothing to do with "my church" or "your church" or "anyone's church." It has everything to do with Christianity.

Tradition isn't the cause for Christianity surviving. Without people going out a preaching the gospel, there would be no Christianity. Lemme ask just one thing. If you were to leave your church and say just start going to a Calvary Chapel of whereever, would you still end up in heaven if you were to die attending that church? And by the way, most Catholics believe (in fact I lead one Catholic to Christ about a year ago), at least where I live, that you cannot get to heaven unless you get baptised, participate in Mass, the Sacraments, etc. One more question I need to ask you. Say you were standing outside of heaven's gate and in order to get in you have to make a list of why you should be let in. What would you put on that list? Oh and by the way, I KNOW that Lutherans are amillennialists. That was my whole point of saying that they forgot to look at their eschatology because if they would have revised it, they wouldn't be amillennialists. Are you an amillennialist? I would guess so because you allegorize scripture. And by the way, all these things about creeds or whatever, I have no idea what those are. So if I'm breaking all of them, well then, shoot a monkey.

 

[PaladinValer]

Tradition isn't the cause for Christianity surviving.

Most historians would disagree with you, myself being one of them

Without people going out a preaching the gospel, there would be no Christianity.

Which Gospel? The Gospel of orthodoxy or the Gospel of heresy?

Lemme ask just one thing. If you were to leave your church and say just start going to a Calvary Chapel of whereever, would you still end up in heaven if you were to die attending that church?

I know something actually of Calvary Chapel. I went there for three services and studied its history for a year. This isn't the forum to discuss my findings, but to give two problems: montanism and modalism (partly at the very least).

However, it isn't my job to Judge another's salvation; that's the Judge's job. And those who Judge shall be thusly Judged. Therefore, I leave it to God's capable hands. Not my place to tell people "you're going to heaven" or "you're going to hell."

by the way, most Catholics believe (in fact I lead one Catholic to Christ about a year ago), at least where I live, that you cannot get to heaven unless you get baptised, participate in Mass, the Sacraments, etc.

Three possibilities:

1. You are misquoting/misunderstanding what they are telling you (which is, by far, the most probable)
2. That isn't a member of the actual Catholic Church, which is based in the Vatican. There are many churches that claim to be the Catholic Church but are not in Communion with the Holy See of the Vatican (this is a minor possibility)
3. These Catholics have no clue on what they are talking about since what you've said is contradictory to Catholic doctrine and belief (pretty much impossible). If you think I'm wrong in saying this, I challenge you to go to OBOB and ask the Catholics yourself.

One more question I need to ask you. Say you were standing outside of heaven's gate and in order to get in you have to make a list of why you should be let in. What would you put on that list?

What does this have to do with the subject?

Oh and by the way, I KNOW that Lutherans are amillennialists. That was my whole point of saying that they forgot to look at their eschatology because if they would have revised it, they wouldn't be amillennialists. Are you an amillennialist? I would guess so because you allegorize scripture.

The Holy Spirit inspired the Church to condemn chiliasm as a heresy in the 2nd (some say the 3rd; probably condemned twice) Ecumenical Council(s). That is why Lutherans, Catholics, and Anglicans (among with 99.99% other Christians since Pentecost) reject premillennialism.

And by the way, all these things about creeds or whatever, I have no idea what those are. So if I'm breaking all of them, well then, shoot a monkey.

Um, you realize you must agree with the Nicene Creed in order to post in the Christian-only section here on Christian Forums?

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Seriously, you need to lighten up. The Gospel means "good news", in that Christ came to die for the sins of the world. That's what I try and tell people whenever I can if I don't chicken out or nothing.

 

[PaladinValer]

The Gnostics hold the Bible to be Holy; so did the Arians and the Apollinarians. Yet they are heretics. They use the Gospel to preach, yet their's isn't the "True Gospel" because they aren't members of the Church. They are outside of it unlike all those baptized in Triune fashion (and the Catholics recognize this) and unlike those who don't follow heresy.

They aren't Christians. Therefore, St. Paul warned those not accept a false gospel. The false gospel he was probably referring to was that of the Circumcisionists. The same would go for any other heresy.

 

[Alternate Carpark]

DynamicDrummer and jamesb, why thankyou. I hope you had as much fun reading it as I had writing it.

Don't worry I'm not judging anyone who argues, I used to do it too
I know how passionate we can become with arguing, it sadly can become an addiction though.

I mean there's nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in, but I have since learnt that if my words aint getting through, then it's time to just walk away and let people believe whatever they want to believe.

That's what Jesus told the disciples to do when He sent them out on their first missionary exercise. He said, "If they welcome you not, tap the dust off your feet and leave their house "

But because it's 4 am and I can't sleep, I needed to practice my typing and deductive skills.

You missed the entire reason for the posting of that link. It was to show how a 100% literalist reading of the Bible can only come to the conclusion of a flat Earth.

1: And didn't she do a terrible job at it !
2: Actually, no ! It is you who has missed the point of why pthalomarie posted the link.
What was her reason for the link ?

This is an article seeking to prove that the argument for a flat earth is based in scripture. There is no one verse he uses, but rather a series of verses.

2: Seems to me that she was trying to prove that the bible is full of errors, which by her effort only showed how much her argument was full of errors.
but hey, I'm not judging her, we all are imperfect and are prone to make mistakes.

The poster of the link didn't believe the Earth is flat because the poster isn't a literalist. The link was to disprove a literalist reading, not prove it.

You do seem to speak for pthalomarie alot.
Plus thankyou for clearing that up for me, because for a moment there I thought she did think the earth was flat.
You sure have this obsession about literalist..let me just check my dictionary...hang on...

Okay, bare with me here
1: You claim she doesn't believe the earth is flat because she isn't a literalist.
Yet she uses literality to prove her point that the earth is flat, going by her literal analysis of the bible.
So this is like me using logic to prove that logic is illogical.
How can I use something that I classify as invalid as the means to prove it as invalid ?

Logically, that means the thing I wish to claim as invalid now becomes valid because I used it to prove it's invalidity.

2: You then state that pthalomarie posted the link to disprove the concept of literal interpretation of the bible.
But my previous post, the analysis of her link, showed quite easily and logically how wrong her "analysis" of the scriptures led her to believe that the earth is flat.

But of course you did not mention any of that.
You just started going on about literality. I mean, I am new to all this.
Is there another way to interpret the bible or any other works of literature ?

 

[PaladinValer]

1: And didn't she do a terrible job at it !
2: Actually, no ! It is you who has missed the point of why pthalomarie posted the link.
What was her reason for the link ?

1. She did an excellent job
2. To show that a literalist reading of the Bible depicts a flat Earth.

2: Seems to me that she was trying to prove that the bible is full of errors, which by her effort only showed how much her argument was full of errors.
but hey, I'm not judging her, we all are imperfect and are prone to make mistakes.

Even the Early Church, as I've posted now many times now, knew that a literal reading of the Bible showed a flat Earth. Does that make the Bible "wrong?" No. Why? Because they knew that the Bible was only authoritative in matters of doctrine, faith, and salvation. Their's was a Godly religion, not a worldly one.

1: You claim she doesn't believe the earth is flat because she isn't a literalist.

Yet she uses literality to prove her point that the earth is flat, going by her literal analysis of the bible.
So this is like me using logic to prove that logic is illogical.
How can I use something that I classify as invalid as the means to prove it as invalid ?

You are saything that she doesn't believe in the Bible. That's false. What she obviously doesn't believe is that a 100% literal reading of the Bible is true.

Logically, that means the thing I wish to claim as invalid now becomes valid because I used it to prove it's invalidity.

That has no bearing because she doesn't not believe in the Bible.

**Ignores the rest since its based on the absurd and cruel notion that no literal take of the Bible = not a Christian**

 

[pthalomarie]

What is an example of a BENEFICIAL mutation?

Here's an explanation for you:

http://info.bio.cmu.edu/Courses/03441/TermPapers/99TermPapers/GenEvo/mutation.htm

Okay, apparantly we are talking about two different gods here when the theistic evolutionists say that their god created the universe and it took millions and millions of years, because that god is a retarded god who can't get it right in the first place.

Why must God create everything in a hurry? I think it is far more impressive to imagine that God orchestrated creation over millions of years, than to think that He was over and done with it in six days, and hasn't created anything since.

Plus, if God did in fact create the universe in six days, you'll still have to account for why He was content to exist for trillions upon trillions of years in nothingness, creating nothing and not particularly interested in creating anything.

The point is, you're imposing your standards on God.

Also, this means you have death before sin.

All debates over sin and death in regards to Eden are purely speculative. Even if one assumes a literal interpretation, all we know is that until Genesis 3:19, Adam was immortal. We have no evidence that fruit didn't rot, or that animals did not eat each other, or that plants didn't die when Adam and Eve ate them.

The God that I worship is the God of the infalliable Bible,

The same is true of those who believe some scripture is intended as allegory. The error you're making is that you're assuming that allegory = falsehood, and that's not the way allegories work.

there is no contradictions in the bible

Read and compare the first two chapters of Genesis. You'll find that there are actually two creation stories. Otherwise, you're forced to admit that scripture contradicts itself from the beginning.

There is no error in God's Word.

I agree.

The Lord who made the heavens and earth in 6 literal days is the God of the Universe and forever will be.

Then you'll have to explain why our universe is millions of years old. Do you realize that when you look at the stars, you're not seeing them as they are now? Your actually seeing them as they existed millions of years ago; it takes so long for their light to reach us, that we may be looking at stars which no longer exist!

I assure you that you cannot get the interpretation that it took millions of years for God to get us here unless you have heard of evolution beforehand.

That's sort of like saying that you can't interpret cancer as a genetic problem unless you've heard of genetics. (In other words, of course it influences our judgement. Because it's true!) Anyhow, even if ignores evolution and biology, you still have to explain the age of the Earth and our solar system.

I can hand the bible out to a bunch of little kids, who haven't heard the theory of evolution yet, ask them to read the first chapter of Genesis and they will NOT say that it took millions of years for God to create the earth.

Well, for one, young children are incapable of understanding abstract concepts like time. If you've ever gone on a long trip with young child, you'd know what I'm talking about.

For two, it doesn't matter how kids would read it. The point is, scripture is something that you can't just read and figure out on your own. Context and instruction are neccessary in order to understand it.

My friend starting telling me how I was wrong about evolution and I had to keep an open mind about the whole issue of the lies in our high school textbooks, etc. He got me onto Dr. Kent Hovind, who wants nothing more than for people to be saved, and then I realized how wrong I was believing evolution.

Hovind doesn't so much want people to be saved, as he wants them to buy his books, tapes, and seminars. Others here have provided good evidence about how corrupt Hovind is. I'll add two more points that I think the other links understated:

First of all, Hovind got his diploma from a degree mill. Basically, the "campus" of the college he "graduated" from is a house on a suburban street that sells degrees for a fee. Hovind simply sent money in the mail, and instantly became a "college graduate".

Second of all, Hovind is an advocate of the book "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." This book is the one which inspired Hitler to kill all the Jews; it claims that Jews are conspiring to take over the world. Up until about two years ago, Hovind sold The Protocols on his website and promoted it at his seminars. He's since backed off from it, since it threatened his business. But last I checked, he still sells Jewish Conspiracy books on his site.

Look everyone, the reason I'm debating you guys is because I want to know why you believe what you believe. What are the advantages of believing in the theory of evolution to get us here? Seriously, if it would have an effect on morality, etc., why should I believe it?

It doesn't matter if there are "advantages" to evolution being true. It is true. What you're asking is like asking whether there's an advantage to having Greenland or Scotland on our planet. They're there! They exist! Whether we do anything with them is up to us.

And you can't play the "moral consequences" game, because man will always find ways to use anything and everything for sinful intentions inclusing the Bible.

And also can you show me ANYWHERE in the bible where a prophet, Jesus, etc. read the bible in an allegorical form?

Where scripture is quoted with scripture, generally, it is not those passages which could reveal much in the way of the allegory/literal debate. An exception would be Jesus citing Jonah, but the trouble with that is that He simply refers to Jonah in such a way that it can't be certain that He thought Jonah existed.

Oh and by the way, I KNOW that Lutherans are amillennialists. That was my whole point of saying that they forgot to look at their eschatology because if they would have revised it, they wouldn't be amillennialists. Are you an amillennialist? I would guess so because you allegorize scripture. And by the way, all these things about creeds or whatever, I have no idea what those are. So if I'm breaking all of them, well then, shoot a monkey.

If you're going claim that those who teach amillennialism are teaching falsehood, then you have to explain how Christianity could have survived for centuries, when it was the established teaching. Amillienialism dates all the way back to the beginning of the church; it did not fall out of favor until the late 1800's.

 

[pthalomarie]

Actually, no ! It is you who has missed the point of why pthalomarie posted the link.

What was her reason for the link ?

Sometimes one must apply Occam's Razor. The answer to this mystery so painfully obvious, that it is far less exciting than the speculation which has ensued.

Simply put, Dynamic asked for the proof texts that flat-earthers use, and I found him a flat earther's answer.

Seems to me that she was trying to prove that the bible is full of errors, which by her effort only showed how much her argument was full of errors.

I wasn't trying to prove anything. It was a service requested and fulfilled. Sometimes I don't think it's neccessary to plaster my approval or disapproval on an article; I feel as though the silliness of it all speaks for itself.

As for the whole "Bible is full of errors" silliness, I don't suppose it's occurred to you that "errors" only become an issue if one insists upon literalism? In other words, one cannot say that the Bible is full of errors and also take an allegorical stance, because the heart of allegory is to say that spirit and message of the story is more important than the actual events themselves.

 

[Alternate Carpark]

Sometimes one must apply Occam's Razor.

Sometimes

The answer to this mystery so painfully obvious, that it is far less exciting than the speculation which has ensued.

Forgive me for speculating, but I was just trying to fit in , you know, the whole "being accepted by your peers" thing.

Simply put, Dynamic asked for the proof texts that flat-earthers use, and I found him a flat earther's answer.

Um...going by my response to it in the earlier post...you didn't even come close to providing an answer.

I wasn't trying to prove anything.

This is an article seeking to prove that the argument for a flat earth is based in scripture. There is no one verse he uses, but rather a series of verses.

Okay, so apologies will be forthcoming if you declare that you don't agree with the article from the link, because I mistakenly thought you had written the article ( my bad).
Otherwise you must then agree with the article's woeful attempt at interpreting scripture, which was done to "prove" something thus meaning that if you agree with it then you pasted the link to "prove" your point.

Or, the third option, you don't care about anything in this thread and are merely in here to post relevant information for people.
So, let me know which it is, I am humble enough to apologise if I have erred

As for the whole "Bible is full of errors" silliness, I don't suppose it's occurred to you that "errors" only become an issue if one insists upon literalism?

Actually the biblical way to interpret scripture is neither "literal" nor "allegorical", and if people would only follow God's perfect way to do it, we wouldn't have these pointless and unproductive debates. As a matter of fact, we wouldn't have 2000 variations of Christianity either, otherwise known as Denominations.

 

[Alternate Carpark]

1. She did an excellent job

Your entitled to believe that if you desire, but for some reason that's not a convincing argument, well for me it isn't.

2. To show that a literalist reading of the Bible depicts a flat Earth.

See you're still avoiding my initial analysis of that article. That article does not show a literalist ( there's that word again ) view that the bible states the earth is flat.
My friend , all that article shows is that whoever wrote it is not a Literalist, but merely Illiterate. So no matter if you are a literalist or a (what's the other one ), an allegoricalist, it wont help you none if you can't simply read what's in front of you.

Even the Early Church, as I've posted now many times now, knew that a literal reading of the Bible showed a flat Earth.

Post your brains out ! that again is not a convincing argument that you are correct, or the information in those posts are correct. That article has blatently misinterpreted the scriptures. And I'll say it again, I'm still waiting for a rebuttal to my analysis of that article, although I figure I may be waiting a while.

Does that make the Bible "wrong?" No. Why? Because they knew that the Bible was only authoritative in matters of doctrine, faith, and salvation. Their's was a Godly religion, not a worldly one.

Okay, you've lost, What are you on about here.
1: the bible is never wrong..Why ? God "wrote" the bible.
2: God is never wrong.
So what's actually wrong here then ? Two things.

1: Humans ability to be wrong, seeing as we are imperfect beings, unlike God and His word. So when someone states that the bible declares that the earth is flat, the LOGICAL and CORRECT answer is...........MISINTERPRETATION by fallible humans.
WHY ???
Fact:--The earth isn't flat.
Fact:--God is error free.
Fact:--Humans make errors.
Conclusion:-- Whoever states that the bible says that the earth is flat is in error.

2: The next big error people make is that they now believe evidence that contradicts the word of God. So instead of believing that the word of God is the undisputed truth about everything and thus all "new" evidence and discoveries should be checked against the word of God to validate if these "new" facts are indeed true, instead what they do is take the "new" facts and regard them as absolute truth and then compare the word of God against said "new" facts, and if the bible doesn't agree with the "new" facts, then either the bible is wrong or they "MISINTERPRET" the scriptures to match the "new" facts.

Thus all these people are doing is replacing the truth of God with lies.
Which, by the way, people are free to do as they have been free to do since the garden of eden.

You are saything that she doesn't believe in the Bible. That's false. What she obviously doesn't believe is that a 100% literal reading of the Bible is true.

There's that word "literal" again, plus until pthalomarie can clarify what she believes in, I make no accusations against her, or mean her any disrespect and how much of a percentage of a literalist is she if not 100% ?

That has no bearing because she doesn't not believe in the Bible.

It would have been easier for you to say "She does believe in the bible"

**Ignores the rest since its based on the absurd and cruel notion that no literal take of the Bible = not a Christian**

Actually I believe you ignored the rest because you can't understand what I was saying and thus give a decent rebuttal. And stop going on about literal all the time, can't you just let it go just for a minute.

Look let's cut to the chase here, the article about the bible states that the earth is flat, you remember the one.
I posted an analysis on it showing how the interpretation of the scriptures was grossly inaccurate.
I would appreciate a rebuttal of my findings please.
And please don't start with the literal allegorical stuff. What are those anyway ,two more denominations that people worship instead of worshipping God ?

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Here's an explanation for you:

http://info.bio.cmu.edu/Courses/03441/TermPapers/99TermPapers/GenEvo/mutation.htm


Why must God create everything in a hurry? I think it is far more impressive to imagine that God orchestrated creation over millions of years, than to think that He was over and done with it in six days, and hasn't created anything since.

Plus, if God did in fact create the universe in six days, you'll still have to account for why He was content to exist for trillions upon trillions of years in nothingness, creating nothing and not particularly interested in creating anything.

The point is, you're imposing your standards on God.

Dude, God is OUTSIDE time, space, matter. There is no time in heaven. When you enter heaven, you are just there. There is no advancement in time in heaven.

All debates over sin and death in regards to Eden are purely speculative. Even if one assumes a literal interpretation, all we know is that until Genesis 3:19, Adam was immortal. We have no evidence that fruit didn't rot, or that animals did not eat each other, or that plants didn't die when Adam and Eve ate them.

You see? You have to assume that there was death. There was no sin before Adam sinned (by the way, that's my name!) haha....so anyways, here is a verse to back it up. "For by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; for in Adam all die..." 1 Corinth. 15:21-22a

The same is true of those who believe some scripture is intended as allegory. The error you're making is that you're assuming that allegory = falsehood, and that's not the way allegories work.

I never said that and I don't assume it. I'm just saying that there are some parts of scripture where I don't see why there is a need of an allegorical interpretation.

Read and compare the first two chapters of Genesis. You'll find that there are actually two creation stories. Otherwise, you're forced to admit that scripture contradicts itself from the beginning.

Chapter two is a description of inside the Garden of Eden.

Then you'll have to explain why our universe is millions of years old. Do you realize that when you look at the stars, you're not seeing them as they are now? Your actually seeing them as they existed millions of years ago; it takes so long for their light to reach us, that we may be looking at stars which no longer exist!

When God made the stars etc. on the fourth day, He could have easily allowed the light to shine on the earth immediately. And light is not constant. In fact light has been slowing down over the years. If you want some proof for this, let me know.

That's sort of like saying that you can't interpret cancer as a genetic problem unless you've heard of genetics. (In other words, of course it influences our judgement. Because it's true!) Anyhow, even if ignores evolution and biology, you still have to explain the age of the Earth and our solar system.

I got the age of the universe right here for ya! Approx. 6,000 years old! Can ya believe it???

Well, for one, young children are incapable of understanding abstract concepts like time. If you've ever gone on a long trip with young child, you'd know what I'm talking about.

For two, it doesn't matter how kids would read it. The point is, scripture is something that you can't just read and figure out on your own. Context and instruction are neccessary in order to understand it.

I believe there is somewhere in the bible about having child-like faith....

Hovind doesn't so much want people to be saved, as he wants them to buy his books, tapes, and seminars. Others here have provided good evidence about how corrupt Hovind is. I'll add two more points that I think the other links understated:

First of all, Hovind got his diploma from a degree mill. Basically, the "campus" of the college he "graduated" from is a house on a suburban street that sells degrees for a fee. Hovind simply sent money in the mail, and instantly became a "college graduate".

Second of all, Hovind is an advocate of the book "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." This book is the one which inspired Hitler to kill all the Jews; it claims that Jews are conspiring to take over the world. Up until about two years ago, Hovind sold The Protocols on his website and promoted it at his seminars. He's since backed off from it, since it threatened his business. But last I checked, he still sells Jewish Conspiracy books on his site.

I'm not going to take your word for that. I'll have to ask him...I'll call him up and I'll say, "Sup G?! Some hommies back in da' forums were sayin' some trash 'bout ya'. 'Dat true or nah?" (BTW...I have called him before!)

It doesn't matter if there are "advantages" to evolution being true. It is true. What you're asking is like asking whether there's an advantage to having Greenland or Scotland on our planet. They're there! They exist! Whether we do anything with them is up to us.

I'm sorry, but evolution has never occurred. Now, if you are talking about MICROevolution, then I'll agree with you, but anything other than that I'd say no.

And you can't play the "moral consequences" game, because man will always find ways to use anything and everything for sinful intentions inclusing the Bible.

Never played that before...is it kinda like Tic Tac Toe?

Where scripture is quoted with scripture, generally, it is not those passages which could reveal much in the way of the allegory/literal debate. An exception would be Jesus citing Jonah, but the trouble with that is that He simply refers to Jonah in such a way that it can't be certain that He thought Jonah existed.

So....are you kinda admitting that there is no person in the bible that reads off the scripture in an allegorical way?

If you're going claim that those who teach amillennialism are teaching falsehood, then you have to explain how Christianity could have survived for centuries, when it was the established teaching. Amillienialism dates all the way back to the beginning of the church; it did not fall out of favor until the late 1800's.

EASILY! People went out and told others that they have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Then they told them the good news about Christ paying the penalty for sins on the cross! And when people accepted Christ as their Saviour, then those new converts went out and told more people, etc. The thing about amillienialism... in Luke 1:32 when Gabriel told Mary she was going to have Jesus, he said "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God wil give Him the throne of His father David; v33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." Now has Jesus ever taken David's throne? **crowd of kids yell**No! Where is David's throne located at? **crowd of kids yell**In Jerusalem! Will Jesus come back to earth to sit on that throne? **crowd of kids yell**YES!

 

[seebs]

I believe there is somewhere in the bible about having child-like faith....

Yeah. But there's also something about loving God with your whole mind. Child-like faith, yes. Not child-like beliefs.

So....are you kinda admitting that there is no person in the bible that reads off the scripture in an allegorical way?

No. I'm admitting that there are very few cases in the Bible where you can tell at all how Scripture is being read, and in most cases, we simply cannot make any claims at all.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

No. I'm admitting that there are very few cases in the Bible where you can tell at all how Scripture is being read, and in most cases, we simply cannot make any claims at all.

SO GIVE ME THE SCRIPTURE! Where is a person in scripture reading off scripture and interpreting it in an allegorical way? Book, chapter, and verse. Where? In fact, all you'll find is Daniel, Jesus, etc. reading the scripture then taking it very literally.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Give me an example. <----what is this supposed to be? Peek-a-boo?

 

[seebs]

SO GIVE ME THE SCRIPTURE! Where is a person in scripture reading off scripture and interpreting it in an allegorical way? Book, chapter, and verse. Where? In fact, all you'll find is Daniel, Jesus, etc. reading the scripture then taking it very literally.

Did you even read what I wrote?

My point is that, when people read Scripture, you cannot tell how they interpret it, in many cases. Jesus could have meant His comment about death entering the world metaphorically or literally. It would have been the same either way. You can't tell.

All you can do is bring your preconceptions to it and assert that it must mean what you already decided it would mean.

Secondly... This is a dead end, and a red herring. You can't find a single example in the Bible of anyone understanding the world to be spherical, because they didn't. That doesn't mean we're wrong to disagree now.

The Bible is about faith and morals. Beyond that, it's a bit questionable.

Have you read Augustine's work on Genesis? If not, you should read it before continuing.