Dinosaurs/Dragons

[DynamicDrummer]

Did you even read what I wrote?

No sorry. I don't know how to read, only write. My R2 unit reads it for me and then beeps it back to me in a way that I can understand.... He gets a treat for that!

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.

Alright, give me the link. Is it long? If it is, I might have to charge up my R2 unit for an extended "reading" period...

 

[seebs]

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/religiousstudies/alaffey/Augustine-Genesis.htm

CHAPTER 19


On interpreting the mind of the sacred writer. Christians should not talk nonsense to unbelievers.

38. Let us suppose that in explaining the words, And God said, “Let there be light, “and light was made, one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of spiritual light65 in a spiritual crea-ture, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until un-erring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion pro-posed by man in his ignorance. On the other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion is unquestionably true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant something else no less true. And if the general drift of the passage shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teach-ing, the other, which he did intend, will not thereby be false; in-deed, it will be true and more worth knowing. On the other hand, if the tenor of the words of Scripture does not militate against our taking this teaching as the mind of the writer, we shall still have to enquire whether he could not have meant something else besides. And if we find that he could have meant something else also, it will not be clear which of the two mean-ings he intended. And there is no difficulty if he is thought to have wished both interpretations if both are supported by clear indications in the context.66
39. Usually, 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 ani-mals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a dis-graceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense 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 the 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 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 under-stand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.67

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Okay. But I have a question. Since you think Genesis is perhaps a myth and there are some things of the bible that are wrong, and there is a great many parts of the bible where you allegorize, then what about the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? What if all those books are myths? What if Jesus was just a symbol to strive after good? What if Jesus didn't really die on the cross and was raised from the dead? Are the four gospels myths? Do you take the what happened in the gospels literally?

 

[seebs]

Okay. But I have a question. Since you think Genesis is perhaps a myth and there are some things of the bible that are wrong, and there is a great many parts of the bible where you allegorize, then what about the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? What if all those books are myths? What if Jesus was just a symbol to strive after good? What if Jesus didn't really die on the cross and was raised from the dead? Are the four gospels myths? Do you take the what happened in the gospels literally?

This is a good question to ask. To answer: I believe the Bible never errs in matters of faith and morals. It can be wrong about the number of legs a grasshopper has (it is), or about what the smallest seed is (it got that wrong too), but not about the nature of Jesus.

Does that help?

To give an example, consider what Jesus said to the disciples about adultery. What He said was "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matthew 19:9).

Only... Maybe what He actually said was "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." (Mark 10:11)

So. Which of those did He say? Did He make an exception for fornication, or did He not?

It's a yes or no question.

But... If you say "yes", then the story in Mark omits a detail. And if you say "no", then the story in Matthew is adding one.

Which is it?

How do you propose we decide?

 

[DynamicDrummer]

This is a good question to ask. To answer: I believe the Bible never errs in matters of faith and morals. It can be wrong about the number of legs a grasshopper has (it is), or about what the smallest seed is (it got that wrong too), but not about the nature of Jesus.

Does that help?

To give an example, consider what Jesus said to the disciples about adultery. What He said was "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matthew 19:9).

Only... Maybe what He actually said was "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." (Mark 10:11)

So. Which of those did He say? Did He make an exception for fornication, or did He not?

It's a yes or no question.

But... If you say "yes", then the story in Mark omits a detail. And if you say "no", then the story in Matthew is adding one.

Which is it?

How do you propose we decide?

I think they are both right because sex outside marriage is sin, but if you've divorced you previous wife and married another, you shouldn't have divorced your wife in the first place. You know what, I may be an idiot for taking God's word very literally, but at least I won't be an idiot anymore in heaven.

 

[seebs]

I think they are both right because sex outside marriage is sin, but if you've divorced you previous wife and married another, you shouldn't have divorced your wife in the first place. You know what, I may be an idiot for taking God's word very literally, but at least I won't be an idiot anymore in heaven.

No, no. It's a factual question. Jesus uttered a sentence. Which sentence was it? What actual words came out of His mouth? Both chapters are describing the same exact day, the same scene, the same events.

Which. Words. Did. He. Say.

Was it the first one, or the second one? Did He say the thing about fornication? If so, then is the version without it not "in error"? Did He not say it? If so, then where did those words come from in the book?

He said something. He made a single claim. Which one was it?

 

[Ron21647]

I think they are both right because sex outside marriage is sin, but if you've divorced you previous wife and married another, you shouldn't have divorced your wife in the first place. You know what, I may be an idiot for taking God's word very literally, but at least I won't be an idiot anymore in heaven.

Wow, you won't be happy till you've gotten on my last nerve, will you?

Ok, take this scenario: Example 1: a man and a woman have been married 25 years. She runs into a high school boyfriend, and leaves her husband, and goes with the boyfriend. They subsequently divorce.

Example 2: Meanwhile, another woman is married to a man that is beating her. she puts up with it until he hits their 6 year old son, then throws him out and divorces him.

About a year after the divorces, the man from example 1 and the woman from example 2 meet, and a year later they are married. They have now been married over 6 years, and both are active in their church.

The question is, is this couple living in sin, and if so, what is the remedy?

Here's a hint: the man from example 1 is me. Our pastor used the passage quoted above from Matthew while counseling us before we were married.

I think that you need to quit making such blanket black and white statements, at least until you have lived life long enough to have some idea of what real life is all about.

Ron

 

[PaladinValer]

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

Lets see...a literal reading of the Bible depicts a flat Earth and such belief has been historically proven to be the actual theological-cosmological view; I'll take history and hard evidence and research over speculation.

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.

Sorry, but it does.

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.

Oh of course! If it endangers a person's literalism, it must be wrong! Or if it challenges that the Bible just might not give correct information about actual cosmology, it must be wrong! [/sarcasm]

Its that kind of attitude that withheld scientific advancement in Europe. In addition, whether you like it or not, that was the actual ancient Hebrew interpretation; they took it literally because that was all they knew. That's fact, not fiction.

**rest of the post**

I'll disregard the rest as it has no importance to the general scheme. Those passages were taken literally during a portion of history; a tiny number of Christians actually still take them literally! That doesn't make them "stupid" or "illiterate;" on the contrary, it seems you have no clue what "literacy" even means, and although as a future teacher I know full well what it is, I'm not going to stray from the main debate and try to convince you. The acticle is factual; there's no argument against it. Since it doesn't bother anyone else's faith here, perhaps you should look into why it doesn't.

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.

So what? That doesn't disprove anything from what you quoted pthalomarie saying. God still could have used evolution to Create life from heaven quite simply; why do you seem to deny what wonders God can do?

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

Actually, there had to be death. Some species of life have such a short life spand that, even if you take Genesis literally, at least one if not more than one generation of beings of their species would have been born, grown, aged, and died before Adam and Eve disobeyed God.

In addition, pthalomarie is completely correct in another regard: Adam and Eve had to have partaken of the fruit from the Tree of Life in order to become immortal; God Himself according to the Bible says this. The only proper and logical conclusion is that Adam and Eve were not immortal but mortal already!

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.

Have you ever studied Hebrew linguistics? I don't claim to be an expert myself, but what I do know of, it would appear that the Genesis account was written in an non-literal format.

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

Actually, they are two different accounts written by two different authors. One is P the other is J.

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.

And then how did the plants receive light on the third day? In addition, I hope your sources on light are better than your first source on that fraudulant "scientist."

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

I'll take a cosmologist's opinion, since I know that the Bible's Authority doesn't cover science.

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

Fallacy of False Cause. To illustrate why, I'll quote seebs:

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

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!)

Do you honestly believe that he'll actually admit to his faults after making so much money and garnishing so much fame on his lies?! That's very gullable.

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.

Macroevolution has been observed.

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

No, she isn't.

**The amillennialist bit**

It was condemned by the Church as heresy. In the same Council, apollinarianism was also condemned. In fact, a major reason why chiliasm was condemned because the apollinarians were chiliastic! And mind you this: the apollinarians denied the Blessed Trinity. If chiliasm isn't a heresy, then apollinarianism isn't a heresy. If P then Q and if Q then P (or if you will (P -> Q) ^ (Q -> P). Both rely on the other's "truth factor." Disagree? Allow me to show it:

If P is false, then

(F -> T) ^ (T -> F) or T ^ F = F <---it comes out false.

If Q is false, then

(T -> F) ^ (F -> T) or F ^ T = F <---is comes out false.

So are the apollinarians heretics? Then so is chiliasm! The Holy Spirit inspired the Council to declare it so.

Since you think Genesis is perhaps a myth and there are some things of the bible that are wrong,

Like most conservatives, you misunderstand the theological definition of the word "myth." A myth is a non-historical, fictional, legendary, or false story that teaches a moral or religious truth.

We don't throw Genesis out; we look for its deeper meanings.

For example: On the first day, God made light. Probably the Big Bang, but that isn't what the author of Genesis is saying. It means God is associated with light, not darkness. And light (goodness) shall always overcome darkness (evil).

and there is a great many parts of the bible where you allegorize, then what about the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? What if all those books are myths?

1. It wouldn't kill my faith. See the actual definition for "myth" above for why.
2. An excellent way to be able to know if the Bible wants a literal, non-literal, or both ways of interpreting in a passage, a good study of linguistics will help you out tremendously. (Which answers your "if Jesus didn't die," etc part)

You need to stop going to your "youth pastor" for all your information. Its the Fallacy of Appealing to Authority everytime you do, unless this individual is not only a cosmologist, but a evolutionary biologist, a linguist, and a theologian also. Do your own independent, scholarly research; I've been doing it for 8 years now.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

No, no. It's a factual question. Jesus uttered a sentence. Which sentence was it? What actual words came out of His mouth? Both chapters are describing the same exact day, the same scene, the same events.

Um...perhaps both. Maybe He said it twice.

Which. Words. Did. He. Say.

Me. No. Know.

Was it the first one, or the second one? Did He say the thing about fornication? If so, then is the version without it not "in error"? Did He not say it? If so, then where did those words come from in the book?

He said something. He made a single claim. Which one was it?

He said both. Um....both. First of all, why are you trying to get me to doubt the bible? Hmm?

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Wow, you won't be happy till you've gotten on my last nerve, will you?

Ok, take this scenario: Example 1: a man and a woman have been married 25 years. She runs into a high school boyfriend, and leaves her husband, and goes with the boyfriend. They subsequently divorce.

Example 2: Meanwhile, another woman is married to a man that is beating her. she puts up with it until he hits their 6 year old son, then throws him out and divorces him.

About a year after the divorces, the man from example 1 and the woman from example 2 meet, and a year later they are married. They have now been married over 6 years, and both are active in their church.

The question is, is this couple living in sin, and if so, what is the remedy?

Here's a hint: the man from example 1 is me. Our pastor used the passage quoted above from Matthew while counseling us before we were married.

I think that you need to quit making such blanket black and white statements, at least until you have lived life long enough to have some idea of what real life is all about.

Ron

OH! So now you are going to start arguing with me for how YOUNG I am. I see. Why don't I start arguing with you for how strong you are. How much can you bench press? Yeah, I am young. Am I'm trying to reason with you. You don't want me to reason with you because you are "right". I am able to teach, but you are trying to teach me something that will make me doubt God's word.

 

[PaladinValer]

OH! So now you are going to start arguing with me for how YOUNG I am.

How did you arrive to that conclusion? That was completely random.

I see. Why don't I start arguing with you for how strong you are. How much can you bench press? Yeah, I am young. Am I'm trying to reason with you. You don't want me to reason with you because you are "right". I am able to teach, but you are trying to teach me something that will make me doubt God's word.

This..."rebuttal"...makes...no...logical...sense...

 

[seebs]

OH! So now you are going to start arguing with me for how YOUNG I am. I see. Why don't I start arguing with you for how strong you are. How much can you bench press? Yeah, I am young. Am I'm trying to reason with you. You don't want me to reason with you because you are "right". I am able to teach, but you are trying to teach me something that will make me doubt God's word.

Er, no. He's trying to teach you something that will help you find it.

Still haven't seen your answer, BTW. Which of those two sentences is the one Jesus said on that particular sunny afternoon, right before He went to play with the children? Surely, the plain facts ought to be obvious.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Lets see...a literal reading of the Bible depicts a flat Earth and such belief has been historically proven to be the actual theological-cosmological view; I'll take history and hard evidence and research over speculation.




Sorry, but it does.



Oh of course! If it endangers a person's literalism, it must be wrong! Or if it challenges that the Bible just might not give correct information about actual cosmology, it must be wrong! [/sarcasm]

Its that kind of attitude that withheld scientific advancement in Europe. In addition, whether you like it or not, that was the actual ancient Hebrew interpretation; they took it literally because that was all they knew. That's fact, not fiction.

**rest of the post**

I'll disregard the rest as it has no importance to the general scheme. Those passages were taken literally during a portion of history; a tiny number of Christians actually still take them literally! That doesn't make them "stupid" or "illiterate;" on the contrary, it seems you have no clue what "literacy" even means, and although as a future teacher I know full well what it is, I'm not going to stray from the main debate and try to convince you. The acticle is factual; there's no argument against it. Since it doesn't bother anyone else's faith here, perhaps you should look into why it doesn't.


So what? That doesn't disprove anything from what you quoted pthalomarie saying. God still could have used evolution to Create life from heaven quite simply; why do you seem to deny what wonders God can do?



Actually, there had to be death. Some species of life have such a short life spand that, even if you take Genesis literally, at least one if not more than one generation of beings of their species would have been born, grown, aged, and died before Adam and Eve disobeyed God.

In addition, pthalomarie is completely correct in another regard: Adam and Eve had to have partaken of the fruit from the Tree of Life in order to become immortal; God Himself according to the Bible says this. The only proper and logical conclusion is that Adam and Eve were not immortal but mortal already!



Have you ever studied Hebrew linguistics? I don't claim to be an expert myself, but what I do know of, it would appear that the Genesis account was written in an non-literal format.



Actually, they are two different accounts written by two different authors. One is P the other is J.



And then how did the plants receive light on the third day? In addition, I hope your sources on light are better than your first source on that fraudulant "scientist."



I'll take a cosmologist's opinion, since I know that the Bible's Authority doesn't cover science.



Fallacy of False Cause. To illustrate why, I'll quote seebs:





Do you honestly believe that he'll actually admit to his faults after making so much money and garnishing so much fame on his lies?! That's very gullable.



Macroevolution has been observed.



No, she isn't.

**The amillennialist bit**

It was condemned by the Church as heresy. In the same Council, apollinarianism was also condemned. In fact, a major reason why chiliasm was condemned because the apollinarians were chiliastic! And mind you this: the apollinarians denied the Blessed Trinity. If chiliasm isn't a heresy, then apollinarianism isn't a heresy. If P then Q and if Q then P (or if you will (P -> Q) ^ (Q -> P). Both rely on the other's "truth factor." Disagree? Allow me to show it:

If P is false, then

(F -> T) ^ (T -> F) or T ^ F = F <---it comes out false.

If Q is false, then

(T -> F) ^ (F -> T) or F ^ T = F <---is comes out false.

So are the apollinarians heretics? Then so is chiliasm! The Holy Spirit inspired the Council to declare it so.



Like most conservatives, you misunderstand the theological definition of the word "myth." A myth is a non-historical, fictional, legendary, or false story that teaches a moral or religious truth.

We don't throw Genesis out; we look for its deeper meanings.

For example: On the first day, God made light. Probably the Big Bang, but that isn't what the author of Genesis is saying. It means God is associated with light, not darkness. And light (goodness) shall always overcome darkness (evil).



1. It wouldn't kill my faith. See the actual definition for "myth" above for why.
2. An excellent way to be able to know if the Bible wants a literal, non-literal, or both ways of interpreting in a passage, a good study of linguistics will help you out tremendously. (Which answers your "if Jesus didn't die," etc part)

You need to stop going to your "youth pastor" for all your information. Its the Fallacy of Appealing to Authority everytime you do, unless this individual is not only a cosmologist, but a evolutionary biologist, a linguist, and a theologian also. Do your own independent, scholarly research; I've been doing it for 8 years now.

As you wish...I think I'm done. I see now why there is only me debating all of you. Hey, you could be right. I don't know and YOU don't know either. We have strong evidence from both sides of the case. I'll think I'll leave it at that. Hope to see ya in heaven when all is said in done. Take care!

 

[PaladinValer]

As you wish...I think I'm done. I see now why there is only me debating all of you. Hey, you could be right. I don't know and YOU don't know either. We have strong evidence from both sides of the case. I'll think I'll leave it at that. Hope to see ya in heaven when all is said in done. Take care!

Can you please clarify your evidence? The "Dr" you quoted seems to not be authentic, so if you give some more authentic evidence, it would help.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Your only evidence is a fraud and a Youth Pastor who doesn't have proper credentials, so how do both sides have strong evidence?

*Gives Paladin a great big hug* Take care man, and remember, keep pumping that iron!

 

[seebs]

Obviously, PaladinValer thought better of what he said; it might be more charitable to edit your response, too.

 

[Ron21647]

OH! So now you are going to start arguing with me for how YOUNG I am. I see. Why don't I start arguing with you for how strong you are. How much can you bench press? Yeah, I am young. Am I'm trying to reason with you. You don't want me to reason with you because you are "right". I am able to teach, but you are trying to teach me something that will make me doubt God's word.

since you have accused people such as myself of "living in sin", in contradiction of the scripture previously quoted in Matthew (I would be silly to use the one in Mark, wouldn't I?), I just figured that someone of your advanced 16 years would be an authority on how to interpret the Bible.

or maybe not....

you still didn't answer the question of how my situation should be resolved. Should things stay as they are, should my wife and I divorce and go back to our original partners (which none of the 4 of us are willing to do), or what?

And I am not trying to make you doubt God's word, I am trying to point out that the interpretation you have come up with from your own study and what you have been taught may not be the best way to go.

If you think there are a lot of varied opinions here, go up to the "All Members -> Discussion and Debate -> Creation and Evolution" forum where they let atheists and other non-Christians in.


Ron

 

[zoink]

(ADDED AFTER LOOKING AT THREAD: Back when I started this list the thread had around 40 posts. Sorry it is late coming.)

This thread motivated me to track down as many of the verses that keep getting brought up to discredit the inerrancy of the Bible as I could find. All verses are NASB, and collected from biblegateway.com. I probably missed a few fill free to add to the list.

Sorry for reapeating.

Enjoy.

Eath does not move:


1 Chronicles 16
30
Tremble before Him, all the earth;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.


Job 26
7
"He stretches out the north over empty space
And hangs the earth on nothing.


Psalm 93
1
The LORD reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The LORD has clothed and girded Himself with strength;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.


Psalm 96
10
Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;
He will judge the peoples with equity."


Psalm 104
5
He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not totter forever and ever.


Flat Earth


Job 38
13
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth,
And the wicked be shaken out of it?

Job 11
9
"Its measure is longer than the earth
And broader than the sea.


Deuteronomy 13
7 of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end),


Deuteronomy 28
49 "The LORD will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down, a nation whose language you shall not understand,


Deuteronomy 28
64 "Moreover, the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth; and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone, which you or your fathers have not known.


Deuteronomy 33
17
"As the firstborn of his ox, majesty is his,
And his horns are the horns of the wild ox;
With them he will push the peoples,
All at once, to the ends of the earth.
And those are the ten thousands of Ephraim,
And those are the thousands of Manasseh."


1 Samuel 2
10
"Those who contend with the LORD will be shattered;
Against them He will thunder in the heavens,
The LORD will judge the ends of the earth;
And He will give strength to His king,
And will exalt the horn of His anointed."


Job 28
24
"For He looks to the ends of the earth
And sees everything under the heavens.


Job 37
3
"Under the whole heaven He lets it loose,
And His lightning to the ends of the earth.


Job 38
13
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth,
And the wicked be shaken out of it?


Psalm 2
8
'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,
And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.


Psalm 19
4
Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their utterances to the end of the world.
In them He has placed a tent for the sun,


Psalm 22
27
All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD,
And all the families of the nations will worship before You.

Psalm 33
13
The LORD looks from heaven;
He sees all the sons of men;


Psalm 48
10
As is Your name, O God,
So is Your praise to the ends of the earth;
Your right hand is full of righteousness.


Psalm 59
13
Destroy them in wrath, destroy them that they may be no more;
That men may know that God rules in Jacob
To the ends of the earth. Selah.


Psalm 61
2
From the end of the earth I call to You when my heart is faint;
Lead me to the rock that is higher than I.


Psalm 65
5
By awesome deeds You answer us in righteousness, O God of our salvation,
You who are the trust of all the ends of the earth and of the farthest sea;

Psalm 72
8
May he also rule from sea to sea
And from the River to the ends of the earth.


Isaiah 11
12
And He will lift up a standard for the nations
And assemble the banished ones of Israel,
And will gather the dispersed of Judah
From the four corners of the earth.


Jeremiah 16
19
O LORD, my strength and my stronghold,
And my refuge in the day of distress,
To You the nations will come
From the ends of the earth and say,
"Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood,
Futility and things of no profit."

Daniel 4
10 'Now these were the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great.
11
'The tree grew large and became strong
And its height reached to the sky,
And it was visible to the end of the whole earth

Matthew 4
8 Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory;


Acts 1
8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."


Acts 13
47 "For so the Lord has commanded us,
'I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES,
THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.'"


Revelation 7
1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree.


Flat Circle

Isaiah 40
22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.


Proverbs 8
26
While He had not yet made the earth and the fields,
Nor the first dust of the world.
27
"When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
28
When He made firm the skies above,
When the springs of the deep became fixed,


Job 1
7 The LORD said to Satan, "From where do you come?" Then Satan answered the LORD and said, "From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it."


Sun Rising

Ecclesiastes 1
5
Also, the sun rises and the sun sets;
And hastening to its place it rises there again.


Sincerely,
zoink


List of verses gotten from http://www.2think.org/hii/flat.shtml, lucaspa in the thread "If evolution is right I'd feel bad ..." post 17, http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

 

[PaladinValer]

I feel the need to fully expressed the opinion of perhaps all theistic evolutionists. If other TEs wish to add their opinions or differ from what I'm saying, please do so:

We don't trash the Bible. We don't hate the written Word of God. We don't think it false. We find it a glorious, wonderful Holy Writ that we cherish deep within our hearts. We have a pretty good understanding of it, I daresay, and we love it too much to knowingly misinterpret it.

We hold the Bible the same way as the Early Church did; as containing everything necessary for salvation and authoritative in matters of doctrine and faith. In these matters, the Bible is 100% inerrent and pure. We would never say anything contrary to this. We read the Bible for those reasons quite diligently and studiously. We are serious about our faith and serious in our interpretations.

However, we don't believe that the Bible is inerrent in all matters. We hold it to be inerrent in faith, doctrine, and salvation. These are what Christianity is to us. It is a Godly faith based on Godly matters. As such, we feel that saying the Bible is perfect in worldly matters is a little strange. When the Bible says we are in this world but not of it, we take that seriously. We don't let worldly or secular discoveries that seem to contradict the Bible worry us because the Bible is God's Book, not the world's.

When non-believers come to us saying "bats aren't birds but the Bible says they are, so the Bible is wrong and thus, so should Christianity," we are able to defend ourselves because we hold that the Bible is authoritative in spiritual means. The Hebrews and Christians who wrote the books of the Bible were indeed inspired, but in matters of religion, not science or even history. To us, we believe God to be beyond such wordly debates that should have such little impact on our faith.

There is overwhelming evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Yes, it is a theory, but not all theories are equal. Some theories have little backing, while others like gravity and evolution have tremendous support. They are practically laws; the only thing missing are the "final equations," if you will. To many Christians, this goes against their literal views. They find such scientific research as threatening and thus, they act accordingly. For TEs and even many OECs, it doesn't bother us at all; why couldn't God have been involved in His Creation through evolution? Why limit the possibility that God used evolution to Create life? Is not anything possible with God? Evolution doesn't say that life was created spontaneously or randomly, but through order and presice measure. God to us is the Source of evolution and He is the Source of the order and presiceness. To us, He didn't just invent evolution and let it takes its course to us; we don't believe in a Deistic God. He was involved in it in its beginning as He still is today.

We don't deny the possibility that God could very well have Created a Young Earth. Just like any scientific theory, evolution could be completely disproven one day. Even scientific laws have been shattered by new evidence! But as of today, evolution is the best theory the world has to explain the world's diversity of life. Some Christians find it repugnant that their ancestor once perhaps swang in a tree, but to many TEs, we are honored! We come from an intelligent, resourceful, and intuitive line of similar/cousin species; some have gone extinct, some live on today. What better source for God to pick to bring force our modern human race?

A chimp is my own species' cousin and I have not troubles about it, for when I see their intelligence, resourcefulness and intuitiveness, I am honored and I thank God for having them and my own race to have the same common ancestor.

So do not prejudge our faith or our love of the Holy Scripture just because we agree with the theory of evolution. We have no intention of abandoning our love and worship of God and we never will.

 

[Ron21647]

Paladin Valer, well said !!

I wish I had posted that myself.

Ron