Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It claims six literal days of creation, followed by 4,000 years of genealogy, interrupted by the crucifixion, then followed by 2,000 years until the present.
Every other theory relies on twisting scripture into something that it doesn't say.
“Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154)
.
Oh the irony as it relates to cosmology theories.
So, every other book can use different styles of literature, but we must not assume the Bible has those same styles?
If the Bible is the standard of truth, and you believe in God's Word as truth, then it should be the foundation for all beliefs. Drawing in other claims to form truth is not necessary.
Science, history, archaeology, logic, philosophy, etc. are not at odds with the Bible. People are.
And, again, most people believing something has no bearing on anything.
I'd provide a counter argument, but with Venus in retrograde and Saturn rising, this is not a good time to have discord in my life.
Did that perchance include the scientists of the time?Interview? No. But I did read what they had to say in scripture and I studied what their contemporaries in surrounding nations thought at the time.
Radiometric dating goes on the assumption that the earth is old. They completely throw out the idea of a young earth or flood, and interpret everything as if it was a fact that the earth was billions of years old[/b]. Yet, when they test things with known ages, they have been off by millions of years.
As to lightyears, Einstein explains time dilation in reference to the earth being in a gravitational well, the affect of that on time.
It is true that fundamentalists can be as hopeless as atheists when it comes to crass literalness, but they are both pretty hopeless. I can certainly recognise figures of speech which are still in use today, such as ends of the Earth.
There you go talking about Catholics again. More vague appeal to some imagined popularity.Pretty much every Catholic, as well as the majority of "Christians".
We know when Noah lived. We know when others lived also. There is no reason to believe that Jesus created Adam at a different time than the world. Weknow the years from Adam, more or less.Nowhere in the book does it claim that God created the Earth or anything else just 10K years ago.
Also, in the present world we have some creatures that specialize in disposing of bones and etc. Example...the snotworm.In Tibet the Buddhist monks would purify their intestines off all bacteria. So when they died the body did not decompose. Even they say some of the remains were up to 500 years old. The Gov did not like this and they wanted the remains deposed of. A lot of the problem is that there is a huge amount of resources in the Tibet mountains. The China government just wants to go in and take what they want. The Tibetan people are not happy about the modern world moving into their country, but there really is not a lot that they can do about it.
They never thought that.It seems to me that you are, as somebody put it, straining at a gnat. Presumably you do not think that the validity of Christianity depends on whether the authors of the Bible genuinely thought that the Earth was flat or were merely using figurative language that appeared to imply the flatness of the Earth. If the authors of the Bible genuinely thought that the Earth was flat, that proves only that the Bible is not inerrant, not that its essential message is false.
There you go talking about Catholics again. More vague appeal to some imagined popularity.
We know when Noah lived. We know when others lived also. There is no reason to believe that Jesus created Adam at a different time than the world. Weknow the years from Adam, more or less.
Believing is a minority thing. Trying to pretend we can twist Scripture to mean that Jesus did not 'literally' create man and the world is simply wrong. Trying to pretend Moses or Noah did not live when they lived is just not sound or biblical. The big bang could never ever fit with a real creation as per the bible. Nor could life evolving rather than being specifically created. Period. Should we change the Niocene creed to read something likeI'm just pointing out that there are *many* ways to interpret the Bible, and you're in the minority position by interpreting Genesis 'literally'.
Who even mentioned dates? First you hide behind the Catholics, next you try to confuse issues by diverting to some supposed required exact dates.The Bible doesn't say anything about the date(s) of creation however. You're *assuming* it based upon a highly subjective interpretation of a single book, and your interpretation isn't even the majority position.
What tripe. What shallow twaddle. External to what..Scripture!?Most folks look to *external* sources when discussing scientific topics, and they use external references when trying to figure out which passages to interpret literally and which passages to interpret as metaphor. You apparently have no external cross check for your own subjective interpretation.
Believing is a minority thing. Trying to pretend we can twist Scripture
to mean that Jesus did not 'literally' create man and the world is simply wrong.
Trying to pretend Moses or Noah did not live when they lived
External to what..Scripture!?
You do realize that historically, we see the same pattern repeat itself, in that the majority that denies scripture is wrong.Since you're in the minority viewpoint, how can you be sure that it's not you that is "twisting Scripture" to suit yourself? Christ used metaphors quite often in his speeches while walking the Earth. Why then would I attempt to "interpret" every single word of Genesis "literally" simply because you choose to do so, *without* any means to cross check your own person subjective interpretation in terms of empirical physics?
It's a debate about *when* dad, not *if*.
Again, neither Catholics, nor myself debate their existence, or even necessarily when they lived. We do however part company when you insist on suggesting that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and you dissociate yourself from empirical physics, and enter your own personal feedback loop. In the final analysis, you have "faith", but only faith in your own highly subjective personal interpretation of a single document, to the exclusion of every other reference point in existence.
The fact that you and the Catholics part company in terms of your interpretation of Genesis demonstrates that it's not "scripture" that's being debated, just your personal interpretation of it.
You do realize that historically, we see the same pattern repeat itself, in that the majority that denies scripture is wrong.
The creation account was written in the Hebrew style of literal historical record. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of anyone who is an expert in Hebrew literature.
It addresses the issue of validating with outside sources. On the one hand, it is good to have a ready defense when someone asks why you believe. On the other, worldly knowledge that separates God from His Word and what He claims is a fool's errand, and highly arrogant.
This is not the first time in history that science has tried to disprove God. Nor is it the first time most of the world has doubts about God because the world told them too. If we follow the course of history, pretty soon God will show us just what He is capable of. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but it will happen. If I were you, I would be more nervous than proud that I was in the majority.
You can not interpret the Hebrew words. You either know what they mean or you don't. For example: Moses said we are to "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." Jesus said: "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND." How is it that going from the Hebrew to the Greek the word "strength" got changed into the word: "mind"?Since you're in the minority viewpoint, how can you be sure that it's not you that is "twisting Scripture" to suit yourself? Christ used metaphors quite often in his speeches while walking the Earth. Why then would I attempt to "interpret" every single word of Genesis "literally" simply because you choose to do so, *without* any means to cross check your own person subjective interpretation in terms of empirical physics?
But nothing about the scientific endeavor to understand the natural world had a goal of disproving god. Nobody was trying to disprove god. If your god is disproven by an honest understanding of the natural world, that's your problem; science doesn't really care.This is not the first time in history that science has tried to disprove God.
Just the opposite: Science proves the God that created the Natural world. Without Science the Bible would be little more then Poetry. It is Science that tests the Bible to show that it is true. For example the story of Jericho is a nice story. It is science that has discovered the ruins of Jericho to see that the wall in Jericho really did fall down and at least that part of the story is accurate and true.But nothing about the scientific endeavor to understand the natural world had a goal of disproving god. Nobody was trying to disprove god. If your god is disproven by an honest understanding of the natural world, that's your problem; science doesn't really care.
Because the Greek word for mind means with the entire center of your being. Mentally and physically.You can not interpret the Hebrew words. You either know what they mean or you don't. For example: Moses said we are to "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." Jesus said: "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND." How is it that going from the Hebrew to the Greek the word "strength" got changed into the word: "mind"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?