You are aware that God is not a physical entity, and has absolutely no such relationship to humans right?
In his image has nothing to do with our looks or anatomy.
Upvote
0
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.
You are aware that God is not a physical entity, and has absolutely no such relationship to humans right?Because we are in "His image."
.
Because we are in "His image.".
And in the two cases, the literal reading has been shown to be incorrect because of what science went on to show. Now, stop dodging the question. Why should this situation be any different than creationist rejection of evolutionary science today?
And as I said, regardless that you claim you have, you cannot sufficiently justify it due to the vagueness of the world "circle". You are evidently basing it on selectively choosing the definition you know to be correct based on the non-Biblical evidence for a spherical earth.
Not at all. A circle is a precise term, which already is one word and has a precise geometrical meaning. Calling it "round" destroys precision in favour of ambiguity. Crawfish's excellent response shows how imprecise this term is in the context of determining the shape of the earth - simply because a sphere is also "round".
And as you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge despite it having been clearly pointed out several times by several people now, the word "circle" does not allow you to draw this conclusion from a literal reading of the Bible, as you are justifying it with the knowledge science obtained about the earth which has become entrenched in our culture.
Non sequitur - the issue is not that we know the correct shape of earth, the issue is that a literal reading of that verse is (a) ambiguous, (b) can lead to making a scientifically inaccurate conclusion; (c) and such conclusions are only justifiable with the same weak personal assertions you're making regarding contemporary science being wrong about the origins of life and the cosmos.
As such, why should anyone find such an approach convincing? And why should anyone who accepts the more convincing approach of science be browbeaten by someone who lacks a convincing foundation for their argument? Maybe we are not the ones who need correcting here....
No. Since you asked - I want you to admit that literal readings of brief and/or ambiguous segments of the Bible do not necessarily lead to scientifically accurate conclusions and that your rationale for rejecting evolution is only as strong as the rationales of those who thought the Bible said the earth was flat and that the sun orbited the earth. And I want you to stop insulting the opinions of other Christians when you have such a weak justification for your own stance.
Afraid not.
But you'll proclaim that evolution is wrong even though you're not an evolutionary biologistchalk up another inconsistency for you.....
Your opinions of God's word =/= God's word
Ignorance is bliss, I'm sure.
And that's good that you admit it's your personal interpretation - now, apply the same reasoning and conclusion to your opinions of Genesis 1, and stop judging the beliefs of fellow-Christians who have provided better support for their stance than you have, k?
Absolutely. That's why I put everything under high levels of scrutiny. That's why your opinions don't pass muster
You're making simplicity with oversimplification.
Disagreeing with your unsupported opinion is not "tossing" it. Metaphor =/= "tossing it", in any way, shape or form. Do try and respond to the arguments without resorting to presumption in future
Keep telling yourself that - for someone to claim that they wouldn't give a lecture on relativity but will proclaim that the most successful theory of biology in the last two centuries is completely wrong without any proof of their assertion smacks of desperation.
I think I already have an idea of what you could possibly provide it - that doesn't mean your claims don't require justification, and merely repeating the claim ad nauseam is not proof of it.
The fact that you're in denial that your opinions of the Bible are your personal interpretations does not mean they are not your personal interpretations
Only if we think it is in conflict with what is written, not if we think the literal interpretation misunderstood what God was saying.
If evolution is true, and all the scientific evidence says it is, doesn't that mean it is creationists with their insistence on a literal interpretation of Genesis who are making God out to be a liar?
Cannot be both what? True and how God created? Of course it can. Just because people used to interpret the bible differently does not mean the earth doesnt go round the sun. It is not putting lipstick and earrings on heliocentrism to say God created the solar system like that. It is simply good theology.
Oddly enough one of the problems TEs have with Creationism is that it is so deeply conformed to the world that it cannot see out. Now you do not have such a strong devotion to literalism as many creationist, but it is real factor in them not being able to see any other possible meaning in Genesis, it even comes up in you argument that if Genesis isnt literally true it is a lie. This argument would have made no sense throughout most of the church history because they understood the value of metaphor and symbolism that God uses them to teach real truth. It is only in modern society where true value is place on scientific fact, that metaphor and poetry are devalued.
Six day creationism is a tradition of men, does that count? The only people I have heard on this website that argue philosophy are creationists. The rudiments of the world, or elemental spirits, refer to the pagan deities, planetary gods and goddesses said to control the world through astrology in pagan culture.
You are aware that God is not a physical entity, and has absolutely no such relationship to humans right?
In his image has nothing to do with our looks or anatomy.
Male, if you're not male then you're not in the image of God.I thought we already discussed this but...maybe not.
John 10:30 I and My Father are one.What shape did Christ take when He came to die for our sins?
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
.
I am going to jump in on this one, and make a point about the "Easter eggs" (in the programming sense) God embeds into His Scripture.
First, let me take us out of the text you're explicating, to two passages. And one of them is a quirk of the KJV. First, God is testing Abraham, by telling him to sacrifice Isaac, the child of the promise, the son he'd given up hope of ever having and then was miraculously granted. They're preparing the altar. Isaac says in effect, "Hey, we got the wood and the altar, but where's the lamb?" And Abraham answers, "God will provide himself the lamb for the sacrifice." Wghat Abraham meant was that either (a) he had faith that God would send a lamb to sacrifice, or (b) that God had "provided the lamb for the sacrifice" in giving him Isaac. But what the KJV does is to phrase the translation so it can be read two ways: "God will provide (for) himself a lamb for the sacrifice" (as Abraham means it0 or "God will provide himself (as) a lamb for the sacrifice" (a typological reference to Jesus's Atonement). And both are true. One's literal, the other typological.
The other is the famous Emmanuel passage in Isaiah. As Isaiah himself intended it, Ahaz the Fearful, King of Judah, is messing his pants in fear that the Kings of Israel (Northern Kingdom) and Damascus, now allied, are going to invade and conquer his realm. Isaiah points to a maid-in-waiting in the court, call her Dorcas-bat'-Levi, and says, "Here's your sign: See this young girl? She's going to marry, and c conceive and bear a son, and name him Emmanuel, which means 'God is with us'. And before that little boy is old enough to know the difference between good and bad, both those kings you're afraid of will be pushing up daisies." That's the literal meaning; it's right there in Scripture. But the typological meaning, as Matthew is at pains to point out, is that the Virgin Mary is going to conceive and bear a Son, who will be 'God with us' in a very special way. And both are true.
Now, what is the one thing about mankind that is not true of any other animal, vertebrate or invertebrate, reptile bird or mammal, prosimian or anthropoid? And the answer is, God the Son became incarnate as a human being -- not as a lion, as in Narnia, or as an ape, as in Tarzan, but as one of us. He took on our image and likeness -- so that, as Lewis points out in Perelandra, Adam was created in the image and likeness of God the Son -- because from God's eternal perspective, the Incarnation has already happened. Adam is made to look like God the Son will, in the future from our human perspective, look -- because He has already done so from the divine perspective. When God makes man "in our image and likeness" He is choosing what image and likeness He himself will take on. It has nothing to do with 'spiritual nature' -- we are nothing like God; we're mortal and contingent; he's immortal and essential. "Image and likeness" is a specifically physical term -- and it means we human beings look like God the Son look because He joined His divine nature to the human one and became one of us.
That is typological. And it is a part of the Creation Story. It's not "What God did during one week in October 4004 BC" as reported by Time Magazine -- it's a story, told to make some fundamental points about Creation and contradistinguish what God actually did from the Babylonian creation myths. He didn't create a demiurge who in turn made matter; He did it Himself. He didn't 'get his hands dirty' -- He called things into being by His Word (and if you don't hear an echo of John 1:1-14 in that, you're missing something). He did it not all at once but in ordered sequence. And, vitally important for the Jews who told and preserved the story, He made the Sabbath an integral part of Creation, by doing all his work in six 'days' and resting on the seventh. There is not a thing in the story that contradicts modern science except the insistence of some people who seem to think He was in the business of writing science and history textbooks that everything happened just as a literal reading of the story would imply -- and that's not the point. It's not a "Then we turned left at the stoplight" narrative but a glorious description of the Creator at work, told in story form so it would be really easy for people to grasp and remember.
Male, if you're not male then you're not in the image of God.
now watch the excuse come.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
Man in the above usage is mankind. Mankind is created in His own image.
.
Jesus isn't a Female,
Jesus = God,
Jesus = Male.
God The Father(Male) = God
God Created Adam First, then Create Eve secondary from Adam later.
Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it
Note, No Woman, only The Man (Women weren't around yet)
Later
Genesis 2: 18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
women were created secondary as a help meet for Man.
Also
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1 Wycliffe Bible 1395
2 Tyndale Bible 1534
3 Bishops' Bible 1534
4 Coverdale Bible 1535
5 Matthew Bible 1537
6 Taverner's Bible 1539
7 The Great Bible 1539
8 The Bishops' Bible 1568 (different one)
9 DouayRheims Bible 1610
10 King James Version 1611
So if their is neither male or female (no difference) why all the hubub about who marries whom if their is no difference?Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
God didn't create Adam ? Not according to the Bible.God formed Adam, He didn't create him. When doing this, forming Adam, he was both male and female for Eve was taken from him.
Eve didn't exist tell later after she was created from Adam, it Doesn't say God created Eve in Adam, but from Adam.And where was she? Adam and Eve were one.
Not according to 2nd Genesis, Mad first then Woman, or are you going to make more excuses why that shouldn't be read AS written by the Mighty Hand of God ?Please notice that man from the sixth day creation, which is mankind, were created male and female...from the beginning and told to replenish the earth.
Right, Eve was Created LATER, not at the same time.Adam was formed for a specific purpose and to fulfil that purpose Eve came from him.
Woman wasn't supposed to Teach period, to shut up and not speak because of what happed in the Garden of Edin, women cause others to stumble.What woman is not to teach? Who is "the man" this woman shouldn't have authority over? Notice that it was written "women" in the preceeding verses and has suddenly become woman. Why? What is being said?
Look deeper PGP...there are treasures hidden away.
Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter..
Thanks! I didn't think it was the seventh, but I didn't want to do the legwork. Isn't our modern KJV bible a later revision, btw?
Interestingly enough, the first Christians in America rejected the KJV and instead used the Geneva Bible (which was written specifically by and for Protestants, the KJV was written by Anglicans).
We really need to try to avoid mixing up the image being true, with the meaning of the imagery being true.
If I can use the example of a ugly bit of Nazi propaganda, (I don't think this is falling foul of Godwin's law as I am not comparing anybody with Hitler) The film used scenes of rats running through the sewers and alleyways as a symbol of the Jews. The message was pure slander, ugly and misleading. But look at the imagery used. Those were genuine films of rats. The lie was not in literal meaning of the film but in the metaphorical message.
On the other hand you can have imagery where the symbol used is not literally true, but the meaning of the metaphor is. Jesus said he was a grape vine and his disciple branches. He wasn't literally, but the metaphorical meaning was true. It is not calling Jesus a liar to say it is a metaphor and that he wasn't really a tree.
So, you think if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for us?
The KJV is a beautiful text, written in English that was antiquated even for that time. It was written to be poetic. However, the phrasing is so old that many of the phrases have lost the original meaning that the translators intended, since words tend to shift meaning and implication over time.
No other translation, including the original languages, implies what you're saying. This is because the KJV really isn't implying it, either. The KJV's major problem is that it is hard to understand, and often the full meaning of the text gets lost in its flowery language.
For today's English readers, the ESV, RSV, NIV and even ASV are far better and more useful translations. And this comes from a friend of mine who works for World Bible Translation, an expert in Hebrew, Greek and other languages who has been called to see the bible translated into new languages.
So if I extracted a whole bunch of sevens from the Satanic Bible, would that make it correct? Come on, no-one in their right mind would treat this as significant for any other book, it's only because you think the Bible is true to begin with that you post-hoc impose these arbitrary numerics on it.
I'd bet the Bible is far from the only book that has this many sevens in it - of course, it's a bit hard to tell when the authors of these claims don't provide their working.
And how do we know the writers weren't intentionally imposing sevens?
This is just the latest incarnation of the Bible Code guff.
Whirlwind, I must ask - Why are you here? You've made it quite obvious you are not willing to listen to other people, and no amount of evidence will ever change your view, so what is your goal here?
Luke 1:3 It seemedG1380 [G5656] good to me alsoG2504, having had perfectG199 understandingG3877 [G5761] of all thingsG3956 from the very firstG509, to writeG1125 [G5658] unto theeG4671 in orderG2517, most excellentG2903 TheophilusG2321,
G199 ἀκριβῶς akribōs ak-ree-boce' Adverb from the same as G196; exactly: - circumspectly, diligently, perfect (-ly).
G3877 παρακολουθέω parakoloutheō par-ak-ol-oo-theh'-o
From G3844 and G190; to follow near, that is, (figuratively) attend (as a result), trace out, conform to: - attain, follow, fully know, have understanding.
G5761
Tense-Perfect See [G5778]
Voice-Active See [G5784]
Mood -Participle See [G5796]
Count-193
Strong's wth Tense Voice and Mood
First thing we see is that 'perfect' isn't an adjective it is an adverb meaning exactly ordiligently, and understanding isn't a noun or a participle it is the perfect tense of a verb. It isn't the normal verbs for understand either, it means he followed or he 'traced it out'. If we look at Strong's Luke is saying he diligently traced out everything from the beginning.
Sound a lot more like Crawfish's "carefully investigated everything from the beginning".
Dr. Laurence M. Vance....
(snip)
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The information we need is to be found, not in the translators' "The Epistle Dedicatory" or their "The Translators to the Reader," but in the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible." These general rules, fifteen in number, were advanced for the guidance of the translators. The first and fourteenth, because they directly relate to the subject at hand, are here given in full: "1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." "14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And thus we have our answer. The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.Tyndale's, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2.Matthew's, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3.Coverdale's,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4. the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch),[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5. the Geneva Bible, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6.the Bishops' Bible,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]7. and the King James Bible. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times.[/FONT]
.
Crawfish, I can't tell you how many times the true meaning is totally distorted by the new versions when comparing the two. Be very careful.
.
So if their is neither male or female (no difference) why all the hubub about who marries whom if their is no difference?
Oh their is a difference ? Yes, then remember that.
God didn't create Adam ? Not according to the Bible.
Eve didn't exist tell later after she was created from Adam, it Doesn't say God created Eve in Adam, but from Adam.
Not according to 2nd Genesis, Mad first then Woman, or are you going to make more excuses why that shouldn't be read AS written by the Mighty Hand of God ?
Right, Eve was Created LATER, not at the same time.
Woman wasn't supposed to Teach period, to shut up and not speak because of what happed in the Garden of Edin, women cause others to stumble.
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?