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.
Cherry-picking baloney.Anything to do with Christ, however, had thousands of eyewitnesses so it is irresponsible to say the literalness of one is inherited by the other.
Reading and quoting Bible is not enough. You must also understand what you read and quote.Yes, He most certainly did.
Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (John 5:39)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us (John 1:14)
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)
I don't deny this. I have very high regard for the words and view them under direct inspiration God. But this doesn't mean I see literalness in pre-Abrahamic accounts as the highest value or role they occupy in scripture. For some reason, people claim I reject the bible because of this as you are doing now. What's the allergy to non-literal accounts?Cherry-picking baloney.
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)
By your words Christ Himself is judged to be irresponsible.
You have a "degree in biblical literature" and do not recognize clear mythological themes mirroring Summerian, Babylonian and Egyptian mythology?
What University did you attend to get that degree?
Really awesome points.Say, while we're smiling and making lists and inviting scientists to vomit all over our sacred accounts of origins: What say we give them a crack at some of our core beliefs as well? Shouldn't we get their okay on things such as:
-God Who is 1 and 3 at the same time--you know, 1+1+1=1?
-One of which becomes a man via virgin birth?
-Who also lives a completely virtuous life?
-Who dies and is risen from the dead?
-Who then floats away to Heaven?
-and by this divine course of events makes it possible for us to live forever?
Shall we accept these things blindly without the facility of common sense and scientific scrutiny?
There is no scientific evidence against God, his existence, His power, against His miracles, against Jesus Christ and against His life, death and resurrection.
There is plenty scientific evidence against the young earth and literal reading of Genesis.
This is the difference.
Observations are possible, but will not make any sense.
"Simple organisms turned to a complex ones in time" is a statement describing what we observe in nature.
That's because science cannot test, or observe God. Science cannot test or observe resurrection from the dead. What interesting is that science can't observe or test evolution from a common ancestor either.
I, in fact, am quite careful not to call it a myth and am explicit that what was written down is from direct influence from God... did you miss that because I'm confused by your comments?
This is simply how Ancient Eastern culture works, they start with the goal and fill the details to meet the goal, the details are true because the goal is worthy of them being true and it being literal or not has less value. Western culture uses the facts to prove the hypothesis and this is the highest form of truth but it's is going to be incompatible with many Eastern accounts (like the creation accounts) and will completely miss the point.
The creation account is 2500 years removed from Moses and it would have had high competition and influence from surrounding cultures. That's like writing the gospels for the first time today having only oral knowledge passed down of it and a pile of different versions circulating around.
It is clear the Hebrews had mass theology misgivings post-exodus but why wouldn't they? They had no scripture, no temple, no priest, no leader (prior to Moses) and no organized religion. Their most coveted and unique accounts would have been Abraham Issac and Jacob and they would have the highest accuracy since it was uniquely their undisputed history... but pre-Abrahamic accounts would have high competition and influence from surrounding cultures. If this was anyone other people group/religion we would laugh at these accounts, labelling them immediately as myth and toss them out.
I don't call them myth but I recognize the myth likeness they carry. Instead, I see God divinely inspiring Moses to present a redeem de-paganized account, highly contextualized, with deep-seated truth to proclaim that God is the creator of all things explicitly rejecting any paganized thinking and implicitly rejecting other competing accounts like the Egyptian creation myth that is very similar to Genesis (but it's older).
Idol worship and pagan ways were a mass problem. Look at what Moses came down to, the high priest of God making an idol, claiming it made itself and everyone worshiping it. Now, what are the first commandment and second commandments? Not to mention the 40 years of wandering in the desert to cleanse the old ways out of them. The creation account is about correct theology not about over literal facts, but this doesn't make it any less truth or real. We don't get it, because we develope our theology form other parts of the bible and the creation account acts as a way to affirm them but this wasn't the purpose of it. The creation account on the surface is about rejecting gods and affirming God and the creator of all things but goes far deeper than this.
to me, literalists have a far greater demand to prove their position but they write the argument off as blasphemous, or what did you say "hogwash", and in doing so miss the grand depth of the account. I personally think I place greater value upon the words of the creation account over any literalist does.
God did not tell us how things came to be. Hebrew Scriptures are not God.
You mix everything together. You must properly divide.
I might have figured one or two things out in 44 years of reading and studying. I aren't educated like some guys is, but I thought I are smart enuff.Reading and quoting Bible is not enough. You must also understand what you read and quote.
That's odd since there's no indication that Christ had the advantage of fancy study tools as a child and yet He amazed the learned doctors of Theology when He was twelve-years-old.You should also have some info about the Bible, about its origin, history, composition, goal, genres etc.
You're very kind.Really awesome points.
Science certainly can observe and test evolution. It always has. The lack of proof that "this species turned into that species"is because evolution does not work the way people on this forum are saying it does. The natural events surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus have also been tested: the earthquake, a solar eclipse, and the spring equinox. In this way it is possible to figure out when The Last Supper occured, when Jesus was crucified, and when he died.
RJC, I was saying it is not as simple as something like a lizard making bird eggs - that does not happen. I got the impression creationists who oppose the evolution idea based it on this logic: your child will not be a kangaroo. Evolution is a process that begins at the top of the Tree of Life (usually called kingdoms) with one ancestor for all animals, one for all plants, etc. Then it splits again many times; the farther down you go, the more species group divisions can be seen. Taxonomists describe it as an upside down tree.
Jesus died at Passover, and Passover is when there is a full moon. Meaning the sun is shining on the surface of the moon that is facing the earth so if the sun is to your left the moon would be to your right.the earthquake, a solar eclipse, and the spring equinox.
And yet, it remains fabricated, unproven, ungodly, and unsure.1. Evolution is not always called "theory", its used without this word even in scientific works
2. Scientific term "theory" is something different than what you think.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
Sorry, no.Thank God then for microbiology, chemistry, physics, computer science, mathematics... "real" science where we do NOT find this happening among its world class scientists when they meet.
and again, no.and ecology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, etc.
I did no such thing.For some reason, people claim I reject the bible because of this as you are doing now.
I have no such allergy. I have reason to believe that the creation account, while perhaps containing some symbolic elements (as most of Scripture does) is not non-literal. I also subscribe to the principle that some Scripture, such as certain visions and dreams by Joseph, Daniel, Peter, John, etc. are meant to illustrate prophecy and are not necessarily literal.accounts. I err on the side of caution and make no apologies for doing so.What's the allergy to non-literal accounts?
You're going over a cliff God never intended here. Knowledge is not evil. We couldn't build homes, hospitals, nor houses of worship without true science. Let's not go off the rails in an attempt to keep on the tracks.Sorry, no.
and again, no.
What does mankind DO with all the knowledge it 'has' (as if anyone knows anything) ?
It seeks to drag everyone down into destruction, inevitably, as Scripture says, apart from Jesus Christ,
contrary to the True Gospel of Christ Crucified (dead to the world, the world dead to us in Christ).
Only if you want it to be.And yet, it remains fabricated, unproven, ungodly, and unsure.
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?