• 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.

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,121
3,437
✟995,569.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
1. They must "assume" God only has the capacity to know of 'one source of light' and so failing to create the sun first he is simply "mistaken" in his recollection of what He did. That is not a logical position .. as if the only source of light known to God is fusion from the sun.

I think you are misrepresenting the confliction. if we are to take a literal account on day one light is spoken into being and this light is separated from the darkness and is called day and the darkness night, the first day. We know the account but I fail to see where the source of the light is mentioned. Light is emitted from a source, it doesn't exist disembodied but goes to a fixed focal point, at this fixed point is the source of light and would be some sort of luminary and this luminary would need to be created. But day 1 is not about creating a luminary it is about creating light, its source is only from God since he speaks it into being but God does not exist at a fixed focal point nor does he turn off and on, even the mention of days/night is not from the vantage point of God it is from the vantage point of a rotating planet looking up since we know there really is no such thing as night and the sun is always shining. The problem created in the text is where does the light come from because nothing else but light is spoken on day 1.

You speak of logic but Hebrew logic is not like Western step logic. it exists in blocks of information and each block builds a goal and the details within the block are used to support the goal, and those details can be fluid because the most important thing is to build the goal. Blocks are next to each other but they do not have to agree with each other, and may infact present conflicting information. this is what we see in the creation account and each day is a sub-block of information and the whole account is the main block. each block is next to each other but it doesn't matter that the days conflict they are position in a way to serve a purpose and build toward a goal. What is most important is the goal and once we determine the goal we can understand the role of the details and the blocks and why they are placed in the order they are placed.

The days of creation are laid out with days 1-3 paralleling days 4-6. 1 is paired with 4, 2 is paired with 5 and 3 is paired with 6. The pairing is obvious from the themse of the days but the language is also important to show this as days 1-3 "create" is not actually used but rather the focus is God separating and organizing this primordial chaos and darkness in the text. Days 4-6 he "creates" but the word create is a unique word and in Hebrew has a concrete meaning of actually "fattening" but better put "filling up" or a "forming" like stuffing a pillowcase. Day 1-3 acts as a frame (it's the pillowcase) where Days 4-6 are the stuffing.

For example, day 4 the day/night luminaries fill the sky where day 1 light and darkness are separated and day and night are defined, day 6 the fish and birds fill the air and ocean that was separated and defined in day 2 and in day 6 the animals and humans fill the land that was separated and defined in day 3. God first organizes and builds a framework, then he fills it up. This is a pattern within the creation and it doesn't have to describe a literal passing of 6 consecutive days and although Western Step logic demands this Hebraic block logic doesn't.

We need to read the text based on who it was written for and be careful not to superimpose our way of thinking over it. Am I saying that it wasn't 7 days? that God didn't create in an exact way described? No, I'm saying when we demand this we miss the point of the text. What's the point? well that's for you to discover but all the information in the account proclaims it so it is what we should be looking at.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Site Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
12,427
13,264
East Coast
✟1,041,404.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I think you are misrepresenting the confliction. if we are to take a literal account on day one light is spoken into being and this light is separated from the darkness and is called day and the darkness night, the first day. We know the account but I fail to see where the source of the light is mentioned. Light is emitted from a source, it doesn't exist disembodied but goes to a fixed focal point, at this fixed point is the source of light and would be some sort of luminary and this luminary would need to be created. But day 1 is not about creating a luminary it is about creating light, its source is only from God since he speaks it into being but God does not exist at a fixed focal point nor does he turn off and on, even the mention of days/night is not from the vantage point of God it is from the vantage point of a rotating planet looking up since we know there really is no such thing as night and the sun is always shining. The problem created in the text is where does the light come from because nothing else but light is spoken on day 1.

You speak of logic but Hebrew logic is not like Western step logic. it exists in blocks of information and each block builds a goal and the details within the block are used to support the goal, and those details can be fluid because the most important thing is to build the goal. Blocks are next to each other but they do not have to agree with each other, and may infact present conflicting information. this is what we see in the creation account and each day is a sub-block of information and the whole account is the main block. each block is next to each other but it doesn't matter that the days conflict they are position in a way to serve a purpose and build toward a goal. What is most important is the goal and once we determine the goal we can understand the role of the details and the blocks and why they are placed in the order they are placed.

The days of creation are laid out with days 1-3 paralleling days 4-6. 1 is paired with 4, 2 is paired with 5 and 3 is paired with 6. The pairing is obvious from the themse of the days but the language is also important to show this as days 1-3 "create" is not actually used but rather the focus is God separating and organizing this primordial chaos and darkness in the text. Days 4-6 he "creates" but the word create is a unique word and in Hebrew has a concrete meaning of actually "fattening" but better put "filling up" or a "forming" like stuffing a pillowcase. Day 1-3 acts as a frame (it's the pillowcase) where Days 4-6 are the stuffing.

For example, day 4 the day/night luminaries fill the sky where day 1 light and darkness are separated and day and night are defined, day 6 the fish and birds fill the air and ocean that was separated and defined in day 2 and in day 6 the animals and humans fill the land that was separated and defined in day 3. God first organizes and builds a framework, then he fills it up. This is a pattern within the creation and it doesn't have to describe a literal passing of 6 consecutive days and although Western Step logic demands this Hebraic block logic doesn't.

We need to read the text based on who it was written for and be careful not to superimpose our way of thinking over it. Am I saying that it wasn't 7 days? that God didn't create in an exact way described? No, I'm saying when we demand this we miss the point of the text. What's the point? well that's for you to discover but all the information in the account proclaims it so it is what we should be looking at.

This is a fascinating and (to me) a helpful approach. Thank you for sharing it. Do you have a source or further reading concerning this approach that you could suggest?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,356
11,904
Georgia
✟1,093,171.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.


I think you are misrepresenting the confliction. if we are to take a literal account on day one light is spoken into being and this light is separated from the darkness and is called day and the darkness night, the first day. We know the account but I fail to see where the source of the light is mentioned.

And you "need" God to tell you what the source of light is ... before you can believe that He divided day and night with one rotation of the planet???

From the standpoint of exegesis - we know that Moses and his readers already were familiar with "day" and "night" and the length of time it takes for each. That is the obvious part.

Your argument is that if God does not "also tell you" the source of light - then His word cannot be trusted just as it is??

How so?

Meanwhile God's summary of it - "in legal code"


Legal Code -- Ex 20: "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

This is a fascinating and (to me) a helpful approach.

I too find the whole topic fascinating
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,356
11,904
Georgia
✟1,093,171.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
These are the statutes and ordinances and laws which the LORD established between Himself and the sons of Israel through Moses at Mount Sinai.
Lv 26:46

True - but how many laws were based on an appeal to myth/fiction of the "since the easter bunny paints the forest red - so everyone must wear red shoes" kind of Laws do you find in actual scripture... Jews or not.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,356
11,904
Georgia
✟1,093,171.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The days of creation are laid out with days 1-3 paralleling days 4-6. 1 is paired with 4, 2 is paired with 5 and 3 is paired with 6. The pairing is obvious from the themse of the days

chiastic structure is in both Old and New Testament but that alone is never proof that the text is not to be taken literally.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,356
11,904
Georgia
✟1,093,171.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
We need to read the text based on who it was written for and be careful not to superimpose our way of thinking over it. Am I saying that it wasn't 7 days? that God didn't create in an exact way described? No, .

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

======================================

Bar admits to being a "Bible denier"

In common parlance the fundamentalist Christian is the person who "takes the Bible literally." This description is not quite accurate, because we shall see that many "liberal" scholars, particularly in connection with Old Testament cosmology (see Chapter 13), take the texts much more literally than conservatives do. With regard to biblical authority the ruling axiom for evangelical rationalism is inerrancy, not literalism. James Barr has shown that evangelical exegetes generally naturalize Old Testament miracles and divine interventions, rather than taking the events literally. As Barr states: "In order to avoid imputing error to the Bible, fundamentalists twist and turn back and forward between literal and non literal...exegesis....The typical conservative evangelical exegesis is literal, but only up to a point: when the point is reached where literal interpretation would make the Bible appear 'wrong,' a sudden switch to nonliteral interpretation is made. "1 This fanatical devotion to inerrancy compromises the integrity of evangelical theology right at its roots.
[INSPIRATION AND INERRANCY
From N. F. Gier, God, Reason, and the Evangelicals (University Press of America, 1987), chapter 6.]




Yet even Bar knows that "the text" ... "the Hebrew"... the OT text is written not as myth or fiction - but as a historic account ... that is the intended purpose of the writer and how the readers would have been given it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,400
1,329
48
Florida
✟125,827.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Anyone can say anything they like. The challenge as in the OP is "given the facts" that we see in the text --

The facts we see in the text are:
  1. God created light before He created the sun.
  2. God created fruit trees before He created man.
  3. God created fish first, then birds, then mammals.
So, given the facts, we can see the order that creatures were made. This story fits the narrative scientists agree on: aquatic animals before birds and birds before mammals. Huge animals before smaller creatures in the air and on the ground.

However, the Bible is missing the names of species that swim, fly, and move on the ground. At the time it was written, there was no taxonomy system. A bird was a bird; a fish was a fish; a cattle was a cattle. So there is nothing in Genesis 1 about whether species evolved or not. There is nothing either way about the fact that many plants and animals evolved over time and others became extinct. Therefore, the Bible isn't proof that evolution never occured or disproof of species extinctions before the creation of man.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,356
11,904
Georgia
✟1,093,171.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The facts we see in the text are:
  1. God created light before He created the sun.
  2. God created fruit trees before He created man.
  3. God created fish first, then birds, then mammals.

True --

What we don't see is "God only knows of one source of light... fusion"
What we don't see is "God said He did things in this order even though we know He can't do that"

What we do see is that He did it all in 7 days and that timeline itself is set in "legal" code where not myth is allowed to make the case "in law".

"Six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord Made" Ex 20:11
So, given the facts, we can see the order that creatures were made. This story fits the narrative scientists agree on: aquatic animals before birds and birds before mammals. Huge animals before smaller creatures in the air and on the ground.

Which is interesting but the text does not say "this is what God did as long as you find this order in the fossil record".

However, the Bible is missing the names of species that swim, fly, and move

Indeed. We have fish birds cattle and humans listed but not the "species" names given.



on the ground. At the time it was written, there was no taxonomy system. A bird was a bird; a fish was a fish; a cattle was a cattle. So there is nothing in Genesis 1 about whether species evolved or not.

If there is some demonstrated science saying that cattle evolve in a single day or that humans evolve in a single day in the lab... I have yet to see it.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,356
11,904
Georgia
✟1,093,171.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
For those who think there is no way six days can mean more than 144 hours, keep in mind the Genesis 1 author knew only one language and it had no words for eon, epoch, era, and millenium.

And that writer had Adam living for 900 years.. That would be "another " choice for "time" other than "7 days".

And the same writer has "six days you shall labor ...for in six days the Lord made" as legal code in Exodus 20:11

That write had this "number" also

"They blessed Rebekah and said to her, “May you, our sister, Become thousands of ten thousands, And may your descendants possess The gate of those who hate them.” Gen 24:60
 
Upvote 0

gideon123

Humble Servant of God
Dec 25, 2011
1,185
583
USA
✟66,591.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your argument is wrong.

Yes, Genesis describes the separation of day and night. BUT there cannot be morning and evening until the Earth is orbiting around the Sun, and also spinning on its own axis. This did not exist in the first days of Genesis, directly as described by the text.

Therefore, if you adopt literalism then you are forced to believe that God does not know what 'day' means, or that He doea not understand 'morning and night'.

I prefer to believe that God has an excellent knowledge of astronomy and physics. And so the problem is with a small group of religious believers who try to force literalism on a text that was written 1000's of years ago.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I've no reason at all to overthink Genesis. We had to get here somehow, and it didn't just happen out of the blue, so Genesis's account works just fine for me.

I wouldn't call myself a bible believer if it didn't take it as face value because there is nothing there to indicate we shouldn't....nothing whatsoever.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BobRyan
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’
Here is what Professor James Barr had to say regarding the inerrancy of the scripture.

In common parlance the fundamentalist Christian is the person who "takes the Bible literally." This description is not quite accurate, because we shall see that many "liberal" scholars, particularly in connection with Old Testament cosmology (see Chapter 13), take the texts much more literally than conservatives do. With regard to biblical authority the ruling axiom for evangelical rationalism is inerrancy, not literalism. James Barr has shown that evangelical exegetes generally naturalize Old Testament miracles and divine interventions, rather than taking the events literally. As Barr states: "In order to avoid imputing error to the Bible, fundamentalists twist and turn back and forward between literal and non literal...exegesis....The typical conservative evangelical exegesis is literal, but only up to a point: when the point is reached where literal interpretation would make the Bible appear 'wrong,' a sudden switch to nonliteral interpretation is made. "1 This fanatical devotion to inerrancy compromises the integrity of evangelical theology right at its roots.
[INSPIRATION AND INERRANCY
From N. F. Gier, God, Reason, and the Evangelicals (University Press of America, 1987), chapter 6.]


 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,356
11,904
Georgia
✟1,093,171.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Here is what Professor James Barr had to say regarding the inerrancy of the scripture.

James Barr and the majority of his peers in the "world class universities" in the area of OT studies and Hebrew were pretty much atheists "that is a given". The point is that even atheists when looking at the "literature" for the "kind of writing that it is" freely admit that the text is written as an intended historic account and that is how the readers would have had it.

The fact that they themselves "don't believe the Bible" does not matter because the only point being debated is "based on the language" ... "based on the kind of writing that it is" - is the text a historic account or is the author just trying to write a poem with no ties to actual events.

The "legal code" of Ex 20:11 make it clear this is not intended by the author as fiction.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,356
11,904
Georgia
✟1,093,171.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
when the point is reached where literal interpretation would make the Bible appear 'wrong,' a sudden switch to nonliteral interpretation is made. "1 This fanatical devotion to inerrancy compromises the integrity of evangelical theology right at its roots.
[INSPIRATION AND INERRANCY
From N. F. Gier, God, Reason, and the Evangelicals (University Press of America, 1987), chapter 6.]

So 'my quote of Barr" in his other statementToday at 3:46 PM #26 is provided by me to get the obvious detail about the language and the "kind of literature".

But here you offer your quote of Barr on another topic -- to find out if the Bible should also "be believed"?? why does it help you to quote an atheist on the topic "yes - but should the Bible be believed"???

As if you had started a thread of the form from Barr's previous statement "well yes the Bible is written as a historic account of a real 7 day week.." but then use this second statement from Barr to get to your point about "but that does not mean we should believe it - just because it is giving that historic account is no reason to trust it or believe it... join my atheist friends and choose to disbelieve the Bible" - as if Barr's argument on that point makes your case where as his statement on the first point makes mine???

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

I am wondering if you have thought that through or are you just posting off the cuff and not trying to connect the dots on that post?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,356
11,904
Georgia
✟1,093,171.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I've no reason at all to overthink Genesis. We had to get here somehow, and it didn't just happen out of the blue, so Genesis's account works just fine for me.

I wouldn't call myself a bible believer if it didn't take it as face value because there is nothing there to indicate we shouldn't....nothing whatsoever.

And that is the point
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kenny'sID
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,356
11,904
Georgia
✟1,093,171.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Your argument is wrong.

Yes, Genesis describes the separation of day and night. BUT there cannot be morning and evening until the Earth is orbiting around the Sun .

Because it has been proven that God only knows of one source of light for Earth and that is fusion reactions 93 million miles from earth??

That is pretty much it for God - He is not capable of any other source of light on day 1 so His word is not entirely accurate on that point???

Seriously??
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Thir7ySev3n
Upvote 0

Thir7ySev3n

Psalm 139
Sep 13, 2009
672
417
33
✟66,497.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"The only logical option" may be too strong a statement -- how about "the best logical option given all the texts".

===================================
some Christians say: "I find it very difficult to believe those who say they take all of the creation account in Genesis literally." -- but is that position logical??


We know that in Genesis 1, God separates light from darkness. God calls one Day and the other Night. This is the 1st day of the 7 day creation week we find in Genesis 1-2:3 and summarized in legal code in Ex 20:11.

But some will complain that the luminaries of the sky (Sun, moon) have yet to be created at that point -- not created on day 1 so then the question is "How could God possibly know how to have a source of light other than the fusion reactions on the sun 93 million miles (on average) from Earth?)" -- indeed "how could God possibly know"... when your objection gets to that point you know you made a wrong turn somewhere.

A literal day is, at the very least, a twenty four hour period in which the earth rotates on its axis is the time for day and night cycles to complete but to have that rotation viewed from the surface of the earth as composed of day and night we need a single-side light source... which of course some assume God would not know how to provide without the sun in place.


Let's be honest and admit that for case of those tossing out the historic reliability of the Genesis account, one has to make some massive unproven speculative assertions in the above.

1. They must "assume" God only has the capacity to know of 'one source of light' and so failing to create the sun first he is simply "mistaken" in his recollection of what He did. That is not a logical position .. as if the only source of light known to God is fusion from the sun.

2.They must "assume" that the rotation of the planet (no matter if it is day or night) cannot possibly be 24 hours with a light source other than the sun for the "observer" at the surface of Earth. "AS IF" the rotation of the planet had not even started 6000 years ago. That is not logical

3. They then place their own unproven assertions in the steps outlined above - and make those assumptions "the infallible rule" / foundation from which to reject the entire historic account of Genesis 1-2:3 as being "literal". Because after all what is "most true" at that point is their own own unproven assertion. That is not logical - their proposal is to munge the text into a forced symbolism where instead of day and night what we have is "God found out the difference between right and wrong" in what? in one rotation planet earth?? linking Earth's rotation with God finding out right -from- wrong is complete nonsense. It makes much more logical sense to link that rotation with "day and night".

Obviously they only go down that road because they are convinced Their unproven assertions are infallible?

Legal Code -- Ex 20: "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

=======================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

You are, of course, right, and evolution is a farce. But that's not going to stop most scientism worshippers from believing a monkey's their uncle.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BobRyan
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In common parlance the fundamentalist Christian is the person who "takes the Bible literally."

Sounds like non fundamentalist reasoning for not believing what the bible says. As in, and for instance, their excuse to believe something like evolution.

The bible has been clear to me nearly always what's to be taken literally and what to not, but I would like to hear what others think is the indication Genesis should not be taken literally?

The problem with deciding, without reason, something should not be taken literally is, we then move to not taking literally all of what we don't like about the bible.

Believe the bible or don't.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,356
11,904
Georgia
✟1,093,171.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Sounds like non fundamentalist reasoning for not believing what the bible says. As in, and for instance, their excuse to believe something like evolution. .

What is amazing is that each time you hear someone say how awful it is to believe the Bible - you can ask "and so for you there is no virgin birth, no resurrection of Christ, no ascension into heaven, no second coming, no future resurrection"... you know the kind of thing that will never be "reproduced in the lab" the same way the 7 day creation week cannot be "reproduced in the lab"??

And watch them back pedal
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0