GOD's Visual Aid

[LittleNipper]

Are you saying you don't understand or seek God ?

I'm saying GOD choose me before creation...

 

[LittleNipper]

By definition, you interpret the bible - that is what comprehension entails, reading and understanding.

The Holy Spirit brings the Bible's meaning to me. There is no interpretion on my part.

 

[theFijian]

They do it shine forth GOD's TRUTH as revealed by GOD HIMSELF through HIS WORD to a darkening world.

I know what you're saying but I can't really see it has any relevance to the point I was making. Care to rephrase?

 

[Mallon]

I choose to understand the biblical account and if science can be applied toward those ends, I feel it should be applied.

If you start with the conclusion that your Holy Spirit-inspired understanding of the Scriptures is correct, then there's no way that you can apply science to your understanding of the world because science begins with hypotheses and ends with conclusions. You don't get to pick your conclusions about the world first and then cherry pick the evidence to fit that preconception and call it "science".
You said earlier that you don't reject science. I think this proves that you do!

The Holy Spirit brings the Bible's meaning to me. There is no interpretion on my part.

I think that about puts an end to the argument, folks. How can you reason with someone who believes His reading of the Bible is directly injected intravenously through the Holy Spirit, without a need to interpret the written words of Scripture? We call that dogma. And you can't argue with dogma.

 

[theFijian]

The Holy Spirit brings the Bible's meaning to me. There is no interpretion on my part.

Wow, is this some kind of neo-gnosticism?

 

[Molal]

The Holy Spirit brings the Bible's meaning to me. There is no interpretion on my part.

And how does that happen? Because I am very skeptical of your assertion.

 

[LittleNipper]

If you start with the conclusion that your Holy Spirit-inspired understanding of the Scriptures is correct, then there's no way that you can apply science to your understanding of the world because science begins with hypotheses and ends with conclusions. You don't get to pick your conclusions about the world first and then cherry pick the evidence to fit that preconception and call it "science".
You said earlier that you don't reject science. I think this proves that you do!


I think that about puts an end to the argument, folks. How can you reason with someone who believes His reading of the Bible is directly injected intravenously through the Holy Spirit, without a need to interpret the written words of Scripture? We call that dogma. And you can't argue with dogma.

So then you are saying it is wrong to try to determine the age of the universe using science. That would make doing such a sin. But there is hope for you because GOD told Adam and Eve that HE was going to send a SAVIOR to deal with the Serpant.

 

[LittleNipper]

And how does that happen? Because I am very skeptical of your assertion.

Mainly through Bible study and prayer.

 

[LittleNipper]

Wow, is this some kind of neo-gnosticism?

Actually you and not I are practicing such. Read II Peter chaper 2

 

[Mallon]

So then you are saying it is wrong to try to determine the age of the universe using science.

No. That is not what I'm saying. I don't know how you could possibly contrive that from anything I've said.

But there is hope for you because GOD told Adam and Eve that HE was going to send a SAVIOR to deal with the Serpant.

AMEN!

 

[LittleNipper]

No. That is not what I'm saying. I don't know how you could possibly contrive that from anything I've said.


AMEN!

Amen, only if it actually happened. I want to go to a real place called heaven and see the new heavens and new earth, and not simply live for an allegory or pray to one...

 

[crawfish]

I do not rationalize the Bible. I allow the Bible to interpret the Bible. The Bible is my standard and not interpretions of scientific research. The evening and morning are the parameters of a day, and wherever it's used in the Bible it means a day. No interpertation necessary on my part.

Do you ever read the passages about the "pillars of the earth" and know that the author is only being figurative because you've seen pictures of the earth from space and know it has no such support?

Do you read scripture about how the sun rises and sets, and know that the author is being figurative because we know that the sun actually stays still relative to the earth, and the effect is caused by the earth's rotation?

Do you believe that when the sun and moon are referred to as the "greater light" and "lesser light" in Genesis 1, the author is only speaking about the light from his perspective because they are NOT the same kind of light; the sun produces, the moon reflects.

...then you're using science and discovery to interpret the bible in a way that belies its obvious wording.

The ONLY thing we, as TE's, are doing is taking those concepts to the next logical step as mankind learns more about God's creation through scientific means.

There are many more - HUNDREDS more - examples of how we interpret scripture based on an enhanced understanding of the world around us.

 

[LittleNipper]

Do you ever read the passages about the "pillars of the earth" and know that the author is only being figurative because you've seen pictures of the earth from space and know it has no such support?

Do you read scripture about how the sun rises and sets, and know that the author is being figurative because we know that the sun actually stays still relative to the earth, and the effect is caused by the earth's rotation?

Do you believe that when the sun and moon are referred to as the "greater light" and "lesser light" in Genesis 1, the author is only speaking about the light from his perspective because they are NOT the same kind of light; the sun produces, the moon reflects.

...then you're using science and discovery to interpret the bible in a way that belies its obvious wording.

The ONLY thing we, as TE's, are doing is taking those concepts to the next logical step as mankind learns more about God's creation through scientific means.

There are many more - HUNDREDS more - examples of how we interpret scripture based on an enhanced understanding of the world around us.

Standing on earth the sun is seen to rise and set. That is exactly what any man standing on earth sees. If we wish to get technical, the earth spins and what we see is only part of the an entire story. Perhaps evolutionists might wish to reconsider their limited perception. We still talk about sunrise and sunset. We speak of the four corners of the earth. these are figurative and yet everyone understand exactly what is said.

 

[crawfish]

Actually you and not I are practicing such. Read II Peter chaper 2

The early Gnostics were not known for adding science to scripture. What they believed was that salvation was achieved through meticulous study of scripture to divine "hidden messages". Those with the proper understanding would be rulers in heaven.

(That's a vast simplification of what they believe, btw, but true in spirit)

If you're familiar with some of the early Christian writings, you'll see plenty of books and letters that match what Peter is describing quite well. The Gospel of Thomas; the Infancy Gospel of Thomas; the Gospel of Peter. These and other non-canonical writings point to a number of contrived stories and heretical theologies that spread their way through the world in the first 2-3 centuries. 1 and 2 Corinthians indicate the beginnings of the Gnostic movement.

As I mentioned above, we are not "making anything up". We are simply using the truth of God's creation - as declared in Psalms 19 - to distill the intended truth of God's word from the unintended symbology.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you ever read the passages about the "pillars of the earth" and know that the author is only being figurative because you've seen pictures of the earth from space and know it has no such support?

This has to be new to you.

The earth's crust IS indeed supported by numerous "pillars" underneath.

Without those pillars, we will all die.

 

[crawfish]

Standing on earth the sun is seen to rise and set. That is exactly what any man standing on earth sees. If we wish to get technical, the earth spins and what we see is only part of the an entire story. Perhaps evolutionists might wish to reconsider their limited perception. We still talk about sunrise and sunset. We speak of the four corners of the earth. these are figurative and yet everyone understand exactly what is said.

The original readers didn't understand that. You understand it the way you do because you know the truth of how things really are. It wouldn't have occurred to an ancient Israelite to question it - yes, there were really pillars; yes, the sun spun around the earth; yes, the sun and moon both produce light. Why would they believe any differently?

True, they wrote from their perspectives, but that's the point; they didn't have some supernatural understanding about how the universe really worked. They spoke from their limited level of understanding of how it worked to deliver a spiritual message. The fact they didn't get it "right" scientifically hardly matters, as it does not alter the messages.

 

[crawfish]

This has to be new to you.

The earth's crust IS indeed supported by numerous "pillars" underneath.

Without those pillars, we will all die.

Four?

Again, we can be positive that this isn't what the original authors intended. You're guilty of assuming that we can figuratively transfer one concept to a new one.

 

[LittleNipper]

The early Gnostics were not known for adding science to scripture. What they believed was that salvation was achieved through meticulous study of scripture to divine "hidden messages". Those with the proper understanding would be rulers in heaven.

(That's a vast simplification of what they believe, btw, but true in spirit)

If you're familiar with some of the early Christian writings, you'll see plenty of books and letters that match what Peter is describing quite well. The Gospel of Thomas; the Infancy Gospel of Thomas; the Gospel of Peter. These and other non-canonical writings point to a number of contrived stories and heretical theologies that spread their way through the world in the first 2-3 centuries. 1 and 2 Corinthians indicate the beginnings of the Gnostic movement.

As I mentioned above, we are not "making anything up". We are simply using the truth of God's creation - as declared in Psalms 19 - to distill the intended truth of God's word from the unintended symbology.

The Gnostics believed that JESUS had to be a spirit because the material is evil. They believed the scriptures to be allegorical. They took on a Buddhist view of good & evil ....

 

[crawfish]

The Gnostics believed that JESUS had to be a spirit because the material is evil. They believed the scriptures to be allegorical. They took on a Buddhist view of good & evil ....

The short answer is, neither one of us are Gnostics. However, we both have attributes that can be compared to Gnostic attributes.

It's kind of the Christian version of Godwin's law...all internet arguments will eventually have one side comparing the other to Hitler.

 

[theFijian]

Actually you and not I are practicing such. Read II Peter chaper 2

I know I'm not practising this neo-gnosticism, I can't vouch for you though.