1denomination
Active Member
Thank you all though I feel I may be outcast for it.Vance said:
And it was herev, I saw him do it
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.
Thank you all though I feel I may be outcast for it.Vance said:1denomination: I couldn't agree with your post more. Bless you!
Herev: I think you hit the nail on the head.
absolutely, and my interpretation of what he said in creation is possibly in error as is your interpretation of what he said in GenesisYahwehLove said:yeah. He is.
and HE is the one who defines the day and then says He did it in 6 of them.
Wont you just take Him at His word ?
Wrong answerversastyle said:2 Peter
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]3:8[/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica]...............one day with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.[/font]
Its just too bad He isn't being clear about it.
Not likely.herev said:absolutely, and my interpretation of what he said in creation is possibly in error as is your interpretation of what he said in Genesis
Sweeeeet.YahwehLove said:that passage has nothing to do with timeframes in Genesis but is explaining Gods patience. and If youll notice, it cancels itself out
Just can't help yourself can you?YahwehLove said:Other than what science says based on thier ever changing understanding of evidence
versastyle said:Just can't help yourself can you?
So, theres no possible way that say TE could be debunked in 10 years?Not all sciences significantly change, geological science for instance.
It depends on who's definition you are talking about.YahwehLove said:So, theres no possible way that say TE could be debunked in 10 years?
let me rephrase.versastyle said:It depends on who's definition you are talking about.
Firstly, I find it somewhat distressing that we base our faith in Gods word and whether we believe what it says on a theory that you just stated could very well be debunked later.herev said:YL, everyone but you seems to admit that we COULD be wrong, so of course it could be debunked in 10 years. Those that follow the evidence will say, ok, you've convinced me and our faith will still be just as strong. What will happen if you find you are?
Wow. I will take these in turn:YahwehLove said:Firstly, I find it somewhat distressing that we base our faith in Gods word and whether we believe what it says on a theory that you just stated could very well be debunked later.
Very distressing indeed.
Secondly, I have nothing to fear.
I believe that Genesis 1 goes to great lengths to teach a literal 6 days. If that is wrong, God is to blame.
Who will be the one showing me that Im wrong?
More of these secular scientists with their common decent?
I hardly think theres a thing they can show me that will make me reject a literal 6 day creation.
Vance said:Wow. I will take these in turn:
Sorry. the book states 6 days in english and in Hebrew.1. No, our faith in God's Word is absolute, our faith in a particular interpretation is not.
heh.2. And no, we do not base our faith in God's Word on any scientific principle. Most Christians are, however, willing to base their concept of how God created on what the evidence from God's Creation shows most likely to be true. Since the how and when of God's Creative process are relatively unimportant (compared to the WHO and WHY), if we discover new insights or even entirely new ideas about the HOW and WHEN, wonderful! It has no impact on our faith whatsoever, since we know God's Word is true, reliable and Holy regardless of the how and when.
Theyve already stolen creation and the flood from Gods word.
And I believe the parting of the Red Sea has been made a mockery as well.
Wheres the line?
Sorry. Again, the english and the Hebrew are VERY specific.3. And, no, if it turns out that it was not created in six literal days, it will not be God that is to to blame, it will be you for insisting that your own human, fallible interpretation must be right.
Genesis is a history book thru and thru.
If God meant long ages in this history book, He should have been more clear.
There are plenty of other words He could have used to show long ages.
Well, all that had to be done was not say things like ''an evening and a morning, the third day''. All He had to do was say ''yom'' and left it at that.
eh.4. There were a lot of Christians speaking of geocentrism the same way: there is no evidence that would convince them that it was earth that moved and not the sun. The Scripture is clear, they said. There were priests who refused to look into Galileo's telescope. They said that there was nothing it could show them that would change their mind about anything. Either it would show what they already believed, or it would be a trick of Satan. They were simply wrong, but most lived their entire lives believing that the Bible taught only geocentrism.
Im not touching this one. A flame war will surely result.
HmmmI think you would agree they are mistaken in their insistence about their own fallible, human interpretation.
What do the scriptures actually say on the matter?
Was it not ones reading between the lines too much that caused the belief?
Not nearly as plain as ''an evening and a morning, the first day'' rigth after defining a day in Genesis 1:5.
Yes, but are you saying you are 100% sure it was meant to be read literally and not figuratively? 100%? When millions of Bible-believing, Spirit-led Christians have believed otherwise? If you are willing to say that you can not be wrong in your insistance on a literal interpretion, then we have little to discuss. I would direct your attention to a book called the Genesis Debate. You can find it on Amazon for about $13. It covers the three major approaches by those who all reject evolution. Yours is just one of them.YahwehLove said:Sorry. the book states 6 days in english and in Hebrew.
Well, your premise is entirely wrong. No one has stolen anything from the Bible. God still created, and every word of the text, and that of the flood story as well, is God's Holy Word, and should be read with reverence and seeking for God's message to us. But that message need not be given only in the form of literal history. How do you read Song of Solomon? As a sensual, even erotic, love poem or as figurative for Christ and the Church? There is not a single clue that it should be read figuratively, but this has been a common interpretation among Fundamentalists for a very long time.YahwehLove said:heh.
Theyve already stolen creation and the flood from Gods word.
And I believe the parting of the Red Sea has been made a mockery as well.
Wheres the line?
And why do you think this? What is your literary analysis that tells you that, among the wide variety of writing styles and, in particular, those in common usage in the near east at that time, that this particular text must be read as literal history from end to end?YahwehLove said:Sorry. Again, the english and the Hebrew are VERY specific.
Genesis is a history book thru and thru.
I don't think God meant long ages. Haven't we covered this? Why do you keep insisting that I read the YOM's as representing long ages? I have told you that I don't and what I do believe, but you keep falling back on this. Is this the only argument for an old earth that you have heard? Again, I would direct you to the Genesis Debate, so you can at least see that there are other interpretations out there.YahwehLove said:If God meant long ages in this history book, He should have been more clear.
There are plenty of other words He could have used to show long ages.
Well, all that had to be done was not say things like ''an evening and a morning, the third day''. All He had to do was say ''yom'' and left it at that.
eh.
No, it was not someone reading between the lines, but the entire Christain Church, Catholic and Protestant alike reading it all to literally. And to them, every bit as plain as the 24-hour day. Just ask them, or go review this thread:YahwehLove said:Hmmm
What do the scriptures actually say on the matter?
Was it not ones reading between the lines too much that caused the belief?
Not nearly as plain as ''an evening and a morning, the first day'' rigth after defining a day in Genesis 1:5.
That is a gross misstatement of TE beliefs. We have our faith in God (to put your faith in the Bible {your words} sounds more like idolatry--why put your faith in anything but God?)--we trust in his word as much as you do. It is a matter of interpretation--why is that so difficult. You interpret it as literal, I do not. I admit that my interpretation is MINE and therefore human--you believe your interpretation, though also human, as being infallible, perfect, and without possibility of error--another idolatrous statement (as well as sanctimonious, self-righteous, and judgmental).YahwehLove said:Firstly, I find it somewhat distressing that we base our faith in Gods word and whether we believe what it says on a theory that you just stated could very well be debunked later.
I was just going to say that!Very distressing indeed.
I don't think anyone suggested that you should fear anything.Secondly, I have nothing to fear.
yes, you BELIEVE--as I said, this is your interpretationI believe that Genesis 1 goes to great lengths to teach a literal 6 days.
If that is wrong, God is to blame.
I don't know? The question was hypothetical. The question was do you admit that you might be wrong--your answer is no--if it's wrong--it's God's faultWho will be the one showing me that Im wrong?
I doubt that you would ever be so open mindedMore of these secular scientists with their common decent?
that much we agree onI hardly think theres a thing they can show me that will make me reject a literal 6 day creation.
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?