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.
I just use your evidence.......Mistermystery said:Can you also try instead of mindlessly copy-paste it, to find a non-scriptual source? Because that's hardly evidence.
Sounds to me like you're well aware of the "ignore" button.Follower of Christ said:whew......Ive noticed if youre not responded to directly, you just dont get it....
My views are all over this board....
I do NOT hold Genesis 1 as anything but factual.....
The Hebrew language went to great lengths to show it was a literal day....
Nothing you can present in this will change my point of view, you are wasting you time and your fingers attempting to do so...
If I have to keep repeating this, I think I will find that ''ignore'' button
But whether Genesis is factual or not is not what Karl is trying to discuss with you. Karl is trying to give give arguments on why, if Genesis is not factual, it can't be easily dismissed because of that. You seem to be taking the opposite position that Genesis has to be factual to have meaning.Follower of Christ said:whew......Ive noticed if youre not responded to directly, you just dont get it....
My views are all over this board....
I do NOT hold Genesis 1 as anything but factual.....
The Hebrew language went to great lengths to show it was a literal day....
Nothing you can present in this will change my point of view, you are wasting you time and your fingers attempting to do so...
If I have to keep repeating this, I think I will find that ''ignore'' button
That being said, are we meant to read it literally in this day and age, or can we accept that we now know a couple of things about the world that the writers of Genesis did not?
Poe, think about it..... does it appear to you that your ''falsifying'' anything would affect me in the slightest?And whether or not it was intended to be read literally has no bearing on whether it is literallytrue. Them's two wholly different matters. In fact, by insisting on a literal interpretation, you're only setting it up to be falsified, which will do untold damage to the faith (the real faith; Christianity, not YEC).
Factual.....Tomk80 said:But whether Genesis is factual or not is not what Karl is trying to discuss with you. Karl is trying to give give arguments on why, if Genesis is not factual, it can't be easily dismissed because of that. You seem to be taking the opposite position that Genesis has to be factual to have meaning.
Whether Genesis is factual or not is not something Karl seems to be discussing at this point. I've got the suspicion that he already knows he won't be able to win you over on that one.
Follower of Christ said:YOU can take it anyway you like Poe...
Im not saying anyone has to change their views....
All I try to do is show that its ok for a believer to trust that God did it just the way Genesis one teaches..
Some will never believe that, thats their choice...
And its just like an arrogant man to assume he knows more than God
Poe, think about it..... does it appear to you that your ''falsifying'' anything would affect me in the slightest?
We call it "learning."Ive seen science change quite a few things since I was in school...
Honestly, I wouldnt doubt that the more they find out that a lot of what you folks believe today is diffent in ten years....
With all the stability of a stopped clock. Your choice, of course.Sorry, but Ill ride out all your indecision
Stumbling blocks can be turned into stepping stones. We have more knowledge and understanding of our world than ever before. This means we can have a deeper understanding of our Bible. Some of the traditional teaching are not holding up very well. It is up to us to present a new and a fresh understanding of the Bible, to each and every new generation.Follower of Christ said:Neither side can PROVE ABSOLUTELY anything pertaining to creation or we wouldnt be in here talking about this, would we
Yeah. I know....We call it "learning."
A man who sees no need for it should not be so quick to call others arrogant.
I am well aware of what your view is.Follower of Christ said:whew......Ive noticed if youre not responded to directly, you just dont get it....
My views are all over this board....
I do NOT hold Genesis 1 as anything but factual.....
The Hebrew language went to great lengths to show it was a literal day....
Nothing you can present in this will change my point of view, you are wasting you time and your fingers attempting to do so...
If I have to keep repeating this, I think I will find that ''ignore'' button
I am trying to get you to acknowledge that since AS YOU HAVE AGREED a non-literal story can still convey truth, it follows that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is not "dismissing" the account. That is ALL I AM TRYING TO GET YOU TO AGREE TO.
Becuase I see Genesis 1 as a foundational truth in the Bible, MY opinion is ''yes, you are rejecting it by taking it as parable''.Karl - Liberal Backslider said:You still seem to think I'm trying to convince you that Genesis 1 is non-literal. I am not.
I am merely trying close down, once and for all, the "If Genesis 1 isn't taken literally then you are rejecting it" accusation.
I am not asking you to agree with my view of Genesis 1. I am asking you to understand my viewpoint. That is all.
Thanks for your opinion...... noted and round filed...Tomk80 said:Follower of Christ,Karl already pointed out to you that he thought that a non-factual Genesis still has meaning. In other words, your first point: parable (or myth) can have a spiritual meaning in stead of a factual one. He pointed this out in post #333 and I tried to point this out to you in post #343.
Whether Genesis was factual or not was not something Karl was discussing, but you seem to have missed that all along.
MY evidence? No you silly person, that's not *MY* evidence. That's yours, and to tell you the truth, it's been falsified to many times.Follower of Christ said:I just use your evidence.......
No. I don't call it pseudo science. I don't call it science at all, because I can see that what they are saying is clearly wrong.You might try giving AIGs site a look.....Altho, Im sure its all just ''pseudo-science'' to you
MY evidence? No you silly person, that's not *MY* evidence. That's yours, and to tell you the truth, it's been falsified to many times.
Do yourself a favor son........do a search and see how many times I copy and paste as opposed to you folks......I don't copy and paste stuff like you do, I investegate my sources.
Put your money where youre mouth is and PROVE something ABSOLUTELY or just be man an admit its all just interpretation .......No. I don't call it pseudo science. I don't call it science at all, because I can see that what they are saying is clearly wrong.
AWWW......Im sorry.........did i lead you to believe i cared about your opinion about my Bible??
one more thing: I would like it if you don't say that the bible is *my* evidence. I don't see the bible as a scientifical book, because that holds no truth in *ANY* way.
I detect a slight flaw in your logic. The writer of Genesis is God. Therefore that which he meant to be taken literally needs to be taken literally.You believe (zealously, IMHO) that the writers of Genesis wrote it meaning it to be taken literally. Well, no argument here.
That being said, are we meant to read it literally in this day and age, or can we accept that we now know a couple of things about the world that the writers of Genesis did not?
Follower of Christ said:well, personally speaking, I dont like to waste time reading fiction....
YOu know.....the evidence would dictate that virgin birth is also ''myth''
What do you feel about that ?
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?