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.
You know a,lot of,Jews don't believe in the OT right? Just because the modern Jew doesn't believe doesn't have anything to do whether it's true or not. They also,don't believe in Jesus either. Does that make his story untrue also?It's a well-known and commonplace fact of Bible history. Ask a Jew; it's their book. The notion that it's all Darwin's fault is Creationist propaganda.
You are assuming that the "truth" of Genesis can only be 100% accurate factual history.
One of the barriers to communication about this is just that turn of phrase. When you say "believe the Bible" you really mean "believe a literal interpretation of the Bible." Many of the faithful who don't hold with that interpretation also consider themselves as believing the Bible.You know a,lot of,Jews don't believe in the OT right?
We're not discussing whether rejection of a literal Genesis is the right thing to do, only if it is a barrier to salvation.Just because the modern Jew doesn't believe doesn't have anything to do whether it's true or not. They also,don't believe in Jesus either. Does that make his story untrue also?
Not possible. We know of His life, death and resurrection through Apostolic witness. The Bible merely corroborates it.Yes I do mean literal interpretation. Because if you don't you can't claim Jesus was,real either. His life death and ressurection could be an allegory,as well.
Not possible. We know of His life, death and resurrection through Apostolic witness. The Bible merely corroborates it.
But even so, you are making a serious claim:
If one text is determined to be an allegory, another text written centuries later in a different language for a different literary purpose must also be an allegory, even if the internal structure of the second text does not lend itself to that interpretation..
Is that what you claim? Lucy, looks like you got some splainin' to do.
No, it could not. The claim is not made arbitrarily at the whim of an individual, but only after serious study with the help of expert scholars. If you knew anything about literary genre, you would know that the Gospels cannot be allegory, because of their internal structure. Unbelievers may claim that they are not true, but none claim they are allegory.I am saying that if you claim Genesis is then the same,claim could be made for any scriptural story...
Same here - spent most of it at the park.Hi, Bob. Nice day here.
No, John 1 doesn't reference Genesis. It says God created everything, which is what I believe. .
So if you don't believe the Genesus creation account, you deny everything in Scripture prior to John 1. .
Who here has said that they want to delete the entire Bible before John 1? .
No, John 1 doesn't reference Genesis. It says God created everything, which is what I believe. .
John 1 specifically says that Gid created everything. It does not specifically be cite Genesis 1.
What wild speculation? I have continually said that God created everything, and that John in fact stated that.
No, John 1 doesn't reference Genesis. It says God created everything, which is what I believe. .
So if you don't believe the Genesus creation account, you deny everything in Scripture prior to John 1. .
Who here has said that they want to delete the entire Bible before John 1? .
No, John 1 doesn't reference Genesis. It says God created everything, which is what I believe. .
John 1 specifically says that Gid created everything. It does not specifically be cite Genesis 1.
What wild speculation? I have continually said that God created everything, and that John in fact stated that.
I'll tell you what, let's see if you can stay on topic. I have said several times that Genesis and John both tell us that God created everything
I'll tell you what, let's see if you can stay on topic. I have said several times that Genesis and John both tell us that God created everything
I am saying that if you claim Genesis is then the same,claim could be made for any scritptural story and often is by the unbeliever. The unbeliever often states the NT is not true because it was written long after Jesus lived. Therefore it is a made up,story. They use the exact,same arguments you use for Genesis. The differences in the gospels show it was made up. That's their argument. The difference in the Genesis account is your excuse.
The structure of Genesis does not lend itself to,allegory you have purchased the theory perpetrated by unbelievers and propagated by liberal thought to,justify a belief in science propgated by ungodly men over Gods word.
It's a good thing it is "clear and obvious" because so far you haven't been able to back it up with any convincing argument.That is true - the same Bible-denying arguments against Genesis 1 are applicable to the virgin birth, the literal bodily resurrection of Christ - the literal bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the Bible etc. Creation-ists, virgin-birth-ists, bodily-resurrection-ists, bodily-ascension-into-heaven-ists all appeal to the same idea that the "Bible is not myth".
Atheists and T.E.'s all appeal to the same idea that the Bible is nothing but myth when it opposes something they prefer to imagine to be true.
The two issues could not be more clear and obvious to all.
It's a good thing it is "clear and obvious"
TEs and most atheists are smarter than to say "the Bible is a myth" even though they think some parts of it may be.
I suppose nothing of the kind--that's just a lie you made up about me.
I made no such argument. That's just another lie you tell about me.
I suppose you think you're very clever, .
How do you suppose that "non-Bible aware pagans would have seen Intelligent Design in nature when the math behind it hadn't even been developed
Oh, so now you've changed your tune. You are no longer claiming that the intelligent design you are talking about is the specific proposal of the Discovery Institute
[/QUOTE]No, it could not. The claim is not made arbitrarily at the whim of an individual, but only after serious study with the help of expert scholars. If you knew anything about literary genre, you would know that the Gospels cannot be allegory, because of their internal structure. Unbelievers may claim that they are not true, but none claim they are allegory.
I don't trust your usage of "true" in any case, because it seems that you think it can only mean factual historic truth.
So explain how you can take a heterogeneous collection of texts written in all kinds of genres, in different cultural settings, a variety of languages by a variety of authors for a variety of literary purposes, and say, "If this one is a myth, that that one could be too" even though that one is structured nothing like a myth.I couldn't agree more. The deny-all response from evolutionists not nearly as compelling as they like to imagine to themselves.
Indeed they love the "pick and choose Bible is myth" dodge. No question.
That's fine, I don't think much of it is allegory. The Garden story, in particular, is an etiology. If you are right, it is also 100% accurate literal history, but it is still an etiology. Jesus and the NT authors used it as if it was an etiology, so I don't care whether it is also 100% accurate literal history or not.And neither you nor anyone else can show anywhere in scripture where it is referred to as an allegory.
It is up to you to prove it is an allegory based upon Gods word and you can't.
Notice the details in the post that deal with your own posts -- I have copied your posts 'for you' to help you focus.
how do you suppose the Romans 1 text works with Pagans imagining that there is no evidence at all that anything was made by an intelligence at all -- you have yet to show how your attempt at eisegeting such nonsense into the text works at all.
one may argue that a rock does not show that some intelligence is at work - but the pagans were not simply concluding all the 'invisible attributes of almighty God" by looking at a little rock -- according the text they are seen all of nature and in it 'the things that have been MADE" by someone -- in this case -- almighty infinitely intelligent God.
Your argument that the pagan could not look at the butterfly and tell that it has been 'made' and that the one who designed such a creature was infinite in intelligence - is you on your own little non-Bible island so far. You make no attempt at all to show how Paul was making such a nonsensical argument, that is oh-so-necessary in the fiction that you present so far.
Here is my statement:
"How do you suppose that "non-Bible aware pagans would have seen Intelligent Design in nature when the math behind it hadn't even been developed?"
Notice it is a question. The purpose of the question was in part rhetorical, responding to your suggestion that Roman's ! proved that Paul believed even pagans should see evidence of Irreducible Complexity
It's a good thing it is "clear and obvious"
TEs and most atheists are smarter than to say "the Bible is a myth" even though they think some parts of it may be.
I suppose nothing of the kind--that's just a lie you made up about me.
I made no such argument. That's just another lie you tell about me.
I suppose you think you're very clever, .
How do you suppose that "non-Bible aware pagans would have seen Intelligent Design in nature when the math behind it hadn't even been developed
Oh, so now you've changed your tune. You are no longer claiming that the intelligent design you are talking about is the specific proposal of the Discovery Institute
I made no such attempt, as you well know.how do you suppose the Romans 1 text works with Pagans imagining that there is no evidence at all that anything was made by an intelligence at all -- you have yet to show how your attempt at eisegeting such nonsense into the text works at all.
Your argument that the pagan could not look at the butterfly and tell that it has been 'made' and that the one who designed such a creature was infinite in intelligence - is you on your own little non-Bible island so far. You make no attempt at all to show how Paul was making such a nonsensical argument, that is oh-so-necessary in the fiction that you present so far.
That he does, and I have neither denied it or argued against it, as you well know. But I stand by my position that neither the concept of Irreducible Complexity nor Specified Complex Information can be found in Romans 1 (or anywhere in God's creation, for that matter).Paul makes a much stronger argument for Intelligent Design at a much higher level - than the Discovery Institute proposes.
Many devout Christian scholars and theologians. That's fine, I don't think much of it is allegory. The Garden story, in particular, is an etiology. If you are right, it is also 100% accurate literal history, but it is still an etiology. Jesus and the NT authors used it as if it was an etiology, so I don't care whether it is also 100% accurate literal history or not.The same expert scholars that refute the veracity of the gospel accounts?
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?