Is mathematics anti-God?

Ark Guy · Dec 22, 2003

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
The last post speaks for itself. This is how far one has to go to support the literality of Scripture.

And I've watched locusts. They use all six to walk around. Which pair do you think they don't use?

It's quite obvious that the locust has six appendages used for locomotion.
What I was trying to do was point out the difference between the 4 front appendages and the 2 rear appendages. (you do see the differance?)

Typically the two rear appendages are for jumping and the 4 front appendages for walking around.

As you should clearly see one doesn't have to go far to understand the literal intent of the passage concerning the locust. The bible did a great job of differentiating this particular insect locomotion appendages from the other insects. Apparently the bible did not consider the 2 rear jumping appendages as legs in the sense legs are typically used for.

Now if the bible mentioned that an ant or a bee had 4 legs...you might have a point. What the anti-bible crowd fails to do is consider the function of their appendages.

In a sense we humans have 4 legs. But we consider one set as arms. The biblical context of the locust is similar.

Whether you want to accept it or not, the locust question has been answered.

Because this post is off topic, this post will also appear as a new topic titled...locust... Please respond there if you have any comments.

Buck72 · Dec 22, 2003

seebs said:
And yet, if literalism is ever false, then it's our only option.

Literalism is never false. Non-literalism is the slippery slope.

God didn't promise to make the study part of this easy.

Sure He did! Man is the one that mucks it all up:

Mat 18:4 "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mar 10:15 "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it atall."

Mat 7:24-27 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. "And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. "The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall."

Mat 11:25-26 At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. "Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.

Rom 12:16 Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation.

1Co 1:10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.

1Co 1:11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. 1Co 1:12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."

1Co 1:13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 1Co 1:15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.

1Co 1:16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1Co 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

1Co 1:22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;

1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,

1Co 1:24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1Co 1:26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;

1Co 1:27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,

1Co 1:28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,

1Co 1:29 so that no man may boast before God.

Yeah. Wacky stuff, like denying the Real Presence in the Eucharist, or the importance of apostolic succession, too.

Is the Eucharist the same as communion? At any rate, Christ told us that He is with us always:

Mat 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

As for apostolic succession, I'd jump out of my seat to agree with you if it were in scripture, but I'm not sure where that idea came from.

Because the Bible's coverage of creation is very brief, and structured like a myth, and the question of exactly how life works is really not the sort of question I would expect the Bible to answer. That suggests that the details of physical processes should in general be considered "something the Bible doesn't really cover".

Structured like a myth? That is a rather extreme conclusion, and apart from merely wanting to cling to the theory of evolution, no one who honestly believes could come up with that concusion alone. It has been TAUGHT that way by other men who themselves are convinced that since evolution MUST be true, then we'll dismiss the Bible automatically - OUCH! What if this was the biggest mistake of their life!?

Again, evolution is built upon two things:

1. Observable data.
2. Supposition to how it got there.

Obviously the observable part is easy enough. But the conjecture, the "filling the gaps" between observed and imagined is where I begin to squirm in my seat.

There is not a man alive that has been able to convince me that the earth is billions of years old. The short history (sic) of the evolution theory has gradually increased the age of the earth again and again - BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE. I feel that if God, gave us His word to believe through pure, humble FAITH, to know Him, His ways, and our responsibility to uphold the truth in a world diametrically opposed to every facet of the very faith; why, for the love of all that is holy, would we want to willfully abandon ship to cruise with the world?

Joh 15:19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

Jam 2:5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

1Jo 2:15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

1Jo 3:1 See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.

Joh 16:33 "These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."

seebs · Dec 22, 2003

Ark Guy said:
As you should clearly see one doesn't have to go far to understand the literal intent of the passage concerning the locust.

So, "has four legs" doesn't mean "has four legs".

This is "literal"?

Furthermore, would you care to support your claim that locusts really only walk on four legs? It's a very unusual claim to make about an insect.

Now if the bible mentioned that an ant or a bee had 4 legs...you might have a point. What the anti-bible crowd fails to do is consider the function of their appendages.

I would appreciate it if you would stop calling people the "anti-bible" crowd. From where I stand, you seem to be the "anti-bible" crowd, trying to turn the most important written text in history into a laughingstock. But I don't call you names, because I understand that you are trying, to the best of your ability, to defend the truth as you understand it.

Could you perhaps extend the same courtesy?

In a sense we humans have 4 legs. But we consider one set as arms. The biblical context of the locust is similar.

We do not have four legs. We have four limbs.

Locusts have four legs; they have four limbs which are put to the ground and used for locomotion.

Whether you want to accept it or not, the locust question has been answered.

But you haven't provided a four-legged bird yet.

Ark Guy · Dec 22, 2003

metathoracic leg...look it up.

It's a limb made for jumping...not walking.

Read, learn, study, seebs.

seebs · Dec 22, 2003

Buck72 said:
Literalism is never false. Non-literalism is the slippery slope.

You're gonna have to go all the way back to the first wandering Hebrews to correct that, then.

Sure He did!

Then why does the Bible speak of people studying the Scriptures more than once? Why did the Sages study the Torah for their whole lives?

If it were that easy, wouldn't they have been done sooner?

Mat 7:24-27[/color] "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Cool! "And acts on them". Looks like we have to adapt our theology; faith and works appear to be required, by a plain literal reading.

Is the Eucharist the same as communion? At any rate, Christ told us that He is with us always:

A literal reading of the Bible clearly says that He is with us, physically, as flesh which is eaten in communion.

That's literal. If you want to say that "this is My flesh" is symbolic, then you are not reading the Bible literally.

As for apostolic succession, I'd jump out of my seat to agree with you if it were in scripture, but I'm not sure where that idea came from.

The apostles elected a replacement. It's in there.

Structured like a myth?

Yes.

That is a rather extreme conclusion, and apart from merely wanting to cling to the theory of evolution, no one who honestly believes could come up with that concusion alone.

What does belief have to do with it? If you have read a dozen or more creation myths, and you read Genesis 1, it sounds very much like a creation myth. It has the repetitive structure of the days, it has odd physical qualities (there is "light" before any source for it is created, for instance)... It's very ritualized.

The whole thing has the structure and style used in mythology. The thing with Adam's rib is a classic example.

I think you would do well to acquire some familiarity with how the Hebrews understood Genesis, because they were the ones God gave it to.

It has been TAUGHT that way by other men who themselves are convinced that since evolution MUST be true, then we'll dismiss the Bible automatically - OUCH! What if this was the biggest mistake of their life!?

The mistake is the idea that you must "dismiss" the Bible if a given passage doesn't turn out to be plain literal fact. That's the lie; it's the big lie, invented in the past century, and in direct conflict with two thousand years of lessons learned.

Obviously the observable part is easy enough. But the conjecture, the "filling the gaps" between observed and imagined is where I begin to squirm in my seat.

The conjecture would bother me, if it hadn't been used to make predictions about future discoveries that ought to turn up if the theory were correct.

There is not a man alive that has been able to convince me that the earth is billions of years old.

So? There is not a man alive that has been able to convince a guy I know that there is a God. Disbelief does not make a claim false.

The short history (sic) of the evolution theory has gradually increased the age of the earth again and again - BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE.

Here, I think, you make a grave error; you fail to realize that evolution came along after geologists had already pegged the earth as being "old enough". Geologists were the ones who established that the earth ought to be at least a billion years old. Christians, for the most part, just like the ones who, in the 1800's, admitted that all of the evidence available to them suggested that the Deluge had never actually occurred.

I feel that if God, gave us His word to believe through pure, humble FAITH, to know Him, His ways, and our responsibility to uphold the truth in a world diametrically opposed to every facet of the very faith; why, for the love of all that is holy, would we want to willfully abandon ship to cruise with the world?

Once again, to call the Bible "God's word" is blasphemy. The Word is Jesus. If you would not commit this blasphemy, you would not have any trouble understanding how this works.

Jesus is easy to know; He comes to us. Children can understand His message. He is the living Word, who lets us come to know God.

The Bible is not the Word. It's a book. It's a book full of information to lead us to the Word.

That's all it has to do; lead us to Jesus, and guide us a bit. It doesn't need to be a history text.

Literalism and idolatry seem to go hand in hand; the only reason the Bible has to be literal is because it's been put on the pedestal reserved for Christ Himself. Take it off from that pedestal, put Him in the place you have reserved for an old book, and you will find that the Word does not conflict with the world, not with an old world, not with evolution, not with any part of the truth of creation.

I do not recommend that you continue to put the Bible in the place reserved for the Christ. It is not the Word. In the beginning was not the Bible, and the Bible was not God, and the Bible was not with God.

seebs · Dec 22, 2003

Ark Guy said:
Read, learn, study, seebs.

Well, speaking of reading:

"[20] All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
[21] Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
[22] Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
[23] But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."

So, we're talking about things which "leap withal upon the earth".

So.

Could you name some of these other "flying creeping things, which have four feet"?

Ark Guy · Dec 22, 2003

How many feet does a bat have?

fragmentsofdreams · Dec 22, 2003

Ark Guy said:
The bible says God made the planets and set them in motion (inferred from scripture).

Your models of planetary motion claim there was no need for God in the creation of the planets. It happened with out God.

You are confusing the laws of physics and their application with origination.

Models of panetary motion have nothing to say about the creation of the planets.

fragmentsofdreams · Dec 22, 2003

Ark Guy said:
seebs posted the following
he Bible never once says that anything is made from protons, neutrons, and electrons. It does not refer to the earth moving around the sun, and indeed, it clearly indicates that the earth is fixed in place, and the sun moves around it. The Bible refers to four-legged flying creatures. The Bible says that rabbits chew their cud.

The Bible is not a science textbook. Things may be true, without being found in the Bible.

What you keep failing to realize is that the bible does indeed talk about creation. The account is contained between the covers of the bible. In a sense this particular peice of science is covered in the bible. It doesn't mention protons, neutrons, and electrons.

As far as the earth goes, it can't be moved. Rabbits do chew what their stomachs processed..they just chew their cud slightly differently.

And four legged flying creatures? where?

And the Sun revolving around the earth? Just where does it say this?

The strawman arguments are flying now.

The earth can be moved. All I would need is a big asteroid and a big enough rocket or ion engine. A close flyby would alter the course of the Earth measureably.

fragmentsofdreams · Dec 22, 2003

Ark Guy said:
The locust as measured by todays science have six legs.
But if you watch them they only use four of them to walk around.

The earth can't be moved.
It is 3rd from the sun and will stay there untill God decides to move it.
...or will you insist that this moving means spinning on it's axis?

The earth is moving all the time. Your definition of movement seems quite arbitrary. If I stay between the same to people in a line, does that mean that I don't move?

fragmentsofdreams · Dec 22, 2003

Ark Guy said:
Concerning the sun revolving around the earth. This is not what the bible is claiming. It is what you are forcing the bible to claim.
Im my back yard, from my vantage point the sun does indeed rise. I can even measure it. Heck, even the weather man says the sun rises.

In support of your false theory of evolution you are required to shake apart the bible, discredit it....yet other portions, such as a guy rising up on the third day you seem to accept. Kinda weird hermenuitics if you ask me.

He is only discrediting a universally literal interpretation.

Buck72 · Dec 22, 2003

seebs said:
You're gonna have to go all the way back to the first wandering Hebrews to correct that, then.

How so?

Then why does the Bible speak of people studying the Scriptures more than once? Why did the Sages study the Torah for their whole lives?

It isn't a magazine for crying out loud, this is the Book of Life! It speaks of things that have massive eternal consequence, not something to merely leave in the john.

Cool! "And acts on them". Looks like we have to adapt our theology; faith and works appear to be required, by a plain literal reading.

Of course "acts on them" means to WALK in accordance with the word, hence the practice of life-long study.

Did you know that Christ held Nicodemous (and the Pharisees) ACCOUNTABLE to know the Torah and the Prophets (the OT)?

Joh 3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; Joh 3:2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Joh 3:4 Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Joh 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Joh 3:7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' Joh 3:8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." Joh 3:9 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?" Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?

Joh 3:11 "Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony. Joh 3:12 "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? Joh 3:13 "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. Joh 3:14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; Joh 3:15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Joh 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Joh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Joh 3:19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. Joh 3:20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. Joh 3:21 "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

A literal reading of the Bible clearly says that He is with us, physically, as flesh which is eaten in communion.

He is with us ALWAYS. He is omnipresent, not beckoned to us only by means of a religious practice, He is always, always with us, otherwise I'd be in communion 24/7 for fear of losing Him!

That's literal. If you want to say that "this is My flesh" is symbolic, then you are not reading the Bible literally.

He did not tear His skin off and hand them lumps of tissue to eat (yuk!), nor did He drain His blood into a cup and make them drink it (that would be a violation of the Law)

Lev 7:26-27 'You are not to eat any blood, either of bird or animal, in any of your dwellings. 'Any person who eats any blood, even that person shall be cut off from his people.'"

It is obvious to me that it is symbolic and that conclusion is taken literally.

The apostles elected a replacement. It's in there.

Now Seebs, I always cite my sources, and I know that you are always quick to demand a citation when people just say things without citing, SO....?

WHERE?

The only apostle ever 'elected' was Mattias, there's also Paul, but he was most definitely not chosen by anyone but God.

Act 1:23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. Act 1:24 And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen Act 1:25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." Act 1:26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

Yes.

No. Genesis is not written as a myth, nor can you support that it is.

What does belief have to do with it? If you have read a dozen or more creation myths, and you read Genesis 1, it sounds very much like a creation myth. It has the repetitive structure of the days, it has odd physical qualities (there is "light" before any source for it is created, for instance)... It's very ritualized.

Belief has EVERYTHING to do with it. Evolutionists have to belive that the earth is billions of years old when the actual evidence and Bible say otherwise. Likewise we must also believe Christ, if we are to become heirs with Him through faith.

This is not the same allegory as say, Greek mythology. This makes some fiercely non-mythical claims. I'll be happy to discuss "light":

DAY ONE (light)

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness. Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

DAY FOUR (sun, moon, stars)

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good. Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The whole thing has the structure and style used in mythology. The thing with Adam's rib is a classic example.

How!? Can God not create a woman from Adam's rib? Woman means: "from man". Also, the floating rib is the only bone in the body that will grown back if removed. Curious huh?

I think you would do well to acquire some familiarity with how the Hebrews understood Genesis, because they were the ones God gave it to.

Perhaps so, but I would contest that our understanding of the Hebrews might be slanted toward our understanding of Genesis. How do you suppose they understood it?

I say they understood six literal days:

Exo 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exo 31:17 It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Continued...

Buck72 · Dec 22, 2003

...Continued

The mistake is the idea that you must "dismiss" the Bible if a given passage doesn't turn out to be plain literal fact. That's the lie; it's the big lie, invented in the past century, and in direct conflict with two thousand years of lessons learned.

The supposed "problem" is self-fixing; the Bible is NEVER wrong. Please read my signature verse below, God does not lie, man does.

The conjecture would bother me, if it hadn't been used to make predictions about future discoveries that ought to turn up if the theory were correct.

I'm sorry Seebs, I'm sort of ill today and did not understand that last post. Say again please.

So? There is not a man alive that has been able to convince a guy I know that there is a God. Disbelief does not make a claim false.

Boing! Right back to you bro.

Here, I think, you make a grave error; you fail to realize that evolution came along after geologists had already pegged the earth as being "old enough". Geologists were the ones who established that the earth ought to be at least a billion years old. Christians, for the most part, just like the ones who, in the 1800's, admitted that all of the evidence available to them suggested that the Deluge had never actually occurred.

Well, I do want to know the errors of my ways, so I'm willing to receive what you have to say. Except for the fact that I know and will gladly cite (need to look it up first, give me a day) an impressive list of how the earth is growing older at the rate of 40 years per second, based upon each new 'discovery' that lengthens the earth's age again and again.

Once again, to call the Bible "God's word" is blasphemy. The Word is Jesus. If you would not commit this blasphemy, you would not have any trouble understanding how this works.

Seebs, did you ever notice anything odd about the way Christ quoted the OT throughout His ministry, He took the Law and expanded it outward to cover the SPIRIT of the Law, not merely the letter. Again and again He describes the problem with the religious leaders as to them not knowing the word, the Torah, OT, etc. He answered satan in the wilderness with new words? NO, with the "old" word - ie: He quoted scripture, the same scripture that I contend is the given word of God. Within this record of 66 books, penned by 40 different authors, few of whom even knew each other, all filled by the Spirit of God to record God's own message IN THE FIRST PERSON, I'd have to challenge you to show evidence as to how you claim it is NOT God's word.

Jesus is easy to know; He comes to us. Children can understand His message. He is the living Word, who lets us come to know God.

Who's Jesus? We would not know Him if it weren't for the word.

The Bible is not the Word. It's a book. It's a book full of information to lead us to the Word.

A book that contains THE words of God.

That's all it has to do; lead us to Jesus, and guide us a bit. It doesn't need to be a history text.

If the history is wrong, why not assume the "guide" part of it is wrong too? The history is actually blazingly correct, and so is the guidance.

Literalism and idolatry seem to go hand in hand; the only reason the Bible has to be literal is because it's been put on the pedestal reserved for Christ Himself. Take it off from that pedestal, put Him in the place you have reserved for an old book, and you will find that the Word does not conflict with the world, not with an old world, not with evolution, not with any part of the truth of creation.

Wha!? Where does this come from?

Again: WHO IS GOD WITHOUT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOD (THE WORD OF GOD, THE BIBLE)?

Shirley MacLaine thinks she's god, the Islamic terrorists blowing up people left and right believe allah is god, the Mormons have a plethora of gods, there are more "gods" it seems than people for most of these religions, but I must ask:

WHO IS GOD? Who is the real God? We as Christians, follow Christ because we KNOW that He is God, the One true God that is high and lifted up and glorified above all else.

Luk 24:44 Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

Joh 18:8 Jesus answered, "I told you that I am He; so if you seek Me, let these go their way," Joh 18:9 to fulfill the word which He spoke, "Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one."

I do not recommend that you continue to put the Bible in the place reserved for the Christ. It is not the Word. In the beginning was not the Bible, and the Bible was not God, and the Bible was not with God.

Recommendation noted. Here's my recommendation, and I mean this from the core of my very being:

Christ's entire life exemplified the fulfillment of the Word of God given to Moses and the Prophets. It was in this word that the Christ was to be recognized when He came, but He wasn't. Why? The Jews didn't read their Old Testament very well, hence Christ's rebuke to Nicodemus, who was so afraid of the rest of his religious leader buds he had to sneak off by night to sit down and talk with Christ!

The word is conclusive, indepenent, powerful, and complete. Folks that choose to believe otherwise are simply ill-taught, or have some other reason for not accepting it.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

seebs · Dec 23, 2003

Buck72 said:
How so?

That's when people started reading the Bible as a symbolic book instead of always a literal one.

It isn't a magazine for crying out loud, this is the Book of Life! It speaks of things that have massive eternal consequence, not something to merely leave in the john.

True. So, why, then, should we assume that it's talking about something of no possible relevance to anyone, when it could be talking about something central to its meaning to us?

He did not tear His skin off and hand them lumps of tissue to eat (yuk!), nor did He drain His blood into a cup and make them drink it (that would be a violation of the Law)[/qquote]

So, you're saying that, because it contradicts something else that we believe, we should interpret it as symbolic, rather than taking the plain literal meaning of the words?

The only apostle ever 'elected' was Mattias, there's also Paul, but he was most definitely not chosen by anyone but God.

Click to expand...

Very good. They elected someone.

No. Genesis is not written as a myth, nor can you support that it is.

Click to expand...

You keep saying this, but it just doesn't make sense.

If I show you any other creation story, your first response upon seeing it will be to say "this is a myth". You can tell because of patterns in the text. For instance, a recurring pattern of "X happened. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Y happened. And the evening and the morning were the second day."

Evolutionists have to belive that the earth is billions of years old when the actual evidence and Bible say otherwise.

Click to expand...

There are a number of threads in which there is an open invitation to anyone to provide physical evidence for a young Earth. I invite you to take this discussion to one of those threads, because I would be very interested in seeing evidence for a young earth.

This is not the same allegory as say, Greek mythology. This makes some fiercely non-mythical claims. I'll be happy to discuss "light":

Click to expand...

Take it up with Augustine.

How!? Can God not create a woman from Adam's rib?

Click to expand...

What's the rib doing? God can create creatures whole from scratch. Why the rib?

Woman means: "from man".

Click to expand...

I see. God's nature is constrained by English etymology?

Also, the floating rib is the only bone in the body that will grown back if removed. Curious huh?

Click to expand...

False, too.

http://www.scoliosis.org/resources/medicalupdates/ribthoracoplasty.php

Apparently, other ribs also grow back.

Perhaps so, but I would contest that our understanding of the Hebrews might be slanted toward our understanding of Genesis. How do you suppose they understood it?

Click to expand...

I suppose they understood it in multiple different ways, some of which were clearly more important than others.

seebs · Dec 23, 2003

Buck72 said:
The supposed "problem" is self-fixing; the Bible is NEVER wrong.

That's what they told Galileo.

I'm sorry Seebs, I'm sort of ill today and did not understand that last post. Say again please.

When a conjecture is used to make predictions, and the predictions are borne out, it stops being "mere conjecture" and starts being a good working theory.

Well, I do want to know the errors of my ways, so I'm willing to receive what you have to say. Except for the fact that I know and will gladly cite (need to look it up first, give me a day) an impressive list of how the earth is growing older at the rate of 40 years per second, based upon each new 'discovery' that lengthens the earth's age again and again.

Really?

When I was a little kid, I was reading a twenty-year old comic that said the earth was 4.5 billion years old.

According to talk.origins today - and I even hit "reload" to make sure I had the most current page - the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Seebs, did you ever notice anything odd about the way Christ quoted the OT throughout His ministry, He took the Law and expanded it outward to cover the SPIRIT of the Law, not merely the letter.

I see nothing odd at all about that. He did what all the prophets did, only better.

Within this record of 66 books

79.

It is not my fault that revisionists trimmed thirteen of them in the last few hundred years.

[quoote]I'd have to challenge you to show evidence as to how you claim it is NOT God's word.[/quote]

John 1:1

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Is the Bible God? Was the Bible there in the beginning, with God?

If not, then it is not the Word.

Who's Jesus? We would not know Him if it weren't for the word.

Jesus is the Word.

A book that contains THE words of God.

Only, it doesn't contain all of them. In fact, the Bible itself says this. Jesus was God, right? So, everything He said was "the words of God", right? Well, the Bible says it doesn't record everything Jesus said.

If the history is wrong, why not assume the "guide" part of it is wrong too?

Because it's not a history text.

Wha!? Where does this come from?

From someone who is sick and tired of the blasphemous idolatry of the Bible practiced by some groups.

Again: WHO IS GOD WITHOUT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOD (THE WORD OF GOD, THE BIBLE)?

God is God. When He said to Moses "I AM THAT I AM" (only He didn't; He said something in Hebrew which was the truth, not the pale shadow we hear in English), He was Himself, and no book had been written.

And, once again, to call the Bible the Word is simple blasphemy. You are saying that the Bible IS God. That's blasphemy.

WHO IS GOD?

The One. The Creator. The Alpha and the Omega.

Who is the real God? We as Christians, follow Christ because we KNOW that He is God, the One true God that is high and lifted up and glorified above all else.

Very good. We follow Christ. We follow the living Word, not the book written about Him.

Christ's entire life exemplified the fulfillment of the Word of God given to Moses and the Prophets.

He was the Word of God. He was the fullfillment of the words (not the Word, but the words) that God gave the Prophets.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

And once again we see: The Word is alive.

The Bible is not the Word. It never was. This modern idea of worshipping the Bible as God is blasphemy, plain and simple.

Ark Guy · Dec 23, 2003

from seebs link:

Q: When the ribs grow back after surgery, do they actually form new rib bone and reconnect to the spine, and how long does it take for this to happen?
A: Yes, the ribs do grow back, forming a new rib. This takes approximately two to three months.

TheBear · Dec 23, 2003

Ark Guy said:
from seebs link:

Q: When the ribs grow back after surgery, do they actually form new rib bone and reconnect to the spine, and how long does it take for this to happen?
A: Yes, the ribs do grow back, forming a new rib. This takes approximately two to three months.

Ark Guy said:
I hear a lot of talk but no references.

Ark Guy · Dec 23, 2003

Why to you guys seem to LEAP at anything that will prove the bible and Genesis wrong?

Larry · Dec 23, 2003

Removed ribs grow back in 2-3 months?

TheBear · Dec 23, 2003

Ark Guy said:
Why to you guys seem to LEAP at anything that will prove the bible and Genesis wrong?

I am sorry you have this impression of those who don't agree with your interpretation of scripture, Ark Guy. This is clearly a misconception. None here, that I am aware of, are trying to prove the Bible wrong. We are all trying to reach a true interpretation of what we all consider God's Word. A difference of opinion does not equate to trying to prove the Bible wrong. That may be the case with atheists and non-Christians, but remember where you are. This particular forum is for Christians Only.

Is mathematics anti-God?

Ark Guy

Guest

The Watchman

God Made Me A Skeptic

Ark Guy

Guest

God Made Me A Skeptic

God Made Me A Skeptic

Ark Guy

Guest

Critical loyalist

Critical loyalist

Critical loyalist

Critical loyalist

The Watchman

The Watchman

God Made Me A Skeptic

God Made Me A Skeptic

Ark Guy

Guest

NON-WOKED

Ark Guy

Guest

Fundamentalist Christian

NON-WOKED

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency