Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Question for Christian old-earth evolutionists
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Didaskomenos" data-source="post: 383850" data-attributes="member: 832"><p></p><p></p><p>More accurately? What's inaccurate about it? Just because he spoke to these people in their own language doesn't mean he was being dishonest. Because we have evolved past a certain point in history and have changed our epistemology, we often tend to think that now God doesn't have to use this "baby talk" to communicate with us - but that's arrogant nonsense. In our present age we may like "science" and "history" as we know it, but it doesn't eliminate the inevitable gap between God's mind and that of man. Besides, there is no distortion of truth in mythology. Every myth of every country in history is "true." The Hebrew myth God chose to spread his truth to mankind. Why should we think it insufficient?</p><p></p><p>I believe in the virgin birth. I believe that Jesus exorcised demons, and that Jesus ascended to heaven. The NT is a fairly trustworthy view of history. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>excreationist, I understand your consternation. I really do. Sorry you have problems with my interpretation. In order to get what I'm saying, you must understand that faith is more important than our constructs. Reality is so whether or not we have a systematic and foolproof method for distinguishing it from falsehood. In fact, there is no method that is so foolproof as you might wish to get at Christian truth. If I had it, I'd give it to you.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, you have not been here long enough to have read my many posts that go into depth on the specifics of my view. It doesn't fit all neatly in a box like you would like it to, so all you would do is attack parts that you don't understand. Try searching for the threads where I talk about the changing concerns of the biblical writers over time due to Hellenization, etc.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Let me say that just because my reasoning/interpretations are often inconsistent from one passage to the next doesn't make them wrong. I'm not an idiot - there are reasons for every one of my deviations. I just don't have sufficient time nor you the real interest for me to go into delineating the finer points of my analysis. Jonah? It's possible, I guess. Sodom and Gomorrah? Maybe. Pillar of salt? Not likely. Exodus? Most of the above were probably based on remembrances that have for the most part a basis in history but which were augmented into a much more saga-type form, as were the patriarchy and monarchy narratives. The NT writers were much more interested in presenting history as we know it and considered deception sinful, so I would trust at very least that they were not lying when reporting things. What knowledge they had that was based on the ancient writings of their people is irrelevant to their trustworthiness in presenting the history that they witnessed (e.g., the miracles of Jesus, the history of the Church in Acts written by a Greek, not a Semite, etc.).</p><p></p><p>This post won't satisfy you, but I have some nasty midterms coming up, so I doubt I'll be disposed to answer you for awhile. Just so you know! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Didaskomenos, post: 383850, member: 832"] [B][/b] More accurately? What's inaccurate about it? Just because he spoke to these people in their own language doesn't mean he was being dishonest. Because we have evolved past a certain point in history and have changed our epistemology, we often tend to think that now God doesn't have to use this "baby talk" to communicate with us - but that's arrogant nonsense. In our present age we may like "science" and "history" as we know it, but it doesn't eliminate the inevitable gap between God's mind and that of man. Besides, there is no distortion of truth in mythology. Every myth of every country in history is "true." The Hebrew myth God chose to spread his truth to mankind. Why should we think it insufficient? I believe in the virgin birth. I believe that Jesus exorcised demons, and that Jesus ascended to heaven. The NT is a fairly trustworthy view of history. excreationist, I understand your consternation. I really do. Sorry you have problems with my interpretation. In order to get what I'm saying, you must understand that faith is more important than our constructs. Reality is so whether or not we have a systematic and foolproof method for distinguishing it from falsehood. In fact, there is no method that is so foolproof as you might wish to get at Christian truth. If I had it, I'd give it to you. Unfortunately, you have not been here long enough to have read my many posts that go into depth on the specifics of my view. It doesn't fit all neatly in a box like you would like it to, so all you would do is attack parts that you don't understand. Try searching for the threads where I talk about the changing concerns of the biblical writers over time due to Hellenization, etc. Let me say that just because my reasoning/interpretations are often inconsistent from one passage to the next doesn't make them wrong. I'm not an idiot - there are reasons for every one of my deviations. I just don't have sufficient time nor you the real interest for me to go into delineating the finer points of my analysis. Jonah? It's possible, I guess. Sodom and Gomorrah? Maybe. Pillar of salt? Not likely. Exodus? Most of the above were probably based on remembrances that have for the most part a basis in history but which were augmented into a much more saga-type form, as were the patriarchy and monarchy narratives. The NT writers were much more interested in presenting history as we know it and considered deception sinful, so I would trust at very least that they were not lying when reporting things. What knowledge they had that was based on the ancient writings of their people is irrelevant to their trustworthiness in presenting the history that they witnessed (e.g., the miracles of Jesus, the history of the Church in Acts written by a Greek, not a Semite, etc.). This post won't satisfy you, but I have some nasty midterms coming up, so I doubt I'll be disposed to answer you for awhile. Just so you know! :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Question for Christian old-earth evolutionists
Top
Bottom