Romans 14

[versastyle]

Come on brother. you know thats not what is being said here.
For the man who just doesnt know any better, he can get away with a lot more.
But for those who use things like Romans 14 to not try to understand, thats another story.

Who's saying this? Not me.

I dont feel worthy of Gods love, this has nothing to do with that.
But I think all this compromise with things like common decent is just going too far. In my opinion.

I don't totally agree with common descent either.

 

[YahwehLove]

Who's saying this? Not me.

Then I have misunderstood your OP then. Sorry.

I don't totally agree with common descent either.

Im just misunderstanding everything here today

sorry agian

 

[Vance]

My opinion its that this applies to non-critical teachings/beliefs (meats, etc) and should not be used as an excuse to allow false doctrine to be permitted.

Right, non-essential, like whether you think God created one way or another.

Whether God created: essential
How and when God created: non-essential

 

[YahwehLove]

Right, non-essential, like whether you think God created one way or another.

Whether God created: essential
How and when God created: non-essential

But thats the point.
IS it non-essential or not?
If we toss out that God created in 6 days because SCIENCE says so (lets assume He did for a second), then havent we in essence also tossed aside that faith in Him that says His word is right and mans understanding is wrong?
Wheres the line?
What else will science rob from peoples faith?

I hope that creation isnt essential.
I hope that dismissing faith in that is ok with God.
Personally, after studying it out, Im convinced that He said He did it in 6 literal days.
And who am I to argue with a living God?

 

[versastyle]

What else will science rob from peoples faith?

Without science you couldn't read the bible.

 

[Vance]

But thats the point.
IS it non-essential or not?
If we toss out that God created in 6 days because SCIENCE says so (lets assume He did for a second), then havent we in essence also tossed aside that faith in Him that says His word is right and mans understanding is wrong?
Wheres the line?
What else will science rob from peoples faith?

I hope that creation isnt essential.
I hope that dismissing faith in that is ok with God.
Personally, after studying it out, Im convinced that He said He did it in 6 literal days.
And who am I to argue with a living God?

See, this is exactly what we are talking about. You are entirely begging the question. The major issue here is exactly what God is telling us. It is your interpretation that Genesis 1 and 2 should be read as literal history. Many others don't think that is what God intended at all. If you don't think that God meant it to be read as literal history, then it is not an issue of faith whatsoever, just reading Scripture the way you believe God intended you to read it.

You are assuming that your reading is right, and that we all agree that this is the way it was meant to be read, but are just choosing not to read it that way for whatever reason. This shows a lack of understanding of the breadth of belief about how this Scripture should be read. Personally, I came to the conclusion that it almost assuredly was meant to be read NOT as six literal days before I knew anything about the scientific issues, while I was still a YEC, in fact. As did many of the early Church fathers, who obviously were not influenced by the science.

I think God did NOT intend it to be read as six literal days, so who am I to argue with a living God? I had best read it the way I think He wanted me to read it. That is what you are doing as well.

 

[YahwehLove]

See, this is exactly what we are talking about. You are entirely begging the question. The major issue here is exactly what God is telling us. It is your interpretation that Genesis 1 and 2 should be read as literal history.

Now see, when I look at Genesis, it seems to be a very literal history book.

Many others don't think that is what God intended at all. If you don't think that God meant it to be read as literal history, then it is not an issue of faith whatsoever, just reading Scripture the way you believe God intended you to read it.

Thats fine for those who havent studied it enough to make the call I did.
I did study it extensively however, and have concluded that God did indeed create in 6 days.
I would be accountable for dismissing what I have come to believe to jump back on the OE bandwagon again just to find myself in agreement with you or anyone else

You are assuming that your reading is right, and that we all agree that this is the way it was meant to be read, but are just choosing not to read it that way for whatever reason.

we all assume ours in the correct way.
But what do the scriptures SAY?
They SAY He created in 6 days.
Theres not much in the way of getting around that point.

This shows a lack of understanding of the breadth of belief about how this Scripture should be read.

Now youre getting borderline offensive.
I was an evolutionist for many years.
I changed WHEN I studied and began to understand what Genesis teaches.

Personally, I came to the conclusion that it almost assuredly was meant to be read NOT as six literal days before I knew anything about the scientific issues, while I was still a YEC, in fact. As did many of the early Church fathers, who obviously were not influenced by the science.

Fine for you.
Altho I cannot fathom how anyone could study the Hebrew very extensively and conclude that Genesis 1 doesnt mean a literal, single earth rotation day.

I think God did NOT intend it to be read as six literal days, so who am I to argue with a living God? I had best read it the way I think He wanted me to read it. That is what you are doing as well.

Have you studied the Hebrew?
Do you understand how the word Yom works?
If so, then I cannot see how you could ever conclude that the wording is not very specifically showing a literal 6 days.
Not to mention the fact that ''an evening and a morning'' is used repetitively.

 

[versastyle]

YL. There is more to studying God then reading the bible.

God made in six days. Please keep that in mind.

 

[Vance]

Now see, when I look at Genesis, it seems to be a very literal history book.

Right, and I don't.

Thats fine for those who havent studied it enough to make the call I did.
I did study it extensively however, and have concluded that God did indeed create in 6 days.
I would be accountable for dismissing what I have come to believe to jump back on the OE bandwagon again just to find myself in agreement with you or anyone else

Right, and I have done extensive research and come to a different conclusion, and I would be equally accountable for dismissing what I have come to believe to jump back on the YEC bandwagon just to find myself in agreement with my own church.

we all assume ours in the correct way.
But what do the scriptures SAY?
They SAY He created in 6 days.
Theres not much in the way of getting around that point.

But that is the point. Was that meant to be read as literal or figurative? There are tons of places in Scripture where figurative langauge is used. I believe this is one of them.

Now youre getting borderline offensive.
I was an evolutionist for many years.
I changed WHEN I studied and began to understand what Genesis teaches.

My point was that you act as if your interpretation of a literal six days was the only (or even the predominant) approach. Not that you lacked knowledge about the Scripture itself. When you say things as if they are absolute, as if no one else believed it any other way, it makes me wonder if you realize the great diversity of opinion on this very issue within the Body of Christ.

Fine for you.
Altho I cannot fathom how anyone could study the Hebrew very extensively and conclude that Genesis 1 doesnt mean a literal, single earth rotation day.

Oh, I think the writer WAS using the word "yom" in that meaning (and not in a day-age meaning). I just think that the whole text was meant figuratively, not literally. When a poet uses the word "tree" in a poem, but intends that the tree be symbolic for something else (say, a family, with all its branches), he does not mean "tree" in the sense of "bush". He is writing tree in the sense of tree. But its intended use is figurative and symbolic.

Have you studied the Hebrew?
Do you understand how the word Yom works?
If so, then I cannot see how you could ever conclude that the wording is not very specifically showing a literal 6 days.
Not to mention the fact that ''an evening and a morning'' is used repetively.

See above.

 

[YahwehLove]

Right, and I don't.

and thats fine.
As long as God doesnt take Genesis one as being ''essential''

Right, and I have done extensive research and come to a different conclusion, and I would be equally accountable for dismissing what I have come to believe to jump back on the YEC bandwagon just to find myself in agreement with my own church.

Except that the text SAYS 6 days.
God cant hold you accountable for taking Him at his word, can He

But that is the point. Was that meant to be read as literal or figurative? There are tons of places in Scripture where figurative langauge is used. I believe this is one of them.

A study of ''yom'' indictates otherwise.

So what is your basis for overlooking the use of Yom with ''an evening and a morning'' and concluding that it doesnt maen a literal day? especially in light of Genesis 1:4-5

My point was that you act as if your interpretation of a literal six days was the only (or even the predominant) approach. Not that you lacked knowledge about the Scripture itself. When you say things as if they are absolute, as if no one else believed it any other way, it makes me wonder if you realize the great diversity of opinion on this very issue within the Body of Christ.

I believe it absolutely now.
Would you have me pretend I dont?

Oh, I think the writer WAS using the word "yom" in that meaning (and not in a day-age meaning). I just think that the whole text was meant figuratively, not literally. When a poet uses the word "tree" in a poem, but intends that the tree be symbolic for something else (say, a family, with all its branches), he does not mean "tree" in the sense of "bush". He is writing tree in the sense of tree. But its intended use is figurative and symbolic.

Normally I would agree.
There is a LOT of allegory in the text.
But the repetition of ''evening and a morning'' is the texts way of saying ''Im making a point here'' as it alwas is when repetition is used in the bible.

 

[Vance]

Again, I agree with you that the writer (as inspired by God) IS using "yom" in the 24-hour sense (well, really, the 12 hour sense if you want to get technical about your Hebrew). I don't think it is a day-age view, or an "unspecified time" view. When he says day, he is referring to a 24 hour day. But, I think the writer is referring to it figuratively, not literally.

Thus, when a poet uses the word for a thing figuratively, he wants you to read that word in the original sense, but then understand that it is meant to be symbolic for something else. Again, when a poet uses the word "tree" in a poem in which the tree is symbolic for a family, he many also mention branches and leaves, and this confirms that he is, indeed, talking about a tree and not something else. But this does not mean that the poem is about a tree, but about a family, and he is just using the tree as a symbol.

 

[YahwehLove]

Again, I agree with you that the writer (as inspired by God) IS using "yom" in the 24-hour sense (well, really, the 12 hour sense if you want to get technical about your Hebrew). I don't think it is a day-age view, or an "unspecified time" view. When he says day, he is referring to a 24 hour day. But, I think the writer is referring to it figuratively, not literally.

Thus, when a poet uses the word for a thing figuratively, he wants you to read that word in the original sense, but then understand that it is meant to be symbolic for something else. Again, when a poet uses the word "tree" in a poem in which the tree is symbolic for a family, he many also mention branches and leaves, and this confirms that he is, indeed, talking about a tree and not something else. But this does not mean that the poem is about a tree, but about a family, and he is just using the tree as a symbol.

Ok.
Then what is your basis for stating that gen 1 is figurative?
You agree the language states 6 literal days.
We''re not talkin your average poetry book here.
No dream or vision is implied.
What is your basis for your decision?

 

[Vance]

Ah, OK, we are at least now on the same page. :0)

I will refer you to my response to a question to me in another thread here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t115...sons-for-not-accepting-a-literal-genesis.html

An interesting discussion there as well, and it will save me a lot of typing! :0)

 

[YahwehLove]

Ah, OK, we are at least now on the same page. :0)

I will refer you to my response to a question to me in another thread here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1153806-what-are-theological-reasons-for-not-accepting-a-literal-genesis.html

An interesting discussion there as well, and it will save me a lot of typing! :0)

Ok. I looked it over.

Now, based on your observations there, Id like to know just exactly why you believe in the fantastic tales of virgin birth and a man-god coming from the sky to sacrifice Himself to Himself to pay a price for things He personally did not do.

I mean, we have to apply logic equally to all scripture I assume.

Why do you only apply this the the creation story and not all the other ones like demons being cast out, men walking on water, the dead being raised and so on?

What is your basis for believing those parts as written?

 

[versastyle]

YL: My main personal answer would be because most of those stories are written as contemporary. They were witnessed by the people who wrote them.

 

[YahwehLove]

YL: My main personal answer would be because most of those stories are written as contemporary. They were witnessed by the people who wrote them.

Ok
The Second coming of Christ.
No witnesses to that, so is it literal or figurative?
He will come with His holy ones in the clouds and gather the elect.

For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ shall rise first.
(1Th 4:16)

Does this mean I can assume this will not happen as it states simply because there is no way for anyone to have ''witnessed'' it?

Maybe He'll pick us all up an a chevy van instead

 

[versastyle]

Ok
The Second coming of Christ.
No witnesses to that, so is it literal or figurative?
He will come with His holy ones in the clouds and gather the elect.
Does this mean I can assume this will not happen as it states simply because there is no way for anyone to have ''witnessed'' it?

We are scripturally commanded and called to believe this.


That was just one reason btw.

 

[YahwehLove]

We are scripturally commanded and called to believe this.


That was just one reason btw.

Did Moses part the Red Sea?
Was there a worldwide flood?
There sure seems to be witnesses to that, so what say you?

 

[versastyle]

Did Moses part the Red Sea?

Sure.

Was there a worldwide flood?

Not contemporary.

 

[Vance]

Ok. I looked it over.

Now, based on your observations there, Id like to know just exactly why you believe in the fantastic tales of virgin birth and a man-god coming from the sky to sacrifice Himself to Himself to pay a price for things He personally did not do.

I mean, we have to apply logic equally to all scripture I assume.

Why do you only apply this the the creation story and not all the other ones like demons being cast out, men walking on water, the dead being raised and so on?

What is your basis for believing those parts as written?

Ah, here is another one that I recently gave my thoughts on elsewhere, but with this one I will just cut and paste it in just below. But first, let me say that I DO take the Scripture as written, based on what I think the author (and God inspiring him, or them) really meant. You still are basing your viewpoint on the assumption that the text speaks literally and I am finding a different way to read it based on some analysis. No, that study and review tell me that this IS how it is meant to be read.

But the point you are raising is a bit different, since it asks why I would use "logic" to read Genesis differently than you do, but not the other Scriptures describing miracles. This is based on a few misconceptions of where I am coming from. My reading of Genesis has nothing at all to do with a rejection of the miraculous in favor of logic. I fully accept the miraculous in both accounts. I do not discount anything supernatural in the Creation process whatsoever, I just think it was meant to be read figuratively, but still describing miraculous events.

Here is what I wrote about the idea of a rejection of a young earth but not a rejection of the supernatural in general.

On the miracle issue, this is not a problem of evidence at all, it is only an issue of the supernatural. As Christians, we have no problem with God overruling, even if just temporarily, the natural order of things He, Himself, created in order to perform a miracle. This is not contrary to science one little bit. Science does not preclude the supernatural, it just states how things happen in their natural state or process. If something supernatural happens, it is outside of its arena and science can say nothing about it one way or the other.

Evidence, or data, is another matter. Evidence will not exist for something that did not happen, and if something happens, and it leaves evidence then that evidence tells us about the event. I believe that God would not allow evidence to exist which is contrary to the reality of His creation, past and present. So, if the evidence exists that things happened a certain way, then it must have happened that way. God would not lie in His Creation, no more than He would lie in His Word.

Now, this does not in any way argue against any miracle God has ever effected, since there is no evidence against any miracle described in Scripture (of course). The fact that the resurrection would be contrary to one of God's natural laws does not argue against it's happening at all, it just means it was a supernatural event.

The fact that God created the universe was a supernatural event, and there is no evidence which can contradict this. God created every bit of life on this planet, and there is no evidence which contradicts this. But there is very dramatic and conclusive evidence that He did not create it less than 10,000 years ago, and this evidence would not exist if God HAD created that recently. So, the miracle still took place, we just know a bit more about when it took place.