Romans 14

[YahwehLove]

This is not what God's word says. It says He created the stars for us to see. So you have two valid choices:

yes indeed.

Natural law was bent so we could see stars that are too far away to see.

I think i hinted at this.

or
It took millions of years for this light to reach us.

not a chance.

Either way, the bible is mute on this question, yet again, throwing one more iron into the fire of uncertainty.
Something must be added to/changed in the bible to find out the answer.

nope.
its not moot at all, is it?
It says it was all done in 6 days, doesnt it?

 

[versastyle]

You realise this conversation has nowhere left to go

It could go somewhere if you could prove that God says it should be read as literal time/history, without just saying "God/the bible says six days". Heh.

 

[versastyle]

its not moot at all, is it?

It doesn't say how it was done.

He left that for us to figure out

OR

plainly not know.


This is my problem. I do not feel it is appropriate to state God bent the laws of the universe so we could see the stars. I think it to be rather pointless to put stars millions of light years away, if we aren't supposed to believe they are. I also think it is inappropriate to conclude the stars have existed for millions of years.

No matter what position I take on it, I feel I've become hypocritical of the other.

 

[herev]

I never said that the rest was not literal. I said that the rest was not critical to salvation.

Wow.
So I guess the law of Moses was just made up by some man.
I suppose I dont need to worry about sound doctrine either.
How on earth can you accept that part as literal and dismiss the rest?
Can you prove this man Jesus died for your sins?
do so.

 

[YahwehLove]

It could go somewhere if you could prove that God says it should be read as literal time/history, without just saying "God/the bible says six days". Heh.

you know what my favorite line of Pauls is?

Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say?
Gal 4:30 But what does the Scripture say?

Paul and Jesus both seemed to have an affinity for the OT

 

[Vance]

We have no debate on the issue as presented. The acceptance of a particular conclusion cannot be ruled out solely on the basis of it's acceptance by an enemy of the Gospel. However, when the conclusion contradicts what the Bible appears to plainly teach, it is an entirely different matter. I think rather than go point by point on the evidences presented for and against (all of which are PRATTS) I will summarize my position one last time.

When the natural explanation for a supernatural event appears to contradict the Biblical account, I favor the Biblical account over the natural explanation. For example, I find Adam was created as a mature adult. Science says it is not possible. I say the Bible is right. I find sufficient evidence of a worldwide flood, science says it is foolishness and violates all known natural laws. I say the Bible is right. I find that the Jonah account was a literal account. Science says there is no way a man can live in the gastric juices of a fish for three days. I say the Bible is right nonetheless. I find Christ fed 5000 to satisfaction from a handful of food and had leftovers by the bushel. Science says it's a nice fairy tale but impossible. I say the Bible is right. I find that Christ rose from the dead and reappeared in His physical body before witnesses. Science says they were delusional and that it was impossible. I say the Bible is right.

Are you getting the gist of what I'm saying? I happen to be one of those "pig-headed" "stubborn" fundies that says even when the so-called evidence says the Bible was wrong, inaccurate or requires a different interpretation, I cling to it nonetheless and claim science is the servant of scripture - not the other way around.

But Tim, you are completely ignoring what I have said about the difference between an event which science can't give an opinion on because it would be supernatural, and an event for which the evidence which we have precludes the event from having happened.

Science does not say Adam could not be created mature. You either accept that on faith or you don't. It is incorrect to say that science "says" this is impossible. It just says it does not happen in nature. It would have to be a miracle. No problem.

The flood is different, science does NOT say it did not happen because it violates natural laws. This is a strawman. Scientists have concluded it could not have happened because there is existing evidence which would NOT exist if the flood had occured. And, had the flood occured, there would necessarily be certain evidence present, but that evidence is NOT present. It is not a disbelief of God's power, or a disbelief in the supernatural. You keep ignoring this point.

Your entire post is a series of strawmen, since science says none of the things you say it says. If it is a miracle, it is a miracle. A miracle is not precluded by science. It is only precluded by naturalistic philosophy, which is not science.

The problem with your last paragraph is that you are starting with a dogmatic presumption that your interpretation is correct. If you refuse to consider that your interpretation could be at fault, you could easily fall into error when a situation arises in which a reconsideration of your interpretation is called for.

I know you dislike the geocentrism parallel, but it really is applicable here. Without a willingness to allow the evidence from scientific discoveries to inform our interpretation of Scripture, you would be a geocentrist right now. Without doubt. This means that you DO allow scientific knowledge, conclusions reached by scientists studying God's Creation to inform your reading of Scripture, whether you know it or not. The difference is that you were lucky enough to grow up in an age where Christianity had already come to accept the science, had already changed its interpretation, and moved on without any lingering damage to Christianity as a result. Since you already have that knowledge, when you read those Scriptures, you read them in light of your scientific knowledge. If you had been alive during the time of the crisis and the transition, would have clung to your interpretation (and, yes, that WOULD have been your interpretation), or would you have changed your interpretation based on the new information from science?

You can't say, well, those Scriptures don't really say that anyway. That is just a cop-out. You would have had an interpretation of Scripture, and the evidence coming in would have contradicted it. Based on your approach described above, you would have "clung" to your interpretation out of principal, and remained convinced that your geocentric interpretation was correct.

 

[YahwehLove]

I never said that the rest was not literal. I said that the rest was not critical to salvation.

but
sound teaching IS critical to salvation.
otherwise how do you know what sin is

 

[herev]

Do these mean any to you?
truth
faith

It takes faith to reject mans silly assertions of common decent and just say ''goddidit''.
FAith to accept Gods truth in the face of science than cannot prove common decent

Moses had that kind of faith when he left his place in Egypt to become a slave.

I have plenty of faith and believe ALL of the Bible to be the TRUTH. It takes faith to be able to say that God's word is capable of scrutiny. It is strong enough, bold enough and true enough to have us study it critically without it's loosing its truth, timelessness, or sacredness. TE's do not doubt the truth of Genesis 1 and 2--really we don't--we merely interpret it differently. This is where you are having trouble with understanding us. It is your insistance on believing that your interpretation equals fact and truth, while everyone else's equals falsehood and lack of faith. This is why your posts give the impression that you are arrogant (notice I said impression--I assume that you are not). You have assumed too much about our understanding and beliefs--which leads you to make false accusations about our faith--I call that judging, but hey, I know my understanding and beliefs are just fiction

 

[versastyle]

Paul and Jesus both seemed to have an affinity for the OT

Referencing the OT doesn't mean its more literal then me referring to the history of Zeus.

But anyways, I think thats another topic.

 

[YahwehLove]

Without a willingness to allow the evidence from scientific discoveries to inform our interpretation of Scripture, you would be a geocentrist right now

That is total unfounded speculation.
You do NOT know that the whole of christianity bought into some of those '''teachings''

 

[versastyle]

That is total unfounded speculation.

Perhaps some people will now see how it feels.

 

[YahwehLove]

I have plenty of faith and believe ALL of the Bible to be the TRUTH. It takes faith to be able to say that God's word is capable of scrutiny. It is strong enough, bold enough and true enough to have us study it critically without it's loosing its truth, timelessness, or sacredness. TE's do not doubt the truth of Genesis 1 and 2--really we don't--we merely interpret it differently. This is where you are having trouble with understanding us.

I understand you perfectly.
I was one of you until 1999.
I was on your side of the arguement starting in 85 or so.
I had a decade and a half of arguing in favor of long ages and TE.

It is your insistance on believing that your interpretation equals fact and truth, while everyone else's equals falsehood and lack of faith.

Im insisting on what the bible shows. 6 literal days.
I know you have studied the topic enough to know that Hebrew shows literal days even moreso than the english renderings..

This is why your posts give the impression that you are arrogant (notice I said impression--I assume that you are not).

Thanks for allowing for that
Im not arrogant at all really.

You have assumed too much about our understanding and beliefs--which leads you to make false accusations about our faith--I call that judging, but hey, I know my understanding and beliefs are just fiction

I assume from past experience.
I honestly dont even know what the point is
I know for a fact those people who argued me down int the 80s and 90s could not have convinced me that it was 6 literal days.
Not a chance at that point.
So Im fairly sure none of you will be persuaded either.
I guess I just like the sparring as it causes me to study more

 

[YahwehLove]

Perhaps some people will now see how it feels.

oh we still love you guy

 

[herev]

The bible ONLY teaches a 6 day creation and i challenge you to show it does otherwise

They do NOT conflict with a 6 day creation ever.
a 6 day creation ONLY conflicts with mans inability to accept that God could have done it just the way He said.

ok, what about when the Bible plainly says that God will shelter us under his wings. It also plainly says that we are made in God's image. So, do we interpret one, both, or neither to not mean what it literally says and please tell me why you answer as you do.

 

[YahwehLove]

ok, what about when the Bible plainly says that God will shelter us under his wings. It also plainly says that we are made in God's image. So, do we interpret one, both, or neither to not mean what it literally says and please tell me why you answer as you do.

ok fair enough

now whats the differnce between that metaphor and Genesis one?

that is an isolated figure of speech.
it doesnt persist or repeat to draw attention to detail.
Its like my saying i have a ''cool'' car.

Genesis one is entirely different.
In gen 1:4-5 it defines what a day is (which is very peculiar. man had no need to know how a day worked. it just doesnt fit otherwise) then it goes to lengths to show that the defined day is being used.

The method in which Yom is used, with the phrase ''evening and a morning'' and then the number next to it also indicate a very literal day as far as my understanding of the Hebrew goes.

Genesis 1 would be unlike any other parable in the bible if it were to be allegory.

 

[herev]

And how God expected it to be read is the heart of the issue here.
YOu say figuratively I assume.
I say literally.

ah, the crux of the issue, the problem is you keep saying we have an opinion about this--and you have the facts---

 

[herev]

but
sound teaching IS critical to salvation.
otherwise how do you know what sin is

I refuse to add to the gospel. We are saved by faith and faith alone--everything else is open to debate and does NOT affect my salvation--even the definition of sin--as Jesus died to pay for my sins

 

[YahwehLove]

ah, the crux of the issue, the problem is you keep saying we have an opinion about this--and you have the facts---

ok.
lets the the bible break the tie.
What to the scriptures SAY ?

 

[herev]

I understand you perfectly.
I was one of you until 1999.
I was on your side of the arguement starting in 85 or so.
I had a decade and a half of arguing in favor of long ages and TE.

aaaaaaahhhhhh, this is the problem--you used to be one of us--now you are? See I think you are still one of us--this is the main issue with us TE's here every day--accept us as one of the family.

Im insisting on what the bible shows. 6 literal days.
I know you have studied the topic enough to know that Hebrew shows literal days even moreso than the english renderings..

you are insisting on an interpretation that it shows literaly days--actually my study of the Hebrew shows no such thing. There is no reason any more in Hebrew than english to suggest that it is literal--none.

Thanks for allowing for that
Im not arrogant at all really.

Good, please assume good things for me, too--I do not have less faith, less insight, or less Godliness because I interpret it to be non-literal.

I assume from past experience.

Me, too

I honestly dont even know what the point is

the point is when you say you are following fact and we are simply going with opinion, you treat us as less than!

[/Quote]I know for a fact those people who argued me down int the 80s and 90s could not have convinced me that it was 6 literal days.
Not a chance at that point.
So Im fairly sure none of you will be persuaded either.
I guess I just like the sparring as it causes me to study more [/QUOTE]
actually, I am always open to be corrected, but not by someone who assumes that I am not as much a Christian or insinuates this--that shows a non-Biblical understanding of salvation, thus reducing your credibility--this is the point, quit judging me and I'll listen happily

 

[YahwehLove]

I refuse to add to the gospel. We are saved by faith and faith alone--everything else is open to debate and does NOT affect my salvation--even the definition of sin--as Jesus died to pay for my sins

What about the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?
I believe that one is unforgivable
shouldnt you know what the definition is ?