Romans 14

[YahwehLove]

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.

I can start posting articles on Hebrew and genesis with the words of linguists NOT theologians if you need.

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 was no less a christian when I was TE. why would you or anyone else be?

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

Well, one issue right off is that I assumed you had understood the Hebrew shows 6 literal days.
Yom alone can be any amount of time practically.
toss a number beside it tho and it is defined as a day.

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

Please show me any instance where I have questioned one persons christianity.
I have judged no one.
This is a debate forum and I am presenting scripture and trying to find out why people reject the clear wording of Genesis one.
Im sure I have irritated a few (sorry) but I have not said anyone was less of a christian for being TE.
That was an assumption.

I may have stated things like ''it takes more faith to beleive in a 6 day creation" and in my opinion it does.
All the ''interpretation" (not evidence since there are no sticky notes on it) is against YEC.

 

[herev]

ok fair enough

now whats the differnce between that metaphor and Genesis one?

Style of metaphoric teaching--in my opinion

that is an isolated figure of speech.
it doesnt persist or repeat to draw attention to detail.

Actually it is repeated mulitple times in the Psalms--it draws a picture and conveys a truth--God is our shelter in troubled times

Its like my saying i have a ''cool'' car.

According to your usual interpretaion, I should assume your car is on ice.

Genesis one is entirely different.

Yes, but only in style of metaphorical teaching. That you don't see it as metaphor is your interpretation, which I fully support you in holding. That it is your interpretation though, does not make it fact.

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.

IN your interpretation, yes it does. And it fits quite nicely if the entire text is metaphorical.

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.

That is of course your understanding, I call it an interpretation, though.

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

Not intirely. There are many others that I assume you would not accept as anything but literal, either

 

[herev]

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

by whose interpretation, yours or mine?

 

[herev]

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

OK, tell me what the definition is of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit--and don't use any interpretation to answer--just the facts, k?

 

[versastyle]

This is a debate forum and I am presenting scripture and trying to find out why people reject the clear wording of Genesis one.

No you aren't. You are telling us we are wrong.

I may have stated things like ''it takes more faith to beleive in a 6 day creation" and in my opinion it does.

Well since this is not backed up by scripture would it be okay for me to ignore it?

 

[herev]

I can start posting articles on Hebrew and genesis with the words of linguists NOT theologians if you need.

Actually, my old testament professor IS a linguist and would faint if you called her a theologian. I'm sure we could post articles back and forth at each other--that's the beauty of interpretations, everybody's got one.

I was no less a christian when I was TE. why would you or anyone else be?

that is the message you are sending when you say:
I used to be as you were, then I spent some time with the Holy Spirit and He taught me the error of my ways--now up to here, no problem, but then you say that your interpretation is fact, while everyone else's in simply fiction. Can you not see the judgment there?

Well, one issue right off is that I assumed you had understood the Hebrew shows 6 literal days.

That would be an issue, yes, my understanding of the Hebrew does not change, nor does it require a change in my interpretation of the text.

Yom alone can be any amount of time practically.
toss a number beside it tho and it is defined as a day.

really, any number? how bout yom 7568932985894789, now it is a literal day? I do not in any way suggest that the WORD defines it as non-literal, but that the form criticism, source criticism, historical analysis, and textual criticism do suggests strongly that it is a metaphorical picture of creation.

Please show me any instance where I have questioned one persons christianity.

see above, the moment you insinuate that your interpretation is somehow more spritually advanced, you have judged my faith or at the least my spiritual maturity. The biggest issue that I have here is that you don't seem to care that you give that impression to fellow Christians. That is why your posts have attracted my attention.

I have judged no one.

We'll have to disagree there, too

This is a debate forum and I am presenting scripture and trying to find out why people reject the clear wording of Genesis one.

and yet, you seem uninterested in the answers, but only interested in your mantras--what does the Bible say--it is a fact--It is clearly literal...

Im sure I have irritated a few (sorry) but I have not said anyone was less of a christian for being TE.

not directly, but the belief is all over your posts--if you do not wish to impart that impression, why are you not interested in changing the way you post?

That was an assumption.

an informed one, yes, kinda like your assumption that Genesis 1 and 2 are literal

I may have stated things like ''it takes more faith to beleive in a 6 day creation" and in my opinion it does.

That would be one thing that says your faith is greater than mine, right?

All the ''interpretation" (not evidence since there are no sticky notes on it) is against YEC.

???

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Clearly none of the YECs on this debate actually read the link to a previous post that I posted.

I'm going to cut through the whole thing again.

Listen, oh YECs.

IF GENESIS 1-3 IS LITERAL, THEN EITHER GENESIS 1-3 IS WRONG, OR GOD IS A DECEIVER

It's as simple as that. Prove that Genesis 1-3 must be literal, and to maintain intellectual integrity I must abandon the Bible as false.

 

[YahwehLove]

Not intirely. There are many others that I assume you would not accept as anything but literal, either

fantastic.
Now the ball is in your court to provide some evidence for us.

 

[YahwehLove]

OK, tell me what the definition is of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit--and don't use any interpretation to answer--just the facts, k?

Seeing what was going on when Jesus brought it up, which was the pharisees attributing to demons the work of the Holy Spirit, I am positive that that is at least ONE of the way s one can blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

But then, Im very interested in sound doctrine, so I would naturally disect the events to see WHY Jesus all of a sudden started going on about blasphemy of the Spirit.

 

[YahwehLove]

Actually, my old testament professor IS a linguist and would faint if you called her a theologian. I'm sure we could post articles back and forth at each other--that's the beauty of interpretations, everybody's got one.

Shall we start a new thread with the evidence then and let the group decide?
I will have to dig thru things on my back up drive to find it, but Im game if you are.

I used to be as you were, then I spent some time with the Holy Spirit and He taught me the error of my ways--now up to here, no problem, but then you say that your interpretation is fact, while everyone else's in simply fiction. Can you not see the judgment there?

And I wonder why I dont see you correcting the TE that does EXACTLY the same thing?
Shall we go over a few threads here and find some example?

really, any number? how bout yom 7568932985894789, now it is a literal day? I do not in any way suggest that the WORD defines it as non-literal, but that the form criticism, source criticism, historical analysis, and textual criticism do suggests strongly that it is a metaphorical picture of creation.

That woud be 7568932985894789 LITERAL days, yes

see above, the moment you insinuate that your interpretation is somehow more spritually advanced, you have judged my faith or at the least my spiritual maturity. The biggest issue that I have here is that you don't seem to care that you give that impression to fellow Christians. That is why your posts have attracted my attention.

incorrect.
That is what YOU assumed, NOT what I said or insinuated.
I have apologized time and again if things come off in the wrong manner.

and yet, you seem uninterested in the answers, but only interested in your mantras--what does the Bible say--it is a fact--It is clearly literal...

Are you interested in MY Answers?
Obviously not.
so this is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black.

not directly, but the belief is all over your posts--if you do not wish to impart that impression, why are you not interested in changing the way you post?

Not directly.
Which means you disagree with me so you immediatly start making assumptions.
I hope your doing the same with TE's that are saying that they USED to be YEC until they studied and prayed.
We wouldnt want to be unfairly judging anyone here

an informed one, yes, kinda like your assumption that Genesis 1 and 2 are literal

Not informed in the least.
You have no idea what is on my mind as I type.
Your assumptions are based on either your experience with someone else, in which case I ask you now to stop stereotyping me and deal with what it being said, or it is based on your taking offense that I take a firm stance in what I believe and that you disagree with my assertions.
Either way, I assure you I have not and will not refer to ANY TE as less christian.
I WAS TE for a very long time.

That would be one thing that says your faith is greater than mine, right?

Since you seemed to have missed the YEC comment there at the end Ill rephrase it.
Scientific INTERPRETATION is AGAINST the YEC viewpoint, no?
Its all aimed at proving TE and old earth.
So yes, it takes more faith (by the biblical definition of the word See Hebrews 11:1 ) to go against what is commonly accepted by the masses and stick to simple faith in God that He did it in the manner the text goes to great lengths to show that He did. IN MY OPINION.
If you dont understand what Im stating, then I think its best we drop it as Ive no other way to explain it any better

Could we please return to the topics at hand now and leave the personal stuff behind.
I am sorry to anyone that feels insulted by my method.
I am working on HOW I say things but am not the best at debate.

 

[YahwehLove]

Clearly none of the YECs on this debate actually read the link to a previous post that I posted.

I'm going to cut through the whole thing again.

Listen, oh YECs.

IF GENESIS 1-3 IS LITERAL, THEN EITHER GENESIS 1-3 IS WRONG, OR GOD IS A DECEIVER

It's as simple as that. Prove that Genesis 1-3 must be literal, and to maintain intellectual integrity I must abandon the Bible as false.

let there be light???
ok.
What do the scriptures say.
Is there light WITHOUT a sun ever?

And the city had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they might shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.
(Rev 21:23)

Rev 22:5 And there will be no night there. And they need no lamp, or light of the sun; for the Lord God gives them light. And they will reign forever and ever.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You misread me. Genesis 1-3 means Chapters 1-3, not Gen 1:v3

What I mean is this - face reality:

Progression of species over time: as good as proven.
Age of the earth: 4.6 billion years, give or take.
Evolutionary transitions over geological time: as good as proven.

If Genesis has to be taken literally, flying in the face of established facts like those I just listed - and I can demonstrate that any one of them is a fact, despite the pathetic pseudo-scientific nonsense that eminates from the dishonest creationist machines of ICR and AiG, then it is WRONG.

This is not about choosing whether to believe the scientists or the Bible. It is about whether we ensure that our view is in accord with reality or not. Personally, I have no place for a version of "faith" which is believing what I know isn't true.

 

[YahwehLove]

I see.
I thought you were looking for information.
But instead youre offering an ultimatum for me to prove to you or drop my faith so you can remain christian.

Sorry, bub.
Not going to happen.

If you cant take it on faith, then nothing Im going to say is going to make any difference

You misread me. Genesis 1-3 means Chapters 1-3, not Gen 1:v3

What I mean is this - face reality:

Progression of species over time: as good as proven.
Age of the earth: 4.6 billion years, give or take.
Evolutionary transitions over geological time: as good as proven.

If Genesis has to be taken literally, flying in the face of established facts like those I just listed - and I can demonstrate that any one of them is a fact, despite the pathetic pseudo-scientific nonsense that eminates from the dishonest creationist machines of ICR and AiG, then it is WRONG.

This is not about choosing whether to believe the scientists or the Bible. It is about whether we ensure that our view is in accord with reality or not. Personally, I have no place for a version of "faith" which is believing what I know isn't true.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I see.
I thought you were looking for information.
But instead youre offering an ultimatum for me to prove to you or drop my faith so you can remain christian.

Nope. What you believe has absolutely no influence on my status.

What I'm saying is that if you prove to me it has to be literal, then you are also proving that it has to be wrong. The problem is, there are millions of people who aren't Christians, but know full well that the earth isn't 6000 years old, and will find (quite rightly) it impossible to take seriously any religious position that would require them to believe it was.

Therefore, I'd merely suggest you be less dogmatic. "I believe that..." is one thing; "It must be that..." is quite another.

Sorry, bub.
Not going to happen.

If you cant take it on faith, then nothing Im going to say is going to make any difference

"Take it on faith" = "believe what you know isn't true"? Nope, not going to happen.

 

[herev]

Shall we start a new thread with the evidence then and let the group decide?
I will have to dig thru things on my back up drive to find it, but Im game if you are.

no, as I said, we could throw articles at each other all day

And I wonder why I dont see you correcting the TE that does EXACTLY the same thing?
Shall we go over a few threads here and find some example?

I have--I don't do so as much as I don't read their posts that much--I read the ones directed at me and my beliefs. Feel free to correct them for the same thing and I'll back you up

That woud be 7568932985894789 LITERAL days, yes

interesting, so in Hebrew linguistic rules, adding a number changes the intent?

incorrect.
That is what YOU assumed, NOT what I said or insinuated.
I have apologized time and again if things come off in the wrong manner.

and I really appreciate the apology, but when you continue to do so, it means nothing. I may have assumed it--if so, I'll apologize, but until you see the manner in which it causes insult to your brothers and sisters who disagree, I see no reason to assume anything else

Are you interested in MY Answers?
Obviously not.
so this is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black.

actually, as I said, I'm always open to learn, but when you start sharing in such a way as to belittle my beliefs, I'm not intersted in your teaching me anything.

Not directly.
Which means you disagree with me so you immediatly start making assumptions.
I hope your doing the same with TE's that are saying that they USED to be YEC until they studied and prayed.
We wouldnt want to be unfairly judging anyone here

no, as I have said, it has nothing to do with your opinion, it has everything to do with your style and your offhanded, backhanded comments about those who disagree with you. As to the rest, see above, already answered.

Not informed in the least.

I didn't say I knew for sure, I said it was informed. yes, informed by your style, and your use of insinuating words (either intentional or not)

You have no idea what is on my mind as I type.

true, this is why written communication requires interpretation. I do the best I can with what I have in front of me. I can research your posting history, the posting history of this forum, and the posting history of those who disagree with you. Interpreting requires going below the suface and seeking to understand. AS with my interpretaion of Genesis, I am open to being proved wrong. Thus far, as you continue to post in the same manner (while offerig a few, "I'm sorry's" alonog the way), I see no evidence to convince me to change my interpretation.

Your assumptions are based on either your experience with someone else, in which case I ask you now to stop stereotyping me and deal with what it being said, or it is based on your taking offense that I take a firm stance in what I believe and that you disagree with my assertions.

and yet, do you see me posting so strongly against anyone else? I have said repeatedly in these fora that I do not hold any anymosity towards anyone who holds differing beliefs than my own. I do, however get involved when someone insinuates that their interpetation is fact, and mine is error--they are all interpretations. None of us can prove our interpretations as fact. That IS the core issue between us. That is what attracted my attention. I am reading your posts in light of your posts, nothing else, not my experience with anyone else, and CERTAINLY NOT because I disagree with your beliefs

Either way, I assure you I have not and will not refer to ANY TE as less christian.

if you can't understand the notion of inference, suggestion, and implication, than you are not going to see your posts as doing this. I can't help further.

I WAS TE for a very long time.

And? I know plenty of former smokers who are very insulting to current ones. Your past does not make me feel you are NOT insinuating things against TE's.

Since you seemed to have missed the YEC comment there at the end Ill rephrase it.

well, thanks

Scientific INTERPRETATION is AGAINST the YEC viewpoint, no?
Its all aimed at proving TE and old earth.

not in my opinion, no--that would imply an intent to disprove YEC. Scientific interpreation is not trying to prove or disprove anything. It merely tries to explain what is observed.

So yes, it takes more faith (by the biblical definition of the word See Hebrews 11:1 ) to go against what is commonly accepted by the masses and stick to simple faith in God that He did it in the manner the text goes to great lengths to show that He did.

ok, let's look at Hebrews 11:1 (one of my favorites by the way)
Hebrews 11:1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

how appropriate. Let's look at two sides to the same coin.
For TEs:
no one is hoping for a non-literal interpreation of the creation stories--it is merely an interpreation
as to evidence of things not seen. TE's recognize that it is a theory and that new evidence comes along every day--however, what TE's believe is what the evidence points towards. They don't have faith in evolutioin, we have faith in God
For YEC's--I may be wrong on this--so feel free to correct me (like I needed to say that
I do not believe that YEC's are hoping for creationism to be verified--They simply believe it without needing outside evidence.
as to evidence of things not seen, YEC's do have faith here--great faith--nothing to be made fun of.
However, here's my problem with your posting (just to explain, not to assault):
I have faith in God, evidence of things not seen. I have faith in Jesus, evidence of things not seen. in order for me to have faith, by this Biblical definition, it must be an unprovable point. If I could prove it, I wouldn't need faith. and faith is very important to me as without it, I do not believe I can be saved.
however, somehow you seem to believe that your faith in YEC (evidence of things unseen) means fact--just because you believe it so deeply. It is this stance that causes the issues here. You have said that your interpretation (YEC) is fact--literally 6 literal days--you've said it over and over and over--fact, fact, fact. If it were a fact, it wouldn't require faith. It is the same thing as if you were to say: that we KNOW that Christianity is the only way, but Jewish people only have an opinion. In order to maintain our faith, we have to acknowledge that it is faith--faith in things not seen, which means from a standpoint of trying to PROVE it, we could be wrong. Does that make any sense at all?

IN MY OPINION.

now that wasn't so hard, now was it?

If you dont understand what Im stating, then I think its best we drop it as Ive no other way to explain it any better

actually, I think (could be wrong) that I DO understand what you are saying, I don't however see you as understanding what I'm saying in reply

Could we please return to the topics at hand now and leave the personal stuff behind.

As you wish, problem is when I think (opinoin again) that someon is insinuating that they are more something than I, it IS personal.

I am sorry to anyone that feels insulted by my method.
I am working on HOW I say things but am not the best at debate.

thanks for that, God bless

 

[versastyle]

If you cant take it on faith, then nothing Im going to say is going to make any difference

No matter how many times you suggest someone read scripture the way you do, they will still be unable to force their brains to forget starlights, meteors, fossilizations, and varves.

If God wanted us to believe solely in a 6 day event, he wouldn't have made a universe to contradict it.

 

[YahwehLove]

No matter how many times you suggest someone read scripture the way you do, they will still be unable to force their brains to forget starlights, meteors, fossilizations, and varves.

If God wanted us to believe solely in a 6 day event, he wouldn't have made a universe to contradict it.

Think not?
God never does anything to mislead anyone who isnt just trusting Him regardless of what they see?

crikey.
I want to post some scripture here to prove a point but Im sure that youre going to read too much into it.

Id say read Romans 1 and 2 Thess. 2 if you think everything is always as it appears.
Then we can go back and look at the OT as well in 2 Chron. and couple others.

When men want to hear men instead of hearing what God says regardless, then God is quite capable and willing to allow them to be deceived.

What if God did it in 6 days, planning for the end already where He would allow a ''delusion'' such as is prophecied in 2 Thess, and His intentions were to turn men over to these ideas so that they would believe this lie?

He did it before.
Men wanted their prophets to say what THEY wanted rather than what God wanted. So God put a lying spirit in the mouths of those prophets.

Let me ask you something.
How much scientific testing have YOU personally done?
Are you using someone elses results?
YOu said you can tell that starlight took however long to get here.
Fine. Did it?
Or was God laying out a test right from the start to see who would have faith and who would not?
Who would want to have their ''prophets'' (this time scientists) say what they wanted to hear (this time to coincide with interpretation of ''evidence") and instead of just accepting what God said, allow man to dictate what God meant/said.

Sorry, but this is all just a bit to OT for me.
There is something very fishy about Genesis ones persistance of 6 days, not to mention it is repeated later.

In my opinion God did it on purpose.
We have exchanged the truth of God that says He created the first man Adam as a man IN HIS IMAGE into a lie that says man came from beasts

sounds too familiar to the past to me.

Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for a likeness of an image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and reptiles.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of the own hearts,

fine print
(this has been an opinion and only an opinion no incessant whining needed.)

 

[Vance]

So, your acknowledging that the evidence does make the earth at least appear old, and not young?

 

[YahwehLove]

So, your acknowledging that the evidence does make the earth at least appear old, and not young?

Not necessarily.
I havent been convinced that dating method is infallable yet.
Im not sure how to approach this entirely yet.

All I know is that a falling away of the church and the delusion God sends in the endtimes are BOTH in 2 Thess. 2 and could very well be the same thing that brings both about.

Whatever this ''delusion'' is that He sends to the world who wouldnt accept salvation it could very well be what causes the ''falling away''.
Possibly starting with denying basic teachings of the bible.

I know some who started with TE and old earth and then went to denying the flood and the parting of the Red Sea and now reject Jesus miracles as natural works of science and medicine and are verging on denial of even virgin birth.

so you tell me, should I start down a path that begins with denying the foundation of the world and then possibly end up denying that Jesus performed miracles later? (not that all will/do)
Or should I just accept the fact that science hasnt proven things like common decent and that God created the natural laws and is quite capable of breaking/distorting them for His own purpose. (as all should)

personally, Id prefer to be like Moses and leave egypt to become a slave and just keep my blind, ignorant faith.

 

[versastyle]

.....Id prefer to be like Moses and leave egypt to become a slave and just keep my blind, ignorant faith.

The problem is I don't see you having any justification in doing it. I have yet to see Christ exalted through literal Genesis dogma, since Christ is plainly exalted for us recognizing Him.