Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because you might come to the conclusion that Genesis 1 & 2 are not 100% accurate literal history, but conveyed other kinds of information that God wanted us to know by using a different literary format.Note to lurkers:
In a creationism test I made up, this is one of the questions:
13. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
This thread is a perfect example of why.
That makes no sense at all. I think you're just paranoid about the fantasy that science is trying to disprove God.
Because you might come to the conclusion that Genesis 1 & 2 are not 100% accurate literal history,
So long as you include unnecessary jargon, I will. (I also cannot truly view theology as a valid field of study.)Don't make fun, Hans. You're joking about a valid field of study that incorporates interdisciplinary praxis.
Never read any of old Bertie's stuff. Not sure why it would be relevant.So says Bertrand Russell.
I've heard of these concordence thingies, but I'm not going to dig in to word usage in the greek. Not now, not ever. (I will not become one of those fools that attempt word analysis in a language they can't read.)Alright, Hans. I'll make this easier for you. Just short of making you look the additional reference up by yourself using a bible concordance,
I think it means that Ol' Matty replicated the "move mountain" metaphor for "believe harder" from the fig cursing to this story about healing some poor boy with epilepsy. It is not found in the original version (Mark 9:14-29). I guess "Matthew" liked it enough to change the dialog for Jesus in the earlier story.just go read Matthew chapter 17:14-21 and tell me what you think it means.
I forget what interpretation you are trying to walk me into.I'm holding out the possibility that I'm dead wrong here or there and not just a little off about the Bible's meaning.
If one would consider all of the reasons not to believe in literal inerrancy, science wouldn't be near the top of the list.To prompt me to come to that conclusion is [today's] science's job, not the Bible's.
No. He made the trees.Clearly Jesus hated fig trees,..
Oh? Where are those hiding? Do they have a big teaspoon to drain the ocean with too?There are corporations and governments and machines and methods that man could use to waft Everest around the planet.
To some extent.Man has been moving mountains around since time began
Ask Kylie. The issue came up about if the supernatural was involved in creation, then science would not know as it uses only the natural, She was insisting science covered more. Her big example was that if a mountain moved, science could 'test' itWhat does that do to dating or archeological evidence?
Why wouldn't it?So, is the dirt dug up in a mining operation the oldest dirt on top of the heap, then that pile tested long after all rememberance of the mining operation, is that site going to give accurate data concerning that site?
Conside God creating the planet. Then consider Him wafting everything on the planet around in a way that resulted in land and water separating. That is a lot of 'whips and beats' as you say. Add to that the flood and some other things. Presto.And all the dirt and rock wafted around by wind and water, earthquakes, glaciers and such?
Consider a chocolate sundae. Give it a few whips and beats. It is now a chocolate shake.
If one would consider all of the reasons not to believe in literal inerrancy, science wouldn't be near the top of the list.
It makes sense that there is no scientific test that can prove God to man. He proved Himself and then asked for belief. Not some scientific tests. So, why would He allow such tests to work as if they could anyhow?That makes no sense at all. I think you're just paranoid about the fantasy that science is trying to disprove God.
Oh yea of little faithOh? Where are those hiding? Do they have a big teaspoon to drain the ocean with too?
But we would not see Everest over in Australia or Mexico as Kylie wanted to declare it a miracleOh yea of little faith
If a mother lode of pure gold was discovered under Everest, Everest would soon be nothing more than a hole in the ground.
Because you think you can make falsifiable claims in His name.It makes sense that there is no scientific test that can prove God to man. He proved Himself and then asked for belief. Not some scientific tests. So, why would He allow such tests to work as if they could anyhow?
This is exactly the sort of thing I'm referring to that you do. Hermeneutics is no longer a solely "Bible thing." It's sort of time to wake up to this newer development in academia, whether it interests you or not.So long as you include unnecessary jargon, I will. (I also cannot truly view theology as a valid field of study.)
Because one of his arguments was essentially your --------- humorously laden------------argument.Never read any of old Bertie's stuff. Not sure why it would be relevant.
There's nothing that makes a person an expert on the Bible more than refusing to learn its textual development.I've heard of these concordence thingies, but I'm not going to dig in to word usage in the greek. Not now, not ever. (I will not become one of those fools that attempt word analysis in a language they can't read.)
I think it means that Ol' Matty replicated the "move mountain" metaphor for "believe harder" from the fig cursing to this story about healing some poor boy with epilepsy. It is not found in the original version (Mark 9:14-29). I guess "Matthew" liked it enough to change the dialog for Jesus in the earlier story.
I forget what interpretation you are trying to walk me into.
Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.Jesus made a claim, that any on with true/pure/whatever faith could do seemingly impossible things through prayer. So, if any modern believer should claim that they can do impossible thing through faith with prayer we can test those, but we can only confirm that the claimed thing happened or not, causation, particularly of failure, is a bit trickier given the degeneracy in the potential causes of failure.
Interesting that you should bring this perspective up.There's nothing that makes a person an expert on the Bible more than refusing to learn its textual development.
Interesting that you should bring this perspective up.
I've often had similar thoughts when coming across arguments doubting the validity of radiometric dating of geological structures.
No, it is not the same as radiometric dating is a measure.Interesting that you should bring this perspective up.
I've often had similar thoughts when coming across arguments doubting the validity of radiometric dating of geological structures.
One of the reasons I enjoy geology is the story that the Earth is telling us about itSelf. It's pretty interesting stuff. The thing is, if a person does not take the time to learn and understand the science of something like geology, the course forward seems to be that we can still that person to argue as though they think they are an expert on the subject.I question science and methods to gain a better accuracy.
Too much of our 'science" is story telling and speculation
Yes, I make light of your unnecessary multiplication of jargonic entities. (And will likely continue to do so.) If I recall correctly, the jargon you listed is related to textual analysis, which would have been a better usage because it does not require a dictionary to infer the intended meaning. I am not good at remembering your favorite multisyllabic terms from academic humanities as I need to meaningfully use concepts to remember them. All I get is a vague impression of a word I've seen before imprinted in my synaptic connections.This is exactly the sort of thing I'm referring to that you do.
I referred to what was "invalid" rather than uninteresting. (Though to be fair, theology is also uninteresting as it ever was.)Hermeneutics is no longer a solely "Bible thing." It's sort of time to wake up to this newer development in academia, whether it interests you or not.
My only attempted humor was on your jargon.Because one of his arguments was essentially your --------- humorously laden------------argument.
My comment on the usefulness of a "concordence" stands. I'm not going to play the part of the amateur interpretation expert like so many who don't read Greek and pull out a "Strong's Concordence" (hey! I remembered the name of that thing) and talk about the intended usage of some Greek word in the original (oldest) manuscript for many reasons, but the best one is that I don't speak Greek and that seems a very questionable game to play in a langauge you don't know.There's nothing that makes a person an expert on the Bible more than refusing to learn its textual development.
Of this I am aware, butHans, ol buddy, in the fields of Historiography and History, the earliest source isn't by any necessity the best or more accurate.
speaking of multiplying entities: You don't expect us to think that this metaphor "moving mountains" was in two different stories in the "source", Mark left it out of one, and Matthew restored it, do you? It is simpler to think Matthew *added* it to the second (first in the text) story because he liked it.Keep in mind that Mark itself was also an adaptation of earlier source material, even if we don't precisely know what the material was.
Demons, I forgot about the demon in the cure of the epileptic, and dead fig trees, sure, that seems to be the point that strong faith with prayer can make the biggest impossible things happen.So, what have you learned so far (whether you use the ideas or not)?:. .....that you can kill fig trees and set demons on the run if you "have faith."
Is it Jewish, or Greek, or whatever? I don't know. Does anyone?Gotta love those Jewish metaphors.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?