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.
The problem is people built theology on that one verse.The same reason why the Greek word "Baptiso" was anglicised instead of translated "immersed". There are a lot of preconceived notions with Bible interpretations. Translators, when faced with a choice, are inclined to go with what is traditional. "Immersed" was never going to fly with the Roman Catholics and even the early reformers. "Was" likewise suited the prevailing theology. It is an acceptable translation.
I had an NIV study Bible many years ago. It had "became" as a possible translation in the margin notes. The theory is not new. Origen raised it in the third century.
Am I force fitting? No. In this instance the sun and moon are talked about in scripture. No where does scripture tell us the "forbidden fruit" was something sexual and Adam and Eve may have been more than 1 people.
It could be. The bottom line is they both illuminate the earth. One brighter and the other lesser. As you guys are fond of saying...the Bible isn't a scientific text book.
There is no mention of ladders or stairs on Noahs ark...can you assume there were none for going from one level to the next?Oh, there are no planets such as Jupiter mentioned in scripture. Can I assume they don't exist and that they where never created?
With the information provided at the time you might be able to make the assumption. We can also assume Adam didn't have a belly button considering he wasn't from a mothers womb.But, since there is nothing that directly suggesting the moon reflects light then it's fair to say that I can say that the moon is a literal body of light (i don't want to hear any ambiguous translations). The light is it's own light, not a reflection of the sun. Is this correct?
You can add an elevator if you like...you simply can't be dogmatic about it.So I can insert?
But can I assume that planets don't exist, mainly because they are not referenced at all in the creation story?With the information provided at the time you might be able to make the assumption. We can also assume Adam didn't have a belly button considering he wasn't from a mothers womb.
You can assume DNA doesn't exist because it's not referenced in Genesis. Have at it.But can I assume that planets don't exist, mainly because they are not referenced at all in the creation story?
Ah. So I can add anything I like, like Noah got the animals in there through Amazon?You can add an elevator if you like...you simply can't be dogmatic about it.
Sometimes the Bible is silent on a topic. No where does the Bible suggest in any fashion the forbidden fruit was sexual. No where does the Bible even suggest there was a pre-Adamic race. No where does the Bible suggest evolution is how God created man.
You can assume DNA doesn't exist because it's not referenced in Genesis. Have at it.
There's a difference between what is feasible and actual.Ah. So I can add anything I like, like Noah got the animals in there through Amazon?
But the Bible also uses symbology to describe things. If I can apply/insert common sense that the ark had stairs, a plank why can't I apply common sense with other things such as the creation story?
Not so. It's not clear cut, but there are other references that support the gap theory. I suggest that you read "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee. I found it most helpful.The problem is people built theology on that one verse.
God said he made space and the host in them. Should he have mentioned the Milky Way????? Does it not exist because its not in the Bible????But you are missing/dodging the point: is it correct, to state the non-existence of DNA, planets, gravity, etc because of not being referenced at all in genesis and the entire Bible? If you believe/say that God created planets with no biblical reference at all, how are you not inserting to scripture?
Present it here...provide a link.Not so. It's not clear cut, but there are other references that support the gap theory. I suggest that you read "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee. I found it most helpful.
I don't believe that they have technology. They are angelic, not human. They do not need technology.What kind of technology do the fallen angels have?
God said he made space and the host in them. Should he have mentioned the Milky Way????? Does it not exist because its not in the Bible????
http://www.watchman-nee.nl/creation.pdfPresent it here...provide a link.
I also said you can't be dogmatic. Like you.So what if there is a difference? You have stated earlier, that you can't insert but then you are making posts in where it is exempted such as through common sense and scientific facts.
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?