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.
Why should we do that?
You guys do it enough for us.
Sounds like the Sadducees were Atheists. Or was it the other way around?
Sounds like the Sadducees were Atheists. Or was it the other way around?
Nope -- they were observant Jews -- just like Jesus was.
The Sadducees were a powerful minority within the whole of Judaism...
...They rejected both the Resurrection of the body & postmortem spiritual existence.<snip>.
The key word being "were"
Matthew 3:7 Seeing yet many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming upon the baptism he said to them, "prodigy of vipers! who intimates to ye to be fleeing from being about wrath?"
The Sadducees | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
Being closely associated with the Temple, the Sadducees disappeared from history when the Temple was destroyed in 70.
It is "The Inerrant Word of God" that says: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction..." - (2 Tim 3:16).all I ask is that you guys acknowledge that your interpretation of scripture, whatever conclusions you come up with, is fallible and not "The Inerrant Word of God."
Or C. The Serpent was a metaphor for Satan, just as Pig is a metaphor for Glutton.I have seen both claims that the serpent was Satan and claims that he had used the serpent here in this forum. Neither claim makes any sense to me, since A. The serpent was the one punished by God and B. If the serpent was Satan, he should still be crawling on his belly eating dirt.
Oh, so your willing to accept that truth does exist? Or are we just talking about what is convenient and what is inconvenient?Just another example of you refusing point blank to face the truth when you don't like it.
Plants do not have nostrils:I've always wondered where the dove found a live branch after the flood destroyed all living things, including plants.
Jesus' reply is: “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.” – (Matt 22:29).Words are just labels, or approximations if you like. By definition it is impossible for them to be entirely inerrant. So your statement that God's word is inerrant is silly. If He is using words then he has already conceded inerrancy.
Oh, so your willing to accept that truth does exist? Or are we just talking about what is convenient and what is inconvenient?
It is "The Inerrant Word of God" that says: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction..." - (2 Tim 3:16).
In other words, it is "The Inerrant Word of God" that reprimands and corrects all other versions of the flood story by giving us the correct interpretation of the flood story. Thats why its called "The Inerrant Word of God."
Jesus' reply is: “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.” – (Matt 22:29).
That would lead me to believe that you only accept what is convenient then. So you disregard inconvenient truths. As for AV he seems to be some sort of enigma or a riddle. I do not think he wants anyone to know what he believes. He has a lot of gray area inbetween.You'd be better off asking AVET1611VET that one.
The reason I feel the need to repeat this here is that you guys continue to sidestep the issue.Why should we do that?
You guys do it enough for us.
I certainly agree with the latter. Now why is it your posts don't seem to reflect this fact?God's Word is inerrant ... errant interpretations aren't.
I'm not trying to make "rules" here. I was answering your question about my post.I don't bow to your rules.
I thought I discussed the issue of miracles with you recently. While I may not subscribe to them, I don't have a real issue with them because of the fact they are isolated events.Jesus walking on water constitutes an 'excessive claim' to you guys; does it not?
Jesus walking on water constitutes an 'errant interpretation' to you guys; does it not?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but I'll assume you mean that the Bible is infallible, even if interpretation of it is not... correct? I don't agree that the bible is itself infallible, since it was written, transcribed and translated by fallible men. However, I would consider it at least a step in the right direction if you guys act like you understand that interpretation is not infallible. It would at least be something we could agree on, and would at least set the bar to a reasonable level for discussion. Neither our scientific inquiry nor our interpretation of scripture is infallible.I disagree ... Biblical infallibility stands on its own.
I am not talking at all about falsifying scripture.God tells us how the Bible can be falsified; and as yet, It hasn't been.
Not really, but go ahead and ask.I'll ask you again though, because this is a good point that I think makes you uneasy:
I haven't studied them very much to be honest, so I wouldn't come down behind one or the other. As to infallibility, none are. You can quote me on that.Of the six natural explanations as to how we got our moon, which one do you subscribe to, and is it 'infallible' as well?
Not a problem. All human endeavours are fallible. This includes those based on scripture and science, both.If you say it is infallible, then your point about infallibility can take a hike.
I have no problem looking in the mirror... do you?Look in the mirror.
1. Because they do not contradict reality.Here's a second point I'd like to make:
Why is it that those who interpret the Scriptures allegorically don't seem to bother you at all?
Actually, I have noticed many non-Christians disagree with this, here. I do believe it makes little sense to try and "prove" that scripture predicts anything we have recently learned via science. I have posted such here on ocassion, though not as often as some others have.Those who interpret Genesis 1, for example, to fit the Big Bang paradigm nary get a hoot out of you guys, does it?
Any interpretation that conflicts with the reality that we have determined via our species' combined scientific inquiry bothers me.That's because ... in my opinion ... the only thing that really bothers you guys is the literal interpretation of the Bible.
Well to be fair, its usually the literalists here that tend to claim infallibility, not the non-literalists. I will emphasize one more time, no interpretation is infallible.That's what brings you guys out of the woodwork, demanding we admit 'our interpretation could be infallible' ... isn't it?
That sounds all sweet and nice, but truth is not dependent upon a fallible man-made theory:Yes, God also gives us the natural record. Like fossils so that one does not cancel out the other. We have to look at all of what God gives us to look at. We can examine all that God gives us to examine. Then we can allow God to guide us and lead us in our understanding.
If you JUST look at the Bible then your going to come to a different conclusion then if you look at the Bible AND the natural record we find in nature and in the natural world. Just the same people that only look at fossils and what they see in the natural world. And they do not study the Bible. They will come to a different conclusion because they have limited themselves and they have limited their understanding.
NOTE: I started a sentence with "and". Also I used the word "and" three times as a device so people walk away with the understanding that it takes BOTH the Bible AND science. You can not study and understand just one or the other and have a proper understanding of what God wants us to know. Yet I know somone will count all the times I used the word "AND" and they will proudly give me that count. Still the message is you can not rely on or depend on one or the other. It takes the witness of both.
I'm sure He does:Because God always gives us at least TWO witnesses.
That sounds all sweet and nice, but truth is not dependent upon a fallible man-made theory:
What makes Creationism less of a fallible man-made theory when compared to Evolution?That sounds all sweet and nice, but truth is not dependent upon a fallible man-made theory:
That would lead me to believe that you only accept what is convenient then. So you disregard inconvenient truths. As for AV he seems to be some sort of enigma or a riddle. I do not think he wants anyone to know what he believes. He has a lot of gray area inbetween.
Plants do not have nostrils:
Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. (Gen 7:22).
If God can preserve three men in a fire, can He not preserve a plant under water?
23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out;
Unless of course you contend plants aren't really alive.
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?