Voting in favor of your Bible POV - God's Word

What is your POV regarding the Bible 7 day week doctrine on origins?

  • Ex 20:11 summarizes the lit seven day creation account in Gen 1-2 : & fits with science fact

  • Evolution is science fact. The Bible is myth, or allegory or ... and can fit any sort of evolution

  • Since the Bible is not reliable historic fact, we should focus on other parts of the Bible


Results are only viewable after voting.

Monna

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2017
1,196
961
75
Oicha Beni
✟105,254.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Or just maybe we're all missing the point of Genesis 1-3.

Those who insist on literal interpretation of the scriptures often like to quote 2 Tim 3:16 as evidence, and since they are "God breathed" they are literally true. However, this is taking individual statements out of their context.

2 Tim 3: 15-17
...from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The Bible was written as a manual on right living - not as a chronology of world events, a biology text, or as archaeology, cosmology, physics, geology, marine ecology or general science book. It is self delusion to get all worked up trying to make it fit such uses and miss what God is trying to teach us about "seeking his kingdom/kingship and his rigtheousness" - which Jesus told his followers should be their priority.

So one question I have is this: how does a 7 24-hr day creation, or a long process of development under God's guidance, equip anyone for "every good work?" How does either interpretation provide training in "righteousness" - that is right moral living from God's perspective? Or to use another common phrase in the scriptures - "looking after orphans and widows?"

Paul's prayer for the Ephesians was "And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ," (Eph 3:17-18) He goes on to describe the life he hoped they would live "I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Eph 4:1-5)
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwimac
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,284
3,668
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟217,925.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And Zwingli was correct in his theology.
I'm sure that he, like ,most heresiarchs, knew what our Lord really meant, right? That "hard saying" of His was way too hard, so He couldn't possibly have meant that. But I still maintain that if you can't believe what Christ said about His Body and Blood, then it it doesn't matter what you believe about the historicity of the Genesis accoint of Creation. It demonstrates that you set your doctrine above the Word of God Himself as authoritative. You go where your doctrine leads you, and if the literal Scripture differs from your favorite dogmas, then you quickly apply the old reliable "what that really means is..." to get around it.

That you want to go back to the day's before the Reformation
Sorry, but the Word of the Lord predates the Reformation by a fair bit, and if the Reformation sees fit to change it, then the Reformation belongs in the bin.

Truth keeps moving on.
Subject to change without prior notice, is it? So maybe The Word of our Lord was true then, but truth has since moved on. If so, then why not just declare the Genesis account to be obsolete as well? Why cling to the one and forcefully reject the other?

And the doctrine of transubstantiation does not fit with the teachings of the Bible.
The testimony of Christ Himself, and later of St. Paul, having been superceded in the New Church. I've had my ration of the New Church. BTW, who said anything about transubstantiation?

Yes, I believe in the Bible's story of creation. Literally.
Doesn't matter. You've already demonstrated that you decide which bits of Scripture you consider true and which you don't based purely on your denomination's dogmas, and that "the Truth keeps moving on". Maybe y'all will see fit to discard other difficult bits of the Faith like the Resurrection. Many have as the post Reformation truth "moved on".

Moses' story of creation is is not a story that is symbolic. He uses no symbolic language like Jesus did at the last supper.
Your dogma being the basis for determining what is and isn't "symbolic language". Handy, innit?
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: RushMAN
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
5. The Bible is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. The Bible is not a history book
I think that the bible is a history book.

It is not a science book.

However, it gives truth to scientific things that secular scientists:

know and won't admit,
know and hide,
know and apply,
don't know yet say that they know..
or are finding out more and more every day.
and know absolutely nothing about.
 
Upvote 0

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,207
913
Visit site
✟96,794.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I'm sure that he, like ,most heresiarchs, knew what our Lord really meant, right? That "hard saying" of His was way too hard, so He coiuldn't possibly have meant that. But I still maintain that if you can't believe what Christ said about His Body and Blood, then it it doesn't matter what you believe about the historicity of the Genesis accoint of Creation. It demonstrates that you set your doctrine above the Word of God Himself as authoritative. You go where your doctrine leads you, and if the literal Scripture differs from your favorite dogmas, then you quickly apply the old reliable "what that really means is..." to get around it.

Sorry, but the Word of the Lord predates the Reformation by a fair bit, and if the Reformation sees fit to change it, then the Reformation belongs in the bin.

Subject to change without prior notice, is it? So maybe The Word of our Lord were true then, but truth has since moved on. If so, then why not just declare the Genesis account to be obsolete as well? Why cling to the one and forcefully reject the other?

The testimony of Christ Himself, and later of St. Paul, having been superceded in the New Church. I've had my ration of the New Church. BTW, who said anything about transubstantiation?

Doesn't matter. You've already demonstrated that you decide which bits of Scripture you consider true and which you don't are based purely on your denomination's dogmas, and that "the Truth keeps moving on". Maybe y'all will see fit to discard other difficult bits of the Faith like the Resurrection. Many have as the post Reformation truth "moved on".



It's a literal story, just like the story of the last supper. Only what Jesus said there about His body and his blood was symbolic. Moses' story of creation is is not a story that is symbolic. He uses no symbolic language like Jesus did at the last supper.
[/QUOTE]

And that's your opinion. You're welcome to it, but all I see is opinion. And I take personal opinions for what for they are worth. Not much. You're defending the organization that burned people at the stake, tortured them in dungeons, drowned people, etc... for having their own opinions. I respect those who died for trusting God's word more than man's much more than I respect someone who thinks that organization is the one to follow.

That organization showed the spirit of the devil, not the spirit of God. God died to show man what he is worth in the eyes of God. The organization you're defending murdered people for having a conscience and not surrendering to the dictates of those who made themselves their enemies. I find those murdered people heroic and well worth emulating. I don't find the behavior of those who murdered people by the millions worth emulating and find their behavior to be the fruits of their theology. That those murders showed no semblance of the love of God says it all as far as I'm concerned. Oh, and the life styles they lived showed they had little use for the word of God. Any organization that would put people as evil as the Borgias at the head of a church is beyond sick in my eyes. Paul says anyone who practices the lusts of the flesh will never go to heaven, and yet you proclaim those type of people to be infallibly in the right.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Or just maybe we're all missing the point of Genesis 1-3.

Those who insist on literal interpretation of the scriptures often like to quote 2 Tim 3:16 as evidence, and since they are "God breathed" they are literally true. However, this is taking individual statements out of their context.

2 Tim 3: 15-17
...from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The Bible was written as a manual on right living - not as a chronology of world events, a biology text, or as archaeology, cosmology, physics, geology, marine ecology or general science book. It is self delusion to get all worked up trying to make it fit such uses and miss what God is trying to teach us about "seeking his kingdom/kingship and his rigtheousness" - which Jesus told his followers should be their priority.

So one question I have is this: how does a 7 24-hr day creation, or a long process of development under God's guidance, equip anyone for "every good work?" How does either interpretation provide training in "righteousness" - that is right moral living from God's perspective? Or to use another common phrase in the scriptures - "looking after orphans and widows?"

Paul's prayer for the Ephesians was "And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ," (Eph 3:17-18) He goes on to describe the life he hoped they would live "I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Eph 4:1-5)
Why can't the Genesis account be literal?

What is it about the literal comprehension of Genesis that is not possible?

What do you know, or believe, that makes the acceptance of the literal six day creation incorrect?
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Its primary use is not as a history book
Sorry, Lost, but I believe that this is one of the most important purposes of the Bible.. as a history book..

Another would be to be prophetic in things to come.. telling us our future.

The third would be a book on etiquette, how to behave and live as it would please God.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I take it someone is not happy with the voting poll
It's very difficult to write questions for a poll.

This is why politicians can manipulate the results so well and ask questions that can be used to say totally opposite things.

There should always be an "Other" selection, with an explanation option.

For the poll in this thread.. I would pick number 1/

However I cannot choose that due to the last little bit where it says "and fits with science fact"

This is for two reasons.. It does not fit with what the Atheistic Darwinian evolutionist scientists are feeding us as "facts".. and... Science in many things is understood and factual.. but the majority of "science" today.. is pure fabrication, conjecture, assumptions and mathematical theoretical nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmanbob

Goat Whisperer
Supporter
Sep 6, 2016
15,961
10,817
73
92040
✟1,096,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
5. The bible account is true but we don't understand it fully.

True, it's hard to fully understand for us simple ones. Problem is that we think that we are so smart.

It's not good to question God.
I believe all of His Word as written.

M
 
  • Agree
Reactions: OldWiseGuy
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
It's very difficult to write questions for a poll.

This is why politicians can manipulate the results so well and ask questions that can be used to say totally opposite things.

There should always be an "Other" selection, with an explanation option.

For the poll in this thread.. I would pick number 1/

However I cannot choose that due to the last little bit where it says "and fits with science fact"

This is for two reasons.. It does not fit with what the Atheistic Darwinian evolutionist scientists are feeding us as "facts".. and... Science in many things is understood and factual.. but the majority of "science" today.. is pure fabrication, conjecture, assumptions and mathematical theoretical nonsense.

I understand your POV and thanks for sharing that. I have tried to clarify the point in the OP after seeing this.

so I added this ---

===========================
Clarification on one option above in the list.

Many creationists accept that Bible doctrine is compatible with science fact -

For example:
Christ raises Lazarus from the dead - but that act does not "destroy science" nor is it 'anti-science" or "opposed to science" just because Mary and Martha cannot then take some secret science knowledge and use it to raise the dead. They are free to study science and be 100% scientifically correct in their statements AND ALSO admit that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and that they can't do that.

In the same way that you can take commercial jet across the nation - and yet admit that rocks don't turn into commercial jets ... and also admit that you do not have all the aeronautics engineering skill to make one yourself. Admitting that they "exist" is still not "anti-science". You are simply admitting someone else has that knowledge and ability ... not you, and that said jet flight "did not arise out of rocks over time" as if it is an inherent property in rocks to self-organize and provide jet flights across the nation.

My use of the term "is compatible" simply means - "does not oppose" or reject or contradict science fact. It does not mean that our level of science has fully acquired all the knowledge to do what God does in order to admit that something did happen in real life - in nature and that God did it.

(Maybe there is an even better way to word it - I concede that as qualifier for option 1)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I understand your POV and thanks for sharing that. I have tried to clarify the point in the OP after seeing this.

so I added this ---

===========================
Clarification on one option above in the list.

Many creationists accept that Bible doctrine is compatible with science fact -

For example:
Christ raises Lazarus from the dead - but that act does not "destroy science" nor is it 'anti-science" or "opposed to science" just because Mary and Martha cannot then take some secret science knowledge and use it to raise the dead. They are free to study science and be 100% scientifically correct in their statements AND ALSO admit that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and that they can't do that.

In the same way that you can take commercial jet across the nation - and yet admit that rocks don't turn into commercial jets ... and also admit that you do not have all the aeronautics engineering skill to make one yourself. Admitting that they "exist" is still not "anti-science". You are simply admitting someone else has that knowledge and ability ... not you, and that said jet flight "did not arise out of rocks over time" as if it is an inherent property in rocks to self-organize and provide jet flights across the nation.

My use of the term "is compatible" simply means - "does not oppose" or reject or contradict science fact. It does not mean that our level of science has fully acquired all the knowledge to do what God does in order to admit that something did happen in real life - in nature and that God did it.

(Maybe there is an even better way to word it - I concede that as qualifier for option 1)
I understand, thanks for that information.

However, in many cases, the biblical truth is not compatible with scientific concepts and laws of this world.

This does not make them any less truthful.. It only means that the creator exists outside of the physical laws which He has placed on us. It also means that He is not bound by these laws.

Everything that He does is righteous and for His final will for this world.
 
Upvote 0

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Supporter
May 19, 2018
10,943
11,697
Neath
✟1,002,161.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I think that the bible is a history book.

It is not a science book.

However, it gives truth to scientific things that secular scientists:

know and won't admit,
know and hide,
know and apply,
don't know yet say that they know..
or are finding out more and more every day.
and know absolutely nothing about.

I know it has tons of history in it. I meant its not primarily a history book. Its not its prime role.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
However, in many cases, the biblical truth is not compatible with scientific concepts and laws of this world.

A carpenter makes a well crafted chair. But does not declare that the laws of nature "no longer exist" since trees do not naturally turn themselves into well crafted chairs.

An atheist comes along who makes the faith statement "there are no carpenters" so when he sees the chair he supposes that "well trees must have the property to turn themselves into chairs given verrrry special just-so scenarios over time".

The first example is fully compatible with science, the second one isn't. The fact that God does something does not cancel the laws of nature - planes do not then fall out of the sky. Taking an action and doing something that will not otherwise "happen on its own" is not a argument that science has been disprove or that doing whatever you did is not fully "compatible" with science fact.

Lazarus was raised from the dead and yet salt still had the same properties that it always had before that resurrection and hot air still rises. The fact of his resurrection "is compatible" with science fact - - but it does not mean that man's level of science has the same ability to explain how God raised the dead three days later. We don't reject science fact as Christians just because we know that Christ raised Lazarus from the dead. We see no conflict at all there.
 
Upvote 0

K2K

Newbie
Jul 21, 2010
2,520
471
✟50,646.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ps 78: I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old

You can't read the Bible and miss the fact that the Lord uses parables when explaining things. Ps 78 starts by explaining that parables and saying are going to be used and as we read it we find out that Ps 78 goes of a history of the Isrealites

Ps 78: 30,31 Before they had satisfied their desire, While their food was in their mouths, The anger of God rose against them And killed some of their stoutest ones, And subdued the choice men of Israel.

All this historical account in the Bible is in the form of a parable. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen but that even what happened was as a parable, a teaching from the Lord

So was everything created in 7 literal days?

A day for us is determined by the Earth spin around one time. Of course someone could say that is non-sense, and refusing to believe any proof offered against their stubborn thinking.

Dan 12:4 But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.”

Knowledge will increase is statement from God. So he who thinks knowledge has not increased has made God a lair and obviously does not believe in God. That of course does not mean we have it all figured out! That can't be because God said knowledge would increase, and that can't be the case if we have it all figured out! So the scientist thinking that have figured it all figured out and the Christian saying the same thing both have called God a lair.

I don't have it all figured out, so that means I need the Wonderful Counselor and Teacher, Jesus Christ. Yet Jesus explained to the Jews that they were searching the Scriptures instead of coming to Him. (Jn 5:39)

Which bring up something. Is it the Bible which is the Word of God or our Lord Jesus Christ who is the Word of God?

The Lord though Isaiah explained that if we did not listen then the word would be line upon line, and that so those who did not listen would go stumbling backwards.

Is 28:12,13 He who said to them, “Here is rest, give rest to the weary, And, “Here is repose,” but they would not listen.
So the word of the LORD to them will be, “Order on order, order on order, Line on line, line on line, A little here, a little there, ”That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive.

Now we read in the title of a thread " Voting in favor of your Bible POV - God's Word " !

As Christian, shouldn't our vote be in favor of our Lord Jesus Christ??? And isn't "The Word of God" His name?

Rev 19:13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

He is not the Scripture!

(Gal 3:22) But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

But perhaps not everyone who read the sacred writings believe what they read, so they don't believe in Jesus Christ and thus don't hear His voice in them?

Jn 5:46,47 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Didn't Moses say the word was near?

Deut 30:14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

So the word is found in your mouth and in your heart, not in ink on pages, right? Paul had to remind some in the past about this, and explain that the word we preach was found right where Moses are told them. They just wouldn't believe it.

Rom 10:
8,9 But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

So now, saying that we are voting for our Bible is not the same as saying Jesus Christ is our Lord. and saying the Bible is the Word is not the same thing as saying Jesus Christ is the Word. And a reading of the Bible explains all that. So anyone coming to that conclusion might read the Bible and even study it, but they don't actually believe the writers, like Moses, who were trying to get them to listen to the Lord. Yet His sheep hear His voice.

From my experience, hearing his voice, I have come to realize that He still loves teaching with parables, and also that it is not me who knows but Him. Even though He has been teaching me for over 20 years now, having come into my life in the summer of 1999, I am still learning. In fact, I can't even understand the depths of God nor all the things that He has done, much less how He has done them.

Paul put it this way:
1 Cor 8:1,2 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.

Now I suppose and believe I know Him, the person, but that has not meant supposing I know any "thing". Indeed, coming to know Him has shown we that there is too much for me to know, even exactly how all things were created by Him. Of course that doesn't mean we don't have some knowledge, and I like to see how it is increasing just like the Lord said. So was there a big bang 13-15 billion years ago. I don't know, but the person saying they take the Bible in some literal sense when it is explained in the Bible that the Lord teaches us in parable is clearly on the wrong track. That person doesn't even believe the writings of Moses that he says he believes, which is just like Jesus explained to the Jews.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
So was everything created in 7 literal days?
A day for us is determined by the Earth spin around one time. .

Yes one rotation of the planet for a day resulting in "evening and morning one day".

Ex 20:9 "six days you shall labor..."
Ex 20:11 "for in six days the Lord made..." speaking of all life on Earth.

Gen 1-2 presents the 7 day account summarized in Ex 20:11.

The time boxed chronological sequence of Gen 1:2 - 2:4 ends this way

Gen 2
"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
 
  • Winner
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Which bring up something. Is it the Bible which is the Word of God or our Lord Jesus Christ who is the Word of God?

1. John 1 John says - Jesus "is the Word"
2. Mark 7:6-13 Jesus said - the scriptures written in OT are "The Word of God"

so I guess it is both-and
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
remember, once again, our Lord said what He said, and that is undeniable. And He said "Take, eat, this is my Body, which is given for you."

And if one understands the context of what He was doing, what He was doing it with, and when He was doing it-- it shatters the myth of transubstantiation and consubstantiation.
 
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,284
3,668
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟217,925.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
] And that's your opinion. You're welcome to it, but all I see is opinion.
An opinion I'm pleased to share with St. Paul. I'm good with that. He states in no uncertain terms in 1 Corinthians 11 "27 So then whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in a way that is unworthy [of Him] will be guilty of [profaning and sinning against] the body and blood of the Lord." Not a symbol of the Body and Blood of the Lord, you'll notice, although I'm sure you'll insist that's what he really means. I'n not sure if you can be guilty of sinning against a symbol anyway. But he goes further: "29 For anyone who eats and drinks [without solemn reverence and heartfelt gratitude for the sacrifice of Christ], eats and drinks a judgment on himself if he does not recognize the body [of Christ]." Seems like it would be difficult to recognize the Body of Christ when you deny that it's there in the frst place. So yeah, if it's me and the old saint agaist the world, I'm betting the world has got it wrong.

And I take personal opinions for what for they are worth. Not much.
Except, obviously, for your own, since you hold that disagreement with you as touching the 7 Day Creation means one Doesn't Believe The Bible. Are you rendering that opinion ex cathedra, and
thus infallible? If not, I value your opinion at roughly the same weight that you do mine.

You're defending the organization that burned people at the stake
I assume that you're referring to the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am not a member. Nice try, but well wide of the target, <Laugh> (BTW, my church affiliation is under the picture on my posts. Glancing at it might have saved you from that blunder, and the rant about what baddies the RCC were. Read Fox's Book of Martyrs and see how well Anglicans and the RCC have gotten along.

So let's recap: You are of the opinion that one must believe that one must believe in a 7 Day Creation to be a Christian. You are also of the opinion, that when our Lord said that the bread and wine of the holy Communion is His Body and Blood He was just using a metaphor, even though it drove away a good many of His followers and He never made and recorded attempt to explain it otherwise. I'm of the opinion that you're dedicated to pouring out the soup and trying to eat the can, and that you're blindly allowing the sect you follow to decide what the Bible really means.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
An opinion I'm pleased to share with St. Paul. I'm good with that. He states in no uncertain terms in 1 Corinthians 11 "27 So then whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in a way that is unworthy [of Him] will be guilty of [profaning and sinning against] the body and blood of the Lord."

agreed. Interesting topic - let's have a thread on that.

1 Cor 11: 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” -- a literal memorial service. Great topic
 
Upvote 0