Weather during the Global Flood

[night2day]

...to go in-depth to discuss #180 is going to make feelings and matters a lot worse.

Requests regarding indications where the Biblical accounts are to be taken as anything less than historical accounts have been largely ignored. Such as pointing out there is nothing within the literary context of either the Genesis global flood or Jesus' resurrection that portrays either as a myth or metaphor.

Why then the claim the discussion would go far "worse" when the basics of the Biblical events are dismissed and read as one chooses to read instead of allowing the Bible itself to explain them?

1. Yes, it might have been a little harsh to call you a liar.

Might have been? You may feel it's justifiable people call others names during a discussoon. I do not.

2. But while the word "liar" may have been unjustified, the feelings behind that word probably were.

That's alot of assumptions made.

I'm going out on a limb as to where you got your YEC-ist education frombut I'm guessing that it's more from AiG or ICR than from Scripture...

All one needs to do os go back to Genesis 1-9.

When the church of the sixteenth century was dealing with alot of corruption a monk of the Augstinian who had been deeply studying the Scriptures, something that rare due to the lack of the Old and New Testaments for those within the religious orders, let alone within the known language, wrote and posted 95 Thesis regarding his deep concerns regarding that corruption. At the time, he niavely thought the Pope and those immediately under him were not aware of all that was being done. He soon found out he was wrong and it was demanded he recant all that he was teaching.

When the time came, this is what he stated:

"...From this it should be evident that I have carefully considered and weighed such discord, peril, uproar and rebellion which is rampant in the world today on account of my teaching, as I was gravely and urgently made aware yesterday. It is quite revealing as far as I am concerned that the divine word causes factions, misunderstanding, and discord to arise. Such, of course, must be the fate and the consequence of the divine Word, even as the Lord himself said: 'I am come not to send peace but a sword, to set a son against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.' Therefore we must ponder how wonderful and terrible God is in his counsels, plans and intentions. Perhaps we condemn the Word of God if we do away with our factions and dissensions. It could be a deluge of inestimable evils, indeed a cause of concern lest the imperial rule of our most pious and youthful Emperor should have an unfortunate beginning...

"Since your Imperial Majesty and Lordships demand a simple answer I will do so without horns or teeth as follows: Unless I am convicted by the testimony of Scripture or by evident reason - for I trust neither in popes nor in councils alone, since it is obvious that they have often erred and contradicted themselves - I am convicted by the Scripture which I have mentioned and my conscience is captive by the Word of God. Therefore I cannot and will not recant, since it is difficult, unprofitable and dangerous indeed to do anything against one's conscience. God help me. Amen."

The man was Martin Luther. The above quote was his words at the Diet of Worms. The time was during the Reformation.

As the above indicates, he too demanded proof from the Scriptures themselves if anything he said was in error. As past posts have indicated, I asked the same a number of times.

I take the Bible within it's literary context. Scripture interprets Scripture. The Bible interprets itself.

​

Stating I recieved an YEC education from some outside source is rather insulting when none was given nor indicated. It's as if you are indicating someone cannot accept God's world for what it says, as it says, as the Holy Spirit has brought him/her to discern God's word.

...especially the way you started #180 with a statement about OECists that sounds like typical AiG talk. I could be horribly wrong, of course, but I don't think I am...

Again, a false assumption on your part. As well as arrogant.

You post about the global flood and how it really happened...

It seems to be repeatedly bypassed somehow the Scriptures clearely states the events were caused by God. Supernatural causes. You or anyone else asking for a scientific explanation of how it took place might as well ask how a virgin concieved and bore a son. Or how "God became Flesh and walked among us".

The center of the issue isn't whether or not science prove's the Old and New Testaments. Not when there is both the natural and the supernatural world to consider.

It's whether of not one trusts in God and His word despite whatever human reason may state otherwise. God gave us human reason, that's true. Human reason also is corrupted by the curse of sin...the same curse which plaugues all of creation. It's basically at war with God. That's how sin is.

You post about how rotten TEs are....

And where did I personally attack the character of an Thiest Evolutionist? Where did I states they as individuals were rotten? Are you certain I was speaking of the TE's or rather TE teachings and concepts and how they stand next to the literary context of the Scriptures? What does the literary context of the Bible say?

You say that you're being called a liar for believing that the global flood happened...

Previous posts stand as testimoney.

In both cases, while the criticisms (sharp ones, granted) were made towards specific areas of your arguments, you took it as a general criticism of you yourself.

I strongly beg to differ. There is a major differnce between disagreeing between issues and terming someone as a "liar" for stating a belief.

I think this is especially compounded by the fact that many creationist organizations (hence my speculation up there) keep portraying us TEs as compromising Darwinistic predators...

compromise (v)
1): make a compromise; arrive at a compromise

2): settle by concession
3): expose or make liable to danger, suspicion, or disrepute
​

When one looks at the Old and New Testaments, takes one portion as an historical event which occured in human history based on the literary context...and then makes a myth out of another portion when no portion of the literary context indicates it as such...there is nothing but a compromise being done.

I have asked where within the literary context has indicated the Ressurection of Christ was an actual, historical event when Genesis 1-9 is basically referred to as a myth...yet they both have nothing within the literary context which states they are not to be taken as anything less than as they are...that's nothing than compromise.

Saying's it's nothing but "my interpretation" is a cop-out. I ask again: What is within the literary context?

It's easy to trade blows over trivial dogmas (both sides). Far harder to understand how the other side thinks. But essential.

What you belive to be trivial is actually a major issue: What is God's word, Where does it get it's authority, and How is it discerned? If one portion of the Scriptures removed from it's literary context....what prevents the same from being done to another portion of the Biblical context?

1 Corinthians 1:18-27
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence."

​

2 Corinthians 2:14
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
​

 

[night2day]

It is not possible to read the bible without deciding some of it is metaphorical, some literal, some mythical, some parable, some poetical, etc.

If one chooses to dicard the literary context nothing more can be said.

Even your choice to attempt not to use it is itself a reasoned choice...We should try to interpet them to attempt to learn whatever it is God want's us to learn from them...The point of the bible is for us to learn about Christ, not for us to rubber stamp as true without worrying about learning anything from it.

Reread 1 Corinthians 2:9-14.

I wish you would stop refering to the bible as "God's word"...

Nope. Not gonna happen.

I am not putting myself under a book. Under God, yes. Under the Word of God, yes. But I refuse to worship a book.

While holy men wrote the Bible the Holy Spirit is the one who inspired them to write the words. God alone is the Author and He alone gave the Holy Scriptures their authority. God alone is also the One who preserves is hole, infallible, and inerrant Word.

The Holy Scriptures are not God. Yet they bear His authority. They point to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior from sin death and Hell, by grace, through faith in Him. Yet, how do we know of Jesus and that He is our Savior from sin, death, and Hell? Through His word. And from where does the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, work through but the Scripritures?

By treating the Bible as just another book/set of books/whatever you also cut yourself off from the primary source from which the Holy Spirit works as well as the final say in all Christian teaching and doctrine. Period.

 

[ebia]

Requests regarding indications where the Biblical accounts are to be taken as anything less than historical accounts have been largely ignored.

No they haven't. You may not agree that the explanations have been adequate, but they have not been ignore.

Such as pointing out there is nothing within the literary context of either the Genesis global flood or Jesus' resurrection that portrays either as a myth or metaphor.

People have attempted to address this.

Why then the claim the discussion would go far "worse" when the basics of the Biblical events are dismissed and read as one chooses to read instead of allowing the Bible itself to explain them?

Why do you choose to assume that everything you need to understand the bible is contained within the bible? Why do you dismiss evidence and explanations that the Word of God has provided through creation?

Might have been? You may feel it's justifiable people call others names during a discussoon. I do not.

Try to remember this. We made need to refer back to it.

The man was Martin Luther.

I find it interesting that you cite a man who wanted to completely throw out at least one book from the N.T. (and did throw out all the deutercanonical books) because they didn't agree with his theology.

I take the Bible within it's literary context. Scripture interprets Scripture." The Bible interprets itself.

People interpret things. Books, even bibles, are inanimate objects.
​

It seems to be repeatedly bypassed somehow the Scriptures clearely states the events were caused by God. Supernatural causes. You or anyone else asking for a scientific explanation of how it took placec might as well ask how a virgin concieved and bore a son. Or how "God became Flesh and walked among us".

The funny thing is, it's not us that keeps asking or attempting to answer that question - it's the people on your side. All we do is point out the flaws in their explanations.

What we do say is "if God did that - then this evidence of it would exist - but it doesn't - so, if he did do that then he must have hidden the evidence - why?"

The center of the issue isn't whether or not science prove's the Old and New Testaments. Not when there is both the natural and the supernatural world to consider.

It's whether of not one trusts in God and His word despite whatever human reason may state otherwise. God gave us human reason, that's true. Human reason also is currupted by the curse of sin...the same curse which plaugues all of creation. It's basically at war with God. That's how sin is.

This is why people (well me at least) get's upset with you. You have just accused me of being at war with God. Which, in my book, is rather worse than having something I've said called a lie. I now refer you back to what you said above about name calling.

And where did I personally attack the character of an Thiest Evolutionist?

Just then.

Previous posts stand as testimoney.

The truest thing you have said so far.

I strongly beg to differ. There is a major differnce between disagreeing between issues and terming someone as a "liar" for stating a belief.

You have not been called a liar for stating a belief. When you have wrongly stated someone else's beliefs, having been told that is what you are doing, that has been called a lie.

When one looks at the Old and New Testaments, takes one portion as an historical event which occured in human history based on the literary context...and then makes a myth out of another portion when no portion of the literary context indicates it as such...there is nothing but a compromise being done.

It has been pointed out to you that there is reason to think that one is mythical and not the other.

I have asked where within the literary context has indicated the Ressurection of Christ was an actual, historical event when Genesis 1-9 is basically referred to as a myth...yet they both have nothing within the literary context which states they are not to be taken as anything less than as they are...that's nothing than compromise.

One is near-eye witness accounts in the near history, written down within a lifetime of them happening, with multiple accounts by different authors, and there is no evidence that they did not happen.
The other looks like the creation myth of just about any civilisation you care to name. It's like claiming Cinderalla and Julius Caesar are both the same literary type just because they happen get bound into the same volume and neither say's "actually guys, this didn't really happen".

What you belive to be trivial is actually a major issue: What is God's word,

Christ.

 

[ebia]

If one chooses to dicard the literary context nothing more can be said.

I do not choose to discard it - I disagree with you about it.

Reread 1 Corinthians 2:9-14.

I presume you think that it makes your case.

Nope. Not gonna happen.

I thought not, but there was not harm in asking.

While holy men wrote the Bible the Holy Spirit is the one who inspired them to write the words. God alone is the Author and He alone gave the Holy Scriptures their authority. God alone is also the One who preserves is hole, infallible, and inerrant Word.

The Holy Scriptures are not God. Yet they bear His authority.

I disagree.

They point to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior from sin death and Hell, by grace, through faith in Him. Yet, how do we know of Jesus and that He is our Savior from sin, death, and Hell? Through His word.

That's one way.

And from where does the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, work through but the Scripritures?

The Holy Ghost is not limited to working through the scriptures. The Holy Ghost works through all sorts of things, but mostly through people.

By treating the Bible as just another book/set of books/whatever you also cut yourself off from the primary source from which the Holy Spirit works. Period.

I'm not treating it as just another set of books. But I am also not limiting God to the bible.

 

[shernren]

Requests regarding indications where the Biblical accounts are to be taken as anything less than historical accounts have been largely ignored. Such as pointing out there is nothing within the literary context of either the Genesis global flood or Jesus' resurrection that portrays either as a myth or metaphor.

Why then the claim the discussion would go far "worse" when the basics of the Biblical events are dismissed and read as one chooses to read instead of allowing the Bible itself to explain them?

Because there is no point in us trying to teach each other how to read the Bible when we can't even see eye-to-eye. I want us to get over this nonsense that you're being attacked. Your views are being attacked. You aren't. Get that into your head. I fully believe that you are a wonderful person offline, definitely created and fashioned in the image of God (never thought you'd hear that from an evolutionist, eh? ) But you happen to believe in some things that I disagree with. I hope you will have that mindset of separating the belief from the believer as we continue discussing.

Jesus said that the relationship between brethren is actually more important than worshipping God. ("If you have brought a gift to the altar, and then suddenly remember that you have a grudge against your brother ... ") Because if we can't even fix our relationships with each other whom we can see and touch and communicate clearly with, how can we ever have right relationship with God who is so much harder to see and touch?

I take the Bible within it's literary context. Scripture interprets Scripture. The Bible interprets itself.

Where does Scripture tell us that Scripture interprets Scripture? Couldn't resist.

Stating I recieved an YEC education from some outside source is rather insulting when none was given nor indicated. It's as if you are indicating someone cannot accept God's world for what it says, as it says, as the Holy Spirit has brought him/her to discern God's word.

I'm sorry. I believe I was clearly saying in the discussion that I was just assuming, and that I could in all probability be wrong. So I was. Sorry.

It seems to be repeatedly bypassed somehow the Scriptures clearely states the events were caused by God.

I'm bypassing it because the issue now is not yet the flood, but your perception of our reactions.

And where did I personally attack the character of an Thiest Evolutionist? Where did I states they as individuals were rotten? Are you certain I was speaking of the TE's or rather TE teachings and concepts and how they stand next to the literary context of the Scriptures? What does the literary context of the Bible say?

I never said you attacked TEs as individuals. I just said you posted about how "TEs" are, probably meaning a categorical treatment. And did you or did you not say this?

All I'm reading is one group trying to force their world-views on another so they don't have to deal with the Biblical accounts as they were written. They'll tolerate a person confessing not only is ithe Bible illogical, but that it's untrue and did not take place---but that the person can stil personally believe it as long as it doesn't offend others. However, they won't tolerate someone who believes the Bible means what it says, that God does indeed work through human history to bring about his purposes, or that His word is all that important. After all, whether one is a thiest evolutionist or any other other type of evolutionist, to allow for a god means that god would have had to have been far removed since in the beginning.

(emphasis in original)

This isn't about what TEs believe. This is about how TEs behave. This isn't about TEs' mindsets, it's about their character. Unless, of course, you were being non-literal.

Previous posts stand as testimoney.

Previous posts stand as testimony that you were called a liar for saying things about the flood and about TEs that can and have been proved wrong. Not for supporting a global flood per se. If you have contrary evidence show it.

What you belive to be trivial is actually a major issue: What is God's word, Where does it get it's authority, and How is it discerned? If one portion of the Scriptures removed from it's literary context....what prevents the same from being done to another portion of the Biblical context?

See, this is typical creationist thinking. Demonize the enemy. If he reads a chapter of the Bible non-literally, of course he thinks the rest of the Holy Sacred Book is absolute pre-scientific bosh! That's the only logical conclusion there is! It's a little like arguing that female artiste performances should be banned because men will be aroused by these performances and turn into rapists. (Which the Muslim fundamentalist opposition in my country actually proclaims.)

The fact is that this sort of belief is quickly dispelled once you actually talk and meet with real TEs. (For me, that sort of belief was dispelled by becoming a TE, but that isn't an option for you, is it? ) Honestly speaking, most TEs I know are disappointingly conservative. Sure, they believe in the documentary hypothesis and dislike the doctrine of verbal inspiration. So? They still go to church and sing songs and pay taxes and evangelise all the same. Doctrines are important, yes. But many clashes do not spill over into the practical living-out of faith as described in James. And this is one of them.

 

[night2day]

I find it interesting that you cite a man who wanted to completely throw out at least one book from the N.T. (and did throw out all the deutercanonical books) because they didn't agree with his theology.

And do you know the situation which surrounded his displesure with the book of James?

http://www.ucgportland.org/popups/lf2.html

Martin Luther, founder of the Protestant Reformation, referred to the book of James as an “epistle of straw.” Frustrated by religious leaders who claimed this book supported their mistaken ideas that people could buy their salvation through monetary gifts to the church, Luther uttered his ill-advised phrase. Consumed in the debate, he went beyond a proper understanding of the Scriptures and dismissed James’s statements that works are a necessary evidence of faith. Many people today misapply Luther’s words, not understand the circumstances behind them. Martin Luther’s life was one of dedication and chaste behavior. But his zealous words and arguments are sometimes taken out of historical context to excuse undisciplined lifestyles.


Where Martin Luther Was Coming From

Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia (Page 264 states)

"Lutherans believe that faith, is understood as trust in God’s steadfast love, and is the only appropriate way for human beings to respond to God’s saving initiative. Thus “salvation by faith alone”, the distinctive and controversial slogan of Lutheranism. Opponents claimed that this position failed to do justice to the Christian responsibility to do good works, but Lutherans have replied that faith must be active in love and that good works follow from faith as a good tree produces good fruit."

​

(see also Luther's Preface to Romans)


Before commenting on the Torah (first five books within the Old Testament) maybe you should tell me better of the circumstances in which he supposedly "threw them out".

As for the Apocrypha, some brief facts you can look online at your lesiure:
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
(1). Up until the time of the Reformation there was more than one opinion regarding the books to be included in the Bible. St. Augustine, for example, while revering the books to which you refer as being worthy of reading in the churches for edification, considered them to be "deutero-canonical", that is, having secondary authority not on a par with the fully canonical books. [/font]

(2). The church considered the canon of Old Testament Scripture in use by the Jews of Palestine and recognized by Christ and his apostles to be the divinely given canon of OT Scripture. The other books (referred to by Protestants as "The Apocrypha") were never part of the Jewish canon and circulated in communities outside Palestine. There was actually a much larger library of such books, written in Aramaic or in Greek, some of which are still extant. The Reformers did not originate their view of the canon (i.e., take books out of the Bible, as if all the church before them had accepted all the books found in the Catholic Bible).

(3). The "Catholic" books were not officially declared to be part of the Bible until the Council of Trent, an action in reaction to the Protestant Reformers, and not a council of the whole church.

People interpret things. Books, even bibles, are inanimate objects.

If you have a Bible program I encourage you to look up the phrase "word of God" at your leisure, setting the perameters from Genesis to Revelation. If you do not have such a program one can be found here.

What we do say is "if God did that - then this evidence of it would exist - but it doesn't - so, if he did do that then he must have hidden the evidence - why?"

The Bible doesn't work that way. If you notice, the Bible doesn't even fight to claim God exists. It simply states He does.

This is why people (well me at least) get's upset with you. You have just accused me of being at war with God...

And that is upsetting how? In Romans 7:16-25 the Apostle Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

"Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."
​

In the following chapter was written:

Romans 8:6-7
​

"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

​

Since this isn't directed toward's merely one individual, who's it directed towards but to those who cling to the name of Christ?

Sin wants to do things not of God's will. Repentance and faith wants to do God's will. One can choose to use God's word in whatever manner they see fit, or simply take it at face value.

n2d: The Holy Scriptures are not God. Yet they bear His authority.

I disagree...I'm not treating it as just another set of books. But I am also not limiting God to the bible.

Then by who's standards are you defining God? But, I believe you already answered.

 

[night2day]

...this is typical creationist thinking. Demonize the enemy. If he reads a chapter of the Bible non-literally, of course he thinks the rest of the Holy Sacred Book is absolute pre-scientific bosh! That's the only logical conclusion there is...

I'll leave you to look up the differance between the two words:

literally & literary
​

 

[ebia]

And do you know the situation which surrounded his displesure with the book of James?

There was nothing in your quotes that I didn't already know, if that's what you mean.

Before commenting on the Torah (first five books within the Old Testament) maybe you should tell me better of the circumstances in which he supposedly "threw them out".

I didn't refer to the Torah - I have no idea where you are coming from on this one.

(3). The "Catholic" books were not officially declared to be part of the Bible until the Council of Trent, an action in reaction to the Protestant Reformers, and not a council of the whole church.

Because no-one had ever felt the need to bother declaring which books make up the bible in an ecumencial council before. They have never been questioned in the eastern church, and (although contraversial) no-one in the west had seriously suggested actually getting rid of them.

If you have a Bible program I encourage you to look up the phrase "word of God" at your leisure, setting the perameters from Genesis to Revelation. If you do not have such a program one can be found here.

We had quite a good thread on it recently, thanks. No-one could produce a single instance where the the prase "word of God" clearly refered to the bible/scripture. I suggest you look it up if you get the chance - very interesting. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the comment you appear to be commenting on anyway.

The Bible doesn't work that way. If you notice, the Bible doesn't even fight to claim God exists. It simply states He does.

Irrelevent. It's still a valid question. If God made a global flood happen, and then went to the effort of making it appear that it didn't happen, why did he do that? Any answer to that has theological implications, so it is well worth asking.

And that is upsetting how?

So you would be quite happy if I told you that you were fighting against God?

Sin wants to do things not of God's will. Repentance and faith wants to do God's will. One can choose to use God's word in whatever manner they see fit, or simply take it at face value.

I would rather use it the way I believe God wants me to use it and is guiding me to use it. Which is not simply to take everything at face value. For that matter, in my opinion, a fair few bits of the bible teach us not to take other bits of the bible at face value.

Then by who's standards are you defining God? But, I believe you already answered.

By God's. If I judge God by the bible, then I am putting the bible above God.

 

[gluadys]

"Since your Imperial Majesty and Lordships demand a simple answer I will do so without horns or teeth as follows: Unless I am convicted by the testimony of Scripture or by evident reason - for I trust neither in popes nor in councils alone, since it is obvious that they have often erred and contradicted themselves - I am convicted by the Scripture which I have mentioned and my conscience is captive by the Word of God. Therefore I cannot and will not recant, since it is difficult, unprofitable and dangerous indeed to do anything against one's conscience. God help me. Amen."

The bolded part is what modern creationists leave out. Luther was willing to be persuaded by evident reason as well as scripture. Modern creationists attack reason and insist on denying evidence.

I take the Bible within it's literary context.

No you don't. You subscribe to a baseless human theory that everything in the bible is literal history unless the scripture itself states otherwise. In general texts do not announce in clear statements what sort of text they are. And there is no logical reason to declare "literal history" as the default literary form in the bible. There is no logical reason to declare any literary form as the default literary form used in the bible.

Scholarly study of biblical literature shows a great many different literary forms being used--often within the same text--and there is no rule of thumb which says which literary form will be used by which author or in which book or under which circumstances.

This means the form of each and every text must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

As for the flood story, it existed as myth long before any part of Genesis was written, and the biblical story clearly borrows the original myth. Hence, it is also myth.

Stating I recieved an YEC education from some outside source is rather insulting when none was given nor indicated.

But it has been indicated in most of your statements.

It's as if you are indicating someone cannot accept God's world for what it says, as it says, as the Holy Spirit has brought him/her to discern God's word.

This is simply hubris. You are saying you have the benefit of guidance from the Holy Spirit and those who disagree with you do not. You cannot know this. For all you know it is those who disagree with you who are being truly guided by the Holy Spirit while your all-too-human assumptions about scripture are blocking that guidance for you.

It seems to be repeatedly bypassed somehow the Scriptures clearely states the events were caused by God. Supernatural causes.

Not at all. It has been clearly stated several times that God could have chosen to create a global flood and then erase all trace of it. Is that what you believe happened? If so, no one can say you are wrong. You only step into scientific error when you omit the part about God erasing every trace of the global flood.

Of course, a good many of us think it is a theological error to hold that God would do this.

So you can take your choice of errors: claim evidence for a global flood and fall into scientific error or claim God erased all the evidence and fall into theological error.

It's whether of not one trusts in God and His word despite whatever human reason may state otherwise. God gave us human reason, that's true. Human reason also is corrupted by the curse of sin...the same curse which plaugues all of creation. It's basically at war with God. That's how sin is.

As I said above, unlike Luther, modern creationists attack reason. Yes, we know that reason is corrupted by sin, but not to the extent that it is wholly unreliable. No previous generation of Christian leadership has ever seen reason as anything else than an aspect of the image of God in us. Reason is that mark of human nature that sets us apart from other animals and indicates our similarity to our Creator. Sin has marred the image of God in us, but it has not removed it. For if the image of God, (including rationality) were removed, we would no longer be human at all.

Yes, we need to guard against erroneous reasoning that stems from individual bias, but there are many ways to do this and be confident that rational discourse, purged of personal bias, leads to truth. Sin is at war with God. Reason, as God's gift to us, is not. Rather, since God is the source of reason, reason is one way to discern the work of God rightly.

What does the literary context of the Bible say?

That the flood story is a myth.

I strongly beg to differ. There is a major differnce between disagreeing between issues and terming someone as a "liar" for stating a belief.

But no one said you were a liar for stating a belief, but rather for misrepresenting the beliefs of TEs and continuing to do so after you were informed that your characterization of TE beliefs is incorrect.

I have asked where within the literary context has indicated the Ressurection of Christ was an actual, historical event

Nothing other than the testimony of the Gospels indicates that the Resurrection was an actual, historical event. No extra-biblical evidence affirms it, so belief in the Resurrection is a matter of trusting the testimony of those who preached it, and who eventually wrote about it. And the gospels are presented as testimony to the truth.

Genesis 1-9 is not presented as testimony. It is presented as a chronicle. A chronicle may be historical or fictional, and to decide which it is, we look to its form and its connections with known history, and its connections with similar literature. Tales such as the Narnia chronicles are entirely fiction. A chronical such as The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire is presented as a faithful recounting of actual history. And then there are chronicles such as Dicken's A Tale of Two Cities, which combine actual history with fiction.

There are biblical counterparts to all of these.

Saying's it's nothing but "my interpretation" is a cop-out. I ask again: What is within the literary context?

Myth.

1. The primary actor is God. One of the characteristics of myth is that it is about the acts of God/gods.
2. There is no identifiable connection with known history or geography. The story takes place sometime, somewhere. In some respects it takes place in all time, everywhere.
3. The story acts as an explanation for current phenomena e.g. why snakes have no legs, why weeds grow in fields, why women experience pain in childbirth, why women are subservient to men, why we die, why we see rainbows, why we speak different languages. In pre-scientific times, myth often filled the role that science does today of providing an explanation for our observations.
4. The story is used for theological and moral teaching. Both the creation and flood stories are so used in the NT as well as in innumerable sermons.

So these biblical stories have several of the identifying characteristics of myth, especially the second creation story, the story of Cain & Abel, the flood story and the story of the Tower of Babel. The first creation story is more poetical than mythical, but is clearly not arranged as history.

What is God's word

Christ John 1:1-14

Where does it get it's authority

From the fact that the Word is the Creator and the sustainer of creation. Colossians 1:15-17

and How is it discerned?

Through the testimony of the Holy Spirit. 1 John 4:2

If one portion of the Scriptures removed from it's literary context....what prevents the same from being done to another portion of the Biblical context?

Nothing. That is why it is important to determine the actual literary context instead of relying on a worthless and unsupported rule of thumb which declares literal history to be a default context. You will have earned the right to call on literary context when you stop relying on canned answers about literary context and show that you actually know something about biblical literary forms. Not before.

2 Corinthians 2:14
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
​

Here we go again. You are basically saying that Christians who have received the same Spirit and the same baptism as you are not capable of spiritual discernement and no different from "natural man" simply and solely because they do not accept your reading of scripture.

How is it not obvious to you that your sisters and brothers in Christ would be hurt and offended by your attitude toward them?

 

[gluadys]

The Holy Scriptures are not God.

I am glad to hear you recognize that. Too many these days do not.

Yet they bear His authority. They point to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior from sin death and Hell, by grace, through faith in Him. Yet, how do we know of Jesus and that He is our Savior from sin, death, and Hell? Through His word. And from where does the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, work through but the Scripritures?

The Holy Spirit does indeed work through scripture, but you commit a theological error if you claim that the Holy Spirit only works through scripture. The Holy Spirit is God himself and works wherever God chooses to work. In fact, the scriptures themselves testify that God works in many ways outside of the scriptures.

1. The Holy Spirit works with our own spirit in the study of scripture, in prayer, in worship, in the giving of prophecy.
2. The Holy Spirit works among people who have never received the scripture, such that God can truly say that he has left no people without a witness of himself.
3. (And most pertinent to this discussion) the Holy Spirit works through created nature, both in bringing it into being in the first place, and in making God's existence and glory known to all peoples through the creation.

By treating the Bible as just another book/set of books/whatever you also cut yourself off from the primary source from which the Holy Spirit works as well as the final say in all Christian teaching and doctrine. Period.

No one here is advocating treating the bible as any other book. Perhaps you are forgetting that you are posting in the Christians Only section of this forum. It would be appreciated if you would remember you are speaking to fellow Christians.

However, given point #3 above, we can also say that if you refuse to listen to the testimony of creation, you are also cutting yourself off from a significant portion of the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

The scriptures are indeed the final authority in all Christian teaching and doctrine. They are not the final authority in matters irrelevant to Christian teaching and doctrine. Whether the biblical flood was global or not is irrelevant to Christian teaching and doctrine, since it does not affect them one way or the other. Whether the biblical story is history or myth is irrelevant to Christian teaching and doctrine, since no Christian teaching or doctrine stands or falls on its historicity.

What does affect Christian teaching and doctrine is whether the testimony of the creation is reliable. Because what you believe about God as Creator will differ according to whether or not you believe God made a real, orderly world knowable to sense and reason, or an imaginary world that changes according to the wishes of a whimsical Creator who casually tosses miracle around and then erases them again.

 

[vossler]

What you belive to be trivial is actually a major issue: What is God's word, Where does it get it's authority, and How is it discerned? If one portion of the Scriptures removed from it's literary context....what prevents the same from being done to another portion of the Biblical context?

1 Corinthians 1:18-27​

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence."

2 Corinthians 2:14​

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Thanks for putting God's Word to the forefront of this issue.

 

[Critias]

The bolded part is what modern creationists leave out. Luther was willing to be persuaded by evident reason as well as scripture. Modern creationists attack reason and insist on denying evidence.

No you don't. You subscribe to a baseless human theory that everything in the bible is literal history unless the scripture itself states otherwise. In general texts do not announce in clear statements what sort of text they are. And there is no logical reason to declare "literal history" as the default literary form in the bible. There is no logical reason to declare any literary form as the default literary form used in the bible.

Hello Gluadys! Not much has changed I see, still telling people what they believe and subscribe to.

Where did night2day state this baseless human theory? Or did you just "interpret" that?

Scholarly study of biblical literature shows a great many different literary forms being used--often within the same text--and there is no rule of thumb which says which literary form will be used by which author or in which book or under which circumstances.

This means the form of each and every text must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

As for the flood story, it existed as myth long before any part of Genesis was written, and the biblical story clearly borrows the original myth. Hence, it is also myth.

You have proof that Moses borrowed from the "original myth"? Is it a a private letter he wrote stating this, or just your assumption?

But it has been indicated in most of your statements.

Although night2day says otherwise, you dismiss her statement that this is wrong. Is this how you wish to be treated?

This is simply hubris. You are saying you have the benefit of guidance from the Holy Spirit and those who disagree with you do not. You cannot know this. For all you know it is those who disagree with you who are being truly guided by the Holy Spirit while your all-too-human assumptions about scripture are blocking that guidance for you.

Can you show me where she stated what you are saying she said? Or is this another one of your made up lines? Is this how you wish to be treated? Would like to be called arrogant each time you post?

Not at all. It has been clearly stated several times that God could have chosen to create a global flood and then erase all trace of it. Is that what you believe happened? If so, no one can say you are wrong. You only step into scientific error when you omit the part about God erasing every trace of the global flood.

Of course, a good many of us think it is a theological error to hold that God would do this.

So you can take your choice of errors: claim evidence for a global flood and fall into scientific error or claim God erased all the evidence and fall into theological error.

Would it be better to impose her meaning on Scripture instead?

As I said above, unlike Luther, modern creationists attack reason. Yes, we know that reason is corrupted by sin, but not to the extent that it is wholly unreliable. No previous generation of Christian leadership has ever seen reason as anything else than an aspect of the image of God in us. Reason is that mark of human nature that sets us apart from other animals and indicates our similarity to our Creator. Sin has marred the image of God in us, but it has not removed it. For if the image of God, (including rationality) were removed, we would no longer be human at all.

I suggest you read more about Martin Luther because from what you are saying, you don't seem to have a grasp on his view points.

Reason is unreliable when it goes against Scriptural teaching. If you spend time studying Martin Luther, you will see he agrees.

Yes, we need to guard against erroneous reasoning that stems from individual bias, but there are many ways to do this and be confident that rational discourse, purged of personal bias, leads to truth. Sin is at war with God. Reason, as God's gift to us, is not. Rather, since God is the source of reason, reason is one way to discern the work of God rightly.

Reason and logic are today's idols to replace reliance on God and the Holy Spirit. It is quite easy for anyone, Christian or not, to get wrapped up in it.

Because God is the source of reason doesn't mean reason cannot be misused. Bad premise to use here, Gluadys.

That the flood story is a myth.

By your beliefs. Your beliefs don't equal facts. Neither do mine.

But no one said you were a liar for stating a belief, but rather for misrepresenting the beliefs of TEs and continuing to do so after you were informed that your characterization of TE beliefs is incorrect.

You can support Shernren's statement of calling her a liar as much as you want, it won't change what he did do. If you read what night2day said, she was refering to TE teachings, not TEs themselves. A bit of a difference there.

Nothing other than the testimony of the Gospels indicates that the Resurrection was an actual, historical event. No extra-biblical evidence affirms it, so belief in the Resurrection is a matter of trusting the testimony of those who preached it, and who eventually wrote about it. And the gospels are presented as testimony to the truth.

Show us how the literary context supports your historical event argument.

Are you suggesting that truth cannot be within writings that are not historical?

Genesis 1-9 is not presented as testimony. It is presented as a chronicle. A chronicle may be historical or fictional, and to decide which it is, we look to its form and its connections with known history, and its connections with similar literature. Tales such as the Narnia chronicles are entirely fiction. A chronical such as The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire is presented as a faithful recounting of actual history. And then there are chronicles such as Dicken's A Tale of Two Cities, which combine actual history with fiction.

Genesis is presented as God's testimony.

Again, show how the literary context says it is not historical.

There are biblical counterparts to all of these.




Myth.

1. The primary actor is God. One of the characteristics of myth is that it is about the acts of God/gods.
2. There is no identifiable connection with known history or geography. The story takes place sometime, somewhere. In some respects it takes place in all time, everywhere.
3. The story acts as an explanation for current phenomena e.g. why snakes have no legs, why weeds grow in fields, why women experience pain in childbirth, why women are subservient to men, why we die, why we see rainbows, why we speak different languages. In pre-scientific times, myth often filled the role that science does today of providing an explanation for our observations.
4. The story is used for theological and moral teaching. Both the creation and flood stories are so used in the NT as well as in innumerable sermons.

1. In the Gospels, the primary character is Jesus Christ. One of the characteristics of myth is that it is about the acts of God/gods.

2. I suppose the Euphrates is not a real river. I suppose Ashur in Assyria was not a real city. I suppose the Tigris isn't a real river.

3. The story acts as an explanation for current phenomena of miracles that occur in our world today and in the time of Jesus Christ. Stories of demon possessed men, raising of the dead, the sick being healed by a touch or word, etc. In pre-scientific times, faith often filled the role that science does today of providing an explanation for our observations.

4.The story is used for theological and moral teaching. Both the death and resurrection stories are so used in middle ages as well as in innumerable sermons.

So these biblical stories have several of the identifying characteristics of myth, especially the second creation story, the story of Cain & Abel, the flood story and the story of the Tower of Babel. The first creation story is more poetical than mythical, but is clearly not arranged as history.

So the Gospels have several of the identifying characteristics of myths, especially the resurrection story and the ascension story. The Last Supper is quite poetic and is really not arranged in history.

Christ John 1:1-14

If God speaks, it is His word. Jesus is the incarnation of God Himself in human form, the teaching of the Old Testament coming alive in human form. He is eternal, with no beginning and no end. He is not a mere word or logos, He is too vast for such a word to contain. It is a mischaracterization to state Jesus a word. Rather, John used a figure of speech to speak of Jesus who is the One of Old, the Ancient of Days who came to redeem mankind.

Jesus is not just logos or word, He is much more than that.

From the fact that the Word is the Creator and the sustainer of creation. Colossians 1:15-17



Through the testimony of the Holy Spirit. 1 John 4:2

Maybe this time we can answer the question she asked.

Where does the Bible get Its Authority?

Nothing. That is why it is important to determine the actual literary context instead of relying on a worthless and unsupported rule of thumb which declares literal history to be a default context. You will have earned the right to call on literary context when you stop relying on canned answers about literary context and show that you actually know something about biblical literary forms. Not before.

Again, another misrepresentation. Instead of answering the question asked, you instead sway from the subject.

You are cabale and intelligent and are able to read English with comprehension. Can you act like it then?

The question is, what is Literary Context of Genesis and how do you know? Answer the simple question instead making accusations based on your own assertions made in thin air.

Here we go again. You are basically saying that Christians who have received the same Spirit and the same baptism as you are not capable of spiritual discernement and no different from "natural man" simply and solely because they do not accept your reading of scripture.

How is it not obvious to you that your sisters and brothers in Christ would be hurt and offended by your attitude toward them?

She shared Scripture with you, without comment of its intent. It is remarkable how you assume how it was meant.

Where did she make this comment that you are saying she said? Where is it? Or are you once again just assuming this out of thin air?

This is why discussions here can never move forward. Too many assertions pulled out of thin air instead of dealing with what is actually said.

It is no wonder people here are so angry about everything; making up what people say or infer instead of dealing with what is actually said.

 

[shernren]

And so I did check, night2day, and here the definitions are. your point being?

literary:

[size=-1]of or relating to or characteristic of literature; "literary criticism"
knowledgeable about literature; "a literary style"
<li>appropriate to literature rather than everyday speech or writing; "when trying to impress someone she spoke in an affected literary style"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/size]
[size=-1]Having the characteristics of normal human language, and thus including both the literal and the figurative.
theology.home.att.net/hermen/glossary.htm

literal:

[/size][size=-1]actual: being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something; "her actual motive"; "a literal solitude like a desert"- G.K.Chesterton; "a genuine dilemma"
without interpretation or embellishment; "a literal depiction of the scene before him"
limited to the explicit meaning of a word or text; "a literal translation"
avoiding embellishment or exaggeration (used for emphasis); "it's the literal truth"
<li>misprint: a mistake in printed matter resulting from mechanical failures of some kind
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/size]
[size=-1]The ordinary, straight-forward lexical (dictionary) meaning of a word or expression. Sometimes used in contrast to a figurative interpretation, sometimes including figurative interpretation.
theology.home.att.net/hermen/glossary.htm

And?

[/size]You can support Shernren's statement of calling her a liar as much as you want, it won't change what he did do. If you read what night2day said, she was refering to TE teachings, not TEs themselves. A bit of a difference there.[size=-1]

I never called her a liar myself. I also said it might be unjustified to call her a liar. But I also said that ebia's motive in calling her a liar was probably completely justifiable. I point again to what she said in post #146:

[/size]All I'm reading is one group trying to force their world-views on another so they don't have to deal with the Biblical accounts as they were written. They'll tolerate a person confessing not only is ithe Bible illogical, but that it's untrue and did not take place---but that the person can stil personally believe it as long as it doesn't offend others. However, they won't tolerate someone who believes the Bible means what it says, that God does indeed work through human history to bring about his purposes, or that His word is all that important. After all, whether one is a thiest evolutionist or any other other type of evolutionist, to allow for a god means that god would have had to have been far removed since in the beginning.[size=-1]

(bold in original, underline added for emphasis)

This is not just about TE teachings. This is about TE character. That is plain for all to see.[/size]

 

[Critias]

So for that, it is justifiable to call her a liar? Well then, many more people deserve the same "justifiable" statement here.

You cannot remove the motive from the statement. If you support the motive, you support the statement.

 

[ebia]

Hello Gluadys! Not much has changed I see, still telling people what they believe and subscribe to.

If she is, I guess that makes a change for Night2Day doing it, and getting it wrong. Restating what someone else has said is a perfect normally part of conversation, providing one is making an effort to be accurate to what you believe the person is saying, and providing you correct yourself if you are told that you got it wrong. It's how we check whether we have correctly understood the other person's meaning.

Where did night2day state this baseless human theory? Or did you just "interpret" that?

In what way is it an unfair assessment of what night2day has said her position is?

You have proof that Moses borrowed from the "original myth"? Is it a a private letter he wrote stating this, or just your assumption?

Plagarism is easy to spot if you are sufficiently familiar with the original material.

Would it be better to impose her meaning on Scripture instead?

It would be better to try and make whatever meaning God wants us to make of it. Which I presume is what she is trying to do and what you are trying to do, but is also what we are trying to do and we disagree about how to go about it.

Reason is unreliable when it goes against Scriptural teaching. If you spend time studying Martin Luther, you will see he agrees.

We are trying to use reason to find out what scriptural teaching is, so (by definition) not going against it, just trying to discover it.

Reason and logic are today's idols to replace reliance on God and the Holy Spirit. It is quite easy for anyone, Christian or not, to get wrapped up in it.

Then why are you here trying to reason with us?

Because God is the source of reason doesn't mean reason cannot be misused. Bad premise to use here, Gluadys.

She never said reason could not be misused. Neither have I.

By your beliefs. Your beliefs don't equal facts. Neither do mine.

Nuff said.

You can support Shernren's statement of calling her a liar as much as you want, it won't change what he did do.

It was me who said that certain things she posted were lies. She posted stuff that was incorrect. She was told that it was incorrect. She continued to knowingly post stuff that was incorrect. I asked her to stop lying. For the most part she seems to have now done so.

Are you suggesting that truth cannot be within writings that are not historical?

We have been saying the exact opposite of that right through the thread. Have you actually been reading it?

Genesis is presented as God's testimony.

Um. No it isn't.

If God speaks, it is His word.

Very few bits of the bible are God speaking.

Jesus is the incarnation of God Himself in human form,

yes...

the teaching of the Old Testament coming alive in human form.

absolutely not. The person who the old testament teaches us about, incarnate.

He is eternal, with no beginning and no end. He is not a mere word or logos, He is too vast for such a word to contain. It is a mischaracterization to state Jesus a word. Rather, John used a figure of speech to speak of Jesus who is the One of Old, the Ancient of Days who came to redeem mankind.

Jesus is not just logos or word, He is much more than that.

The Word of God is an inadquate discription of Christ - as any finite description of God is inadequate - but it is an entirely proper one. Christ is The Word of God. The bible is not.

Where does the Bible get Its Authority?

The bible does not have authority. God has authority. The bible is one means by which he communicates with us.

She shared Scripture with you, without comment of its intent. It is remarkable how you assume how it was meant.

If she didn't say what her intent was, then we are bound to make assumptions.

It is no wonder people here are so angry about everything; making up what people say or infer instead of dealing with what is actually said.

That is exactly why I was angry - got it in one, except you seem to be aiming it at the wrong person.

 

[Rusticus]

It is very interesting that Martin Luther has come up in this conversation.

Here is what Luther had to say about the scientific discovery that the Earth orbits the Sun:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

In addition, on another occasion Luther referred to Copernicus as: "a fool who went against Holy Writ",


Anyone who interprets The Bible would do well to remember that Luther got it wrong when his interpretation of The Bible was in direct contradiction of scientific evidence. Because, even if you are as good as Luther was, chances are that your interpretation will also be wrong if it is in direct contradiction of scientific evidence.


I wonder if Luther lived long enough to come to realise that is was not Copernicus who was a fool?

 

[Saucy]

John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

If you're telling me that the Word of God has no bearing, if the flood didn't happen and creation didn't happen, then you're calling God a liar!

 

[Critias]

If she is, I guess that makes a change for Night2Day doing it, and getting it wrong. Restating what someone else has said is a perfect normally part of conversation, providing one is making an effort to be accurate to what you believe the person is saying, and providing you correct yourself if you are told that you got it wrong. It's how we check whether we have correctly understood the other person's meaning.

It wasn't a restatement. It was a complete change of meaning.

In what way is it an unfair assessment of what night2day has said her position is?

This wasn't an assessment, it was telling night2day that she said this when she did not.

Plagarism is easy to spot if you are sufficiently familiar with the original material.

So, Genesis is now plagarism? Is it that you will stop at nothing to discredit the Bible?

Please, present your proof of claim.

It would be better to try and make whatever meaning God wants us to make of it. Which I presume is what she is trying to do and what you are trying to do, but is also what we are trying to do and we disagree about how to go about it.

It would be better to study Genesis first then make your judgment, instead of science first.

We are trying to use reason to find out what scriptural teaching is, so (by definition) not going against it, just trying to discover it.


Then why are you here trying to reason with us?

I only dropped in because many of you [TEs] have gathered together to call night2day a liar and attack her personally.

Reasoning with you would do no good. In my experience here, TEs feel it is ok to throw around personal attacks but is wrong if someone personally attacks them.

She never said reason could not be misused. Neither have I.

Just so you know.

Nuff said.

Your right, nuff' said.

It was me who said that certain things she posted were lies. She posted stuff that was incorrect. She was told that it was incorrect. She continued to knowingly post stuff that was incorrect. I asked her to stop lying. For the most part she seems to have now done so.

Well then, my apologies to you Shernren.

You have demonstrated how it is ok to throw around personal attacks by calling night2day a liar.

We have been saying the exact opposite of that right through the thread. Have you actually been reading it?

Yes, I have actually been reading what many people say here. Amazing, isn't it! Most don't.

For Gluady's defense of why the Gospels are historical, she states:

"And the gospels are presented as testimony to the truth."

So, logically one must ask, do you think truth cannot be in non-historical writing?

Um. No it isn't.

Yes, it is. Maybe you missed all those parts that say "God said..."

Very few bits of the bible are God speaking.

If this is your true opinion, then you really need to read the Bible again. How often do you see Jesus talking in the Gospels? How often do you see "and the Lord said", "God said", "the Lord God said", "says the Lord", "says the Lord God" in the Old Testament?

Let's look at just one phrase, "God said". It is used 522 times in the Old Testament. You feel that is a just a few bits of God speaking? And we haven't even looked at the many Names of God used when He does speak.

Your statement shows a lack of comprehension when you read the Bible. That is that I am assuming you have.

yes...


absolutely not. The person who the old testament teaches us about, incarnate.

This must be tied into your belief that God hardly speaks in the Bible. The Bible is about God and the Old Testament reveals God's nature. That is who Jesus is.

If you want to deny that God in the Old Testament is who Jesus is, then it is your choice.

The Word of God is an inadquate discription of Christ - as any finite description of God is inadequate - but it is an entirely proper one. Christ is The Word of God. The bible is not.

See, you seem to think John 1's usage of logos is literal as many TEs do here. This again shows the lack of understanding how to interpret the Bible. Logos is used as a figure of speech to speak of something much greater than a mere word. But, I am left to believe that this is not readily available for comprehension among many here.

The Bible records God's message and God's words. For you to deny this, you are denying where it has come from, thus stating Paul and Peter are in error when they state it is from God. That what the prophets said is not their words, but God's.

The bible does not have authority. God has authority. The bible is one means by which he communicates with us.

The Bible does have Authority. Your claim that it doesn't shows why you and perhaps many TEs come to the conclusions that you do. Because you believe it has no Authority, you can interpret however you wish to fit what you chose to believe.

If she didn't say what her intent was, then we are bound to make assumptions.

Oh, so because night2day was silent, Gluady's is not responsible for her actions?

That is exactly why I was angry - got it in one, except you seem to be aiming it at the wrong person.

You got angry because you decided to take night2day's thoughts on TE teachings, personally. Again, another interpretational miss-hap.

Yes, I apologize to Shernren for thinking it was him who called night2day a liar.

 

[ebia]

John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

Is talking about Christ, not the bible.

If you're telling me that the Word of God has no bearing, if the flood didn't happen and creation didn't happen, then you're calling God a liar!

We are not telling you that Christ has no bearing.
We did not say a flood did not happen, we said that a global flood as described in Genesis did not happen.
We did not say creation did not happen, we said the Genesis account is not a scientific or historically accurate account AND IS NOT MEANT TO BE.
We are not calling God a liar, because we believe God did not intend those accounts to be read as science or history, and has never said they were.

 

[ebia]

It wasn't a restatement. It was a complete change of meaning.

This wasn't an assessment, it was telling night2day that she said this when she did not.

This is not a trick question - how is it an inaccurate summary of what she has said? We need to know.

So, Genesis is now plagarism? Is it that you will stop at nothing to discredit the Bible?

I very carefully did not call Genesis plagarism, because the rules that plagarists break did not apply to the writers of ancient myths. But if you are used to spotting plagarism, then it is very easy to spot when the substance of work is copied with being attributed.

Please, present your proof of claim.

You want me to prove that plagarism is easy to spot? I suppose I could go off and find some evidence somewhere - universities do a lot of research into plagarism, but I really don't see what it would add to the discussion.

It would be better to study Genesis first then make your judgment, instead of science first.

Jump to conclusions without listening to everything God has to say on the matter?

I only dropped in because many of you [TEs] have gathered together to call night2day a liar and attack her personally.

I did not attack her personally, I attacked what she had said because it was an inaccuate attack on myself.

Reasoning with you would do no good.

If you honestly believe that, then why are you trying to do so?

You have demonstrated how it is ok to throw around personal attacks by calling night2day a liar.

I called her statements lies, because that's what they were - knowingly incorrect posts.

For Gluady's defense of why the Gospels are historical, she states:

"And the gospels are presented as testimony to the truth."

So, logically one must ask, do you think truth cannot be in non-historical writing?

I'll leave Gluady's to explain what she meant by that, but I can assure you that it isn't that truth cannot be told in non-historical writing. We have been argueing all along that Genesis is non-historical but true.

Yes, it is. Maybe you missed all those parts that say "God said..."

"God said 'let there be light'" and so forth. Not "God said 'on the first day I did this". God's own testamony is that which he actually spoke - creation itself, and the Word of God (ie Christ). Genesis is someone else's attempt to describe that.

If this is your true opinion, then you really need to read the Bible again. How often do you see Jesus talking in the Gospels? How often do you see "and the Lord said", "God said", "the Lord God said", "says the Lord", "says the Lord God" in the Old Testament?

They are a relatively small proportion of the bible.

Your statement shows a lack of comprehension when you read the Bible. That is that I am assuming you have.

I thought you said that you weren't into attacking people.

This must be tied into your belief that God hardly speaks in the Bible. The Bible is about God and the Old Testament reveals God's nature. That is who Jesus is.

I can't parse this paragraph unambiguously.

If you want to deny that God in the Old Testament is who Jesus is, then it is your choice.

The OT tells us about God and Christ, but it is far from a complete description.

See, you seem to think John 1's usage of logos is literal as many TEs do here. This again shows the lack of understanding how to interpret the Bible. Logos is used as a figure of speech to speak of something much greater than a mere word.

Isn't that what I just said. Any description, name , or understanding we use for God is inadequate. But the Word (Logos) of God is a useful one, and is one that is reserved for Christ.

The Bible records God's message and God's words.

Indeed it does, but that does not mean everything in the bible is God's words.

The Bible does have Authority. Your claim that it doesn't shows why you and perhaps many TEs come to the conclusions that you do. Because you believe it has no Authority, you can interpret however you wish to fit what you chose to believe.

Yet another attack.

Oh, so because night2day was silent, Gluady's is not responsible for her actions?

If you post something that is ambiguous, don't be suprised if you don't like what people infer from it.

You got angry because you decided to take night2day's thoughts on TE teachings, personally. Again, another interpretational miss-hap.

Based on my postings, she misstated what I believe and what most TE's believe, and continued to do so after I corrected her.