No.. but nice try...
This professor is just an educated man that is agreeing with scripture...
Man does not make the scripture true...
Man does not make the scriptures false...
Scripture is the rock we plant our beliefs on.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No.. but nice try...And there we have a definitive answer as to what Professor James Barr believes that the writer(s) of Genesis thought. And I suppose if we don't agree with the learned prof then we aren't allowed to believe the Gospel, either, am I right?
Well for starters he immediately is pushing his creationists museum. I really dont need to sit here and type out how silly most of his claims are..its just well understood by most people that hes a goofball ans his science is also.
Really, I thought about what I typed above and I think I may have been kinda harsh with the "intellegent" comment, but really...it kinda perplexes me to think that people watch him and believe what he says. It really says a lot about the education system in our country and..really...what we have a president in the office where people still believe everything he says. (NOT trying to be political, but it is a valid example) But if you see what Im saying, people will believe anything...
Untrue - the professor agrees the writer of Genesis was intending his words to be taken literally. However, as proven in 2 posts, one of them being post 108, the professor does not believe in a young earth.No.. but nice try...
This professor is just an educated man that is agreeing with scripture..
In the ancient Greek world there was a literary genre know as the fable that was used to make a moral point or point out some human foibles. It was characterized by gross exaggeration such as talking animals. Aesop was a master of the fable. I am convinced that the Bible has employed this technique as well in order to make spiritual points. The gross exaggeration is sometimes numerical like the ages of the ancient patriarchs or the populations of the Hebrew tribes in the Exodus. The Bible also has a talking serpent and a talking ass. We also note an immense tree that grows overnight and withers just as fast and a man who lives three days in the belly of a great fish. Whenever we encounter such amazing rhetoric we can be assured that what we are reading is not to be taken a literally true or historic and that we should look for the real meaning of the story.
LOL... you're funny... did you happen to have a picture of the south end of a north bound hippo? Check it's tail.... not quite like a cedar tree
I'm sorry..... Your point?It took less than 5 minutes to find this. From "Smithsonian" (I added emphasis):
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
Mr Barr does not believe in inerrancy. He believes the earth is old even though he believes the author of Genesis believes otherwise.I'm sorry..... Your point?
And I believe you're quite wrong.No dodge, this is what the majority of protestant churches believe. It's also what I believe.
Sorry, I thought I quoted that, but it appears I didn't. Here we are:Of course I take Corinthians literally, would be helpful if you added what verse you are talking about.
Fair play, but now I'll ask you what I asked one of the other folks here: do you believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are literally our Lord's Body and Blood? Our Lord explicitly says that they are. IMO, not believing that casts doubt on everything else our Lord said,Behemoth, Leviathon and giants are mentioned. If one does not accept Genesis literally, than that opens the door for doubt about the rest of the Bible.
Yes. When God said that was His body and blood, they were. Just as when He commanded light to exist, it did.When Christ says "This is my body" and breaks the bread... Did it become His body then?
When Christ says "This is my blood" when He dipped the bread in the wine.. did it become blood?
How do you back a book of supernatural events... with science?Your point seemed to be that the Bible is backed by science (at least creation from nothing?) and therefore not a myth. But science does not support the rest of it. So your point fails.
He said, "You must eat my flesh and drink my blood ..." too. Do you think He meant thay literally. Symbolism does exist but in reference to the Genesis account of creation which defines what a day is and how many days it took, is not symbolism.Fair play, but now I'll ask you what I asked one of the other folks here: do you believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are literally our Lord's Body and Blood? Our Lord explicitly says that they are. IMO, not believing that casts doubt on everything else our Lord said,
but believing that the Genesis account, at least for me, does not. What say you?
So, he doesn't believe that the bible is truth?Mr Barr does not believe in inerrancy. He believes the earth is old even though he believes the author of Genesis believes otherwise.
Obviously, that's what we do.He said, "You must eat my flesh and drink my blood ..." too. Do you think He meant thay literally.
But it does no such thing. What was the definition of an evening and a morning when there was no sun?Symbolism does exist but in reference to the Genesis account of creation which defines what a day is and how many days it took, is not symbolism.
How old does the Bible say the Earth is?One reason I believe but have some doubt about the bible is because man found dinosaur fossils and other things that confirm the Earth is older than the bible says
How about "this is my body" and "this is my blood"? Don't you believe our Lord's words are truth?What, then, about feeding 5000 men and their wives and children, with two fish and 5 buns?
Seriously..... Jesus also said He was a door..... Just stop.. K?How about "this is my body" and "this is my blood"? Don't you believe our Lord's words are truth?
Mr Barr does not believe in inerrancy. He believes the earth is old even though he believes the author of Genesis believes otherwise.
Not about the creation account, no.So, he doesn't believe that the bible is truth?
Nice dodge, but it's still comes down to you saying we must take Genesis literally, but we must not take Corinthians literally. 180 degrees off, says I.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?