People should spend a little less time worrying about where we came from and a little more time thinking about where we're going.
Just my opinion. After all, who drives backwards?
Just my opinion. After all, who drives backwards?
Isserty_Dawn said:People should spend a little less time worrying about where we came from and a little more time thinking about where we're going.
Just my opinion. After all, who drives backwards?
If theistic evolution is true, then the Bible is not infallible and many will not see it as a good foundation.
If creationism is true as the Bible says, then we can firmly use the Bible for our lives, both spiritually and physically. We know that sin brought death and although we cannot do anything about our physical death, we have the plan for salvation for our souls.
And there are others that hold to the fact that Genesis clearly depicts a six day creation. The problem is that the creation account in its english translated language and in its original language (hebrew) both leave no room for a different interpretation. They both clearly say the day means a literal day.rmwilliamsll said:BB Warfield is one of the first theologians to propose inerrancy and he was TE.
There is no necessary link between TE and doctrine of Scripture.
There are TE with the full doctrine of inerrancy to TE holding to very liberal interpretations of Genesis as pure allegory, and everything in between.
Not true and this is something I'm working on right now. I am gathering up all the strong evidence I can to show that the earth is not old, which therefore means it is young. I've been working on it for a couple of weeks and have found quite a few surprises. It should be ready in about another month or so.the problem is that it makes the book of nature and it's author(God) liars.
Why is this a problem? There is one correct interpretation, is there not? The Bible says YEC is it and I'm working to show that science, true science, also says the same thing.the problem is that YEC is a particular interpretation of Genesis, not the only one from a conservative, orthodox Scripture position, only the loudest, and most insistent that it only is Biblical.
Indeed, and Jesus clearly advocates cannibalism in John 6:25-59. Verses 54-55 are indisputable, and there's no way to claim the Greek words used for "eat" (trogo) "my" (mou) and "flesh" (sarx) don't really mean what they say.Underdog77 said:The problem is that the creation account in its english translated language and in its original language (hebrew) both leave no room for a different interpretation. They both clearly say the day means a literal day.
There is one correct interpretation, is there not?
First off I would like to say that according to Strongs concordence, eat is the word phagos, but it still means to eat or consume. I don't know if that makes any difference but I don't like to leave loose ends. But yes, I believe those words mean what they say.MercuryMJ said:Indeed, and Jesus clearly advocates cannibalism in John 6:25-59. Verses 54-55 are indisputable, and there's no way to claim the Greek words used for "eat" (trogo) "my" (mou) and "flesh" (sarx) don't really mean what they say.
The answer is simple if you look at the surrounding context. Jesus says we are to eat His flesh but in John 6:51 He clarifies what His flesh is: the bread. So if we read versus 53 and 54 knowing that when He says flesh He is talking about the bread, the whole thing makes sense.But wait... many Christians disagree over how these verses should be interpreted, even though most agree with what they literally say. Even those who claim to hold to a literal interpretation usually choose to interpret this passage as saying something different. Could it be that a text can literally say one thing and yet actually be symbolic or metaphorical?
In the verse I referenced, the word is trogo, not phagos, but you're right that it doesn't make any difference.Underdog77 said:First off I would like to say that according to Strongs concordence, eat is the word phagos, but it still means to eat or consume.
But not just any bread, Jesus' flesh! As the verse you mentioned says, "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." There's no way you can claim to literally interpret that if you think it's not talking about eating Jesus' flesh.The answer is simple if you look at the surrounding context. Jesus says we are to eat His flesh but in John 6:51 He clarifies what His flesh is: the bread.
Underdog77 said:If theistic evolution is true, then the Bible is not infallible and many will not see it as a good foundation.
??Chi_Cygni said:Don't see you the weakness of this slippery slope argument?
It is only a small step away from 'I'll accept falsehoods so as to maintain the Bible as infallible'.
I do know that some parts of the Bible are parables and metaphors. Lots of these are connected to prophecy. But there are parts of the Bible that are literal and also have a deeper meaning.More peopled do not see the Bible as a good foundation when some folks tell them it is literal truth which they plainly see is nonsense. At least admit to them that metaphor and parable are present so as to avoid the embarrassment literalists find themselves in all the time.
I again say (I said it in the post before this) that the label 'literal' pertains to hte interpretation of the creation account. I don't believe any YEC I know has ever said "The Bible must be taken literally wholly and completely".MercuryMJ said:But, my point isn't to argue for or against transubstantiation. The point is that you, and other YECs, don't take the Bible as literally as you claim to.
You're right, there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible. However, just as you argue that this one correct interpretation in YEC, others would argue that THEIR interpretation is the correct one. The Bible does not necessarily say that YEC is it. Your interpretation is that Genesis says YEC is it. Again, others who interpret Genesis from a less literal stand point would argue that it says the opposite. Be careful what you put forth as fact when it remains your subjective opinion. God speaks us to us in two ways: his Word and his Creation. Both give the same message, one always confirms the other. Genesis doesn't say how and when God created the Universe, it says why he created it (...and it was good.) While you might argue that it does, others will maintain that it's an example of Hebrew poetry, in which they repeat ideas as opposed to the English convention of repeating sounds. Hence, that leaves the second message: Creation and the science that interprets it. If you're working to show that science supports YEC, that's wonderful! I pray that God will lead you in the right direction in your quest to understand his Universe. However, others work to show that science supports OEC, theistic evolution, etc (not the mention the large number who support atheistic evolution, however we'll accept that God created the Universe as a given since this is the Christian section of the forums). As we can't agree on whether the Bible gives a clear answer, only until science, through the eyes of faith, confirms one way or other, or God in some way further enlightens us, can we fully understand how Creation happened. Of course this may be a question even beyond the scope of modern cosmology. At any rate, add that to your list of questions to ask God when you get to heaven.Underdog77 said:Why is this a problem? There is one correct interpretation, is there not? The Bible says YEC is it and I'm working to show that science, true science, also says the same thing.
I know Yom has multiple meanings but when we read it in context it is easily and best translated as meaning a literal 24 hour day.alarmguy111 said:Underdog, you need to look again at your hebrew interpretation of the word "Yom" It has multiple meanings; even in the Strong's: an additional possible meaning is an epoch as an undefined extended period of time. Remember that hebrew was always written and understood by the original writers and readers from the perspective of context. You need to research the fact the Pentateuch was not written in modern Hebrew, but in the Hebrew Pictograph language; which was not completely understood until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. It appears that your sources of research are too old to take the newest discoveries into account. Not puttin you down. just suggesting that you research your subject matter thoroughly, and do not rely on the conventional wisdom to prove your point.