Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

AV1611VET · Sep 23, 2013

Loudmouth said:
The mountains of evidence around us would certainly indicate that a literal translation can not be true. So it would seem that you have two choices: a falsified Genesis or a figurative one. Take your pick.

How about a third choice?

Like what Jesus says we can do with your mountains of evidence with our faith?

Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Mr Strawberry · Sep 23, 2013

AV1611VET said:
How about a third choice?

Like what Jesus says we can do with your mountains of evidence with our faith?

Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Wishful thinking can do many things, but it can't make you right when you are wrong.

AV1611VET · Sep 23, 2013

Mr Strawberry said:
Wishful thinking can do many things, but it can't make you right when you are wrong.

In the meantime, your "evidence" is drowing my my sea of faith, and your rescue attempts are stymied by an inability to understand even basic rescue techniques, isn't it?

In fact, you wouldn't know A life saver from THE Lifesaver, would you?

Let alone what His Autobiography teaches.

KWCrazy · Sep 23, 2013

Loudmouth said:
Do you reject the evidence from the creation around us?

I reject your interpretation of the evidence. I'm supposed to call God a liar because someone looks at a rock and thinks it's a billion years old? No thanks. I have no reason to believe that science which can't explain the origination of anything can somehow have the answers to everything. I don't delude myself into thinking that the study of the physical world has any relevance to the existence of the supernatural.

AV1611VET · Sep 23, 2013

KWCrazy said:
I reject your interpretation of the evidence. I'm supposed to call God a liar because someone looks at a rock and thinks it's a billion years old? No thanks. I have no reason to believe that science which can't explain the origination of anything can somehow have the answers to everything. I don't delude myself into thinking that the study of the physical world has any relevance to the existence of the supernatural.

I forget what scientist made the distinction between the natural and the supernatural.

I think it was Isaac Newton in his Principia Arithmetica or something.

In any event, scientific methodists apparently like to look at the pictures in that book, rather than read it.

In other words, they took the "good parts" -- his three Laws of Motion -- and discarded the rest.

Now today, they don't have a clue as to what "supernatural" is, and want to blame it on us.

Loudmouth · Sep 23, 2013

KWCrazy said:
I reject your interpretation of the evidence.

The only reason for rejection that you can come up with is that it contradicts the interpretation of Genesis that you want. That is denial, not logic. You are like the priests of old who decided that Galileo must go under house arrest for daring to challenge the Bible on the position of the Earth and Sun.

Mr Strawberry · Sep 23, 2013

AV1611VET said:
In the meantime, your "evidence" is drowing my my sea of faith, and your rescue attempts are stymied by an inability to understand even basic rescue techniques, isn't it?

In fact, you wouldn't know A life saver from THE Lifesaver, would you?

Let alone what His Autobiography teaches.

Your analogy is incorrect as usual. The sea all around you is evidence. Your beliefs sank long ago.

Loudmouth · Sep 23, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Let alone what His Autobiography teaches.

It's not an autobiography. It is written by men, not God.

Loudmouth · Sep 23, 2013

AV1611VET said:
How about a third choice?

Like what Jesus says we can do with your mountains of evidence with our faith?

Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Those are the words of men other than Jesus.

AV1611VET · Sep 23, 2013

Loudmouth said:
Those are the words of men other than Jesus.

So's your rebuttal.

BrianJK · Sep 23, 2013

Split Rock said:
Does GEN lose its truth if parts of it are figurative?

Since I believe the literal is true, I would say so.

BrianJK · Sep 23, 2013

Loudmouth said:
The mountains of evidence around us would certainly indicate that a literal translation can not be true. So it would seem that you have two choices: a falsified Genesis or a figurative one. Take your pick.

Only if one accepts the "evidence" you revere so much.

BrianJK · Sep 23, 2013

Loudmouth said:
It's not an autobiography. It is written by men, not God.

Every word is God's Word transcribed by men.

bhsmte · Sep 23, 2013

BrianJK said:
Every word is God's Word transcribed by men.

What evidence do you have to support that?

BrianJK · Sep 23, 2013

bhsmte said:
What evidence do you have to support that?

It's all in the Book. If you choose not to believe what the Bible says, that is your prerogative, just as it is mine to trust Scripture over somebody's experiments

AV1611VET · Sep 23, 2013

BrianJK said:
It's all in the Book. If you choose not to believe what the Bible says, that is your prerogative, just as it is mine to trust Scripture over somebody's experiments

Are you sure you're not a fundamental independent Baptist?

None of my business, but do you believe in dispensation theology?

BrianJK · Sep 23, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Are you sure you're not a fundamental independent Baptist?

None of my business, but do you believe in dispensation theology?

To be honest I haven't delved too much into dispensationalism. I haven't developed a keen interest in eschatology thus far.

I attended such a church before. There were a couple points on which I disagreed with them (separation and KJVO mostly) but overall they were great people.

AV1611VET · Sep 23, 2013

BrianJK said:
To be honest I haven't delved too much into dispensationalism. I haven't developed a keen interest in eschatology thus far.

I attended such a church before. There were a couple points on which I disagreed with them (separation and KJVO mostly) but overall they were great people.

I asked because I like your answers.

I disagreed with a couple of things you said, but I can't remember what they were.

You come across to me as pretty-well sound in the faith.

bhsmte · Sep 23, 2013

BrianJK said:
It's all in the Book. If you choose not to believe what the Bible says, that is your prerogative, just as it is mine to trust Scripture over somebody's experiments

Just curious. We are all entitled to determine what is credible evidence.

Strathos · Sep 23, 2013

When people accuse me of not believing the Bible due to accepting evolution, I just think of it this way.

The Bible was never meant to be a science book, and the fact that it doesn't work as a science book doesn't mean it's wrong though.

Say you have a lawnmower, which does its job (mowing your lawn) perfectly fine, but then you try to use it to cut your hair. Obviously that is not going to work out very well.

Does that mean the lawnmower is flawed because it can't cut your hair? No, you're just using it in a way it was never meant to be used.

Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Abdul Masih

Abdul Masih

Abdul Masih

Newbie

Abdul Masih

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Abdul Masih

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

No one important

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency