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

[BrianJK]

So claims a man. The bible is the product of man, from cover to cover.

So claims a man...

 

[Loudmouth]

So claims a man...

Precisely. So why don't we look at the facts instead of empty claims made by men? Why don't we require evidence to back those claims instead of pronouncing them 100% true without one dot of evidence demonstrating them to be true?

 

[AV1611VET]

Precisely. So why don't we look at the facts instead of empty claims made by men? Why don't we require evidence to back those claims instead of pronouncing them 100% true without one dot of evidence demonstrating them to be true?

If Christopher Columbus wrote in his journal that Joe fell overboard -- in your opinion, did it happen?

If so, are you taking that on faith?

If not, is it because it is an 'empty claim made by a man'?

Put another way, can things happen and not leave evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

If Christopher Columbus wrote in his journal that Joe fell overboard -- in your opinion, did it happen?

If Christopher Columbus wrote that there is no land mass between Europe and Asia, would you accept it even though all of the facts demonstrate that he is wrong?

The claims of creationists are contradicted by the facts. It is not a matter of someone making a claim and having no evidence one way or the other. We have the evidence.

 

[freezerman2000]

Brian,please write down the ENTIRE history of the earth(including the past epochs and dinosaurs)so that it fits into 6000 years and how it scientifically contradicts the natural evidence.
For our benefit.
Give your beliefs scientific credence.
No mention of Genesis,please.

And all we hear is a deafening silence..does that mean that it can't be done?

 

[BrianJK]

Precisely. So why don't we look at the facts instead of empty claims made by men? Why don't we require evidence to back those claims instead of pronouncing them 100% true without one dot of evidence demonstrating them to be true?

You trust the "evidence" used to back up your "facts". I trust the Word of God. You have faith in one, I in the other

 

[BrianJK]

And all we hear is a deafening silence..does that mean that it can't be done?

No mention of Genesis...

As soon as you post your "history" with no mention of scientific theories or "evidence" which you take by faith.

I can give you my interpretation of history but I will leave the Word of God out of nothing.

 

[Split Rock]

I don't play word games, meaning if someone words a question in a strange way so that I think a simplistic answer would not accurately convey what I believe, I won't answer in that simplistic of a way. There are books out there on designing those strangely worded questions.

What is strangely worded about my question?

I will answer you by saying that anyone who disbelieves the Bible has misdirected beliefs,

OK. Why was it so very hard for you to post this answer? So, having belief or faith, does not guarantee that faith or belief is true. I suppose that was what you were trying so hard to avoid admitting.

including those whose faith is solely in science, as that takes just as much faith.

No. I have no "faith" in science like you have in your interpretation of the bible. You are comparing apples and oranges and claiming they are the same and equal. What is "faith" to you? Is it belief in the unseen, as the bible states?

 

[Split Rock]

You trust the "evidence" used to back up your "facts". I trust the Word of God. You have faith in one, I in the other

Yet, when you cross the street, or take an airplane flight your faith is in the the "evidence" and the "facts," and not in the Word of God.

 

[Loudmouth]

You trust the "evidence" used to back up your "facts".

The facts are the evidence. Why do you have to run away from the facts in order to still believe in the Bible?

I trust the Word of God. You have faith in one, I in the other

So you have no faith in the facts? Really?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet, when you cross the street, or take an airplane flight your faith is in the the "evidence" and the "facts," and not in the Word of God.

The really sad part is that creationists have to put facts in scary quotes.

 

[Loudmouth]

No mention of Genesis...

As soon as you post your "history" with no mention of scientific theories or "evidence" which you take by faith.

I can give you my interpretation of history but I will leave the Word of God out of nothing.

Why would we have to take demonstrable facts on faith?

 

[freezerman2000]

No mention of Genesis...

As soon as you post your "history" with no mention of scientific theories or "evidence" which you take by faith.

I can give you my interpretation of history but I will leave the Word of God out of nothing.

The ball is in your court.
So,you are telling us that a book that was never intended to be a science book somehow came to be just that.
Can what I ask for be given?

 

[Sasquatchit]

One of the most obvious things in the Bible, is that many stories and imagery cannot be understood in the simple literal way.

Why not??? I have no problem in understanding them....

Furthermore, classic Jewish exegesis, relying on age old sources, at the very least over 2300 years old, explained many instances of the Bible as coming to define principles and ideas, rather than actual-law-to-be-followed. For example the Wayward Son (I think that's what he is called).

He meaning whom? Scripture?

2 Tim. 3:16 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God...."

1 Cor. 1:18 "For the msg of the cross is foolishness to those who r perishing, but to us who r being saved it is the power of God."

2 Peter 1:20 no private interpretation of Scriptures

Additionally, the Bible itself is telling us that you cannot take certain parts literally, by the fact that the first 2 chapters of Genesis themselves are in disagreement!

Where does it say this???

Why do u say this, because ur beliefs r politically correct and God's word is not????

Actually, if u understood what u were reading, ur conclusion would be quite the opposite! They r NOT in disagreement.

What _I_ learn from the clear differences between the two chapters is 1. God is telling us that the stories he wants to teach us are complicated and need more than one angle, even more than one storyteller, to tell them. 2. You cannot take them both literally - that would be simply impossible.

They r NOT complicated at all....they're quite simple really. He tells us what He wants us to know and no more. If u start twisting the Scriptures, then complication arises....

U can't fit the Bible into the politically correct, or vice aversa; the 2 oppose each other.

.

Ps 34:22 "The Lord redeems the soul of His servants, and none of those who trust in Him shall be condemned."

 

[bhsmte]

One simple reason is that Jesus will not be able to save u on ur last day.

1 Cor. 1:18 "For the msg of the cross is foolishness to those who r perishing, but to us who r being saved it is the power of God."

Well thanks, but I don't buy the story as you do.

By the way, the people that believe in other Gods and other holy books, would also say you will miss out because you don't believe in what they believe.

So, in that sense, I guess we are both in the same boat.

 

[Sasquatchit]

It is impossible for the devil to have convinced men directly. This religious misogyny is just amazing.

Why is it impossible? Why do u think everything is impossible??

Misogyny! Really? This is all that u could come up with? This sounds like the politically correct wisdom of the day..... U just flat lined.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No mention of Genesis...

As soon as you post your "history" with no mention of scientific theories or "evidence" which you take by faith.

I can give you my interpretation of history but I will leave the Word of God out of nothing.

We asked for evidence, not idolatry.

 

[BrianJK]

What is strangely worded about my question?

OK. Why was it so very hard for you to post this answer? So, having belief or faith, does not guarantee that faith or belief is true. I suppose that was what you were trying so hard to avoid admitting.

No. I have no "faith" in science like you have in your interpretation of the bible. You are comparing apples and oranges and claiming they are the same and equal. What is "faith" to you? Is it belief in the unseen, as the bible states?

For one example, you take by faith that the instruments used by scientists in dating objects as billions of years old are accurate.

I was avoiding nothing. Your question tried to conveniently exclude your personal beliefs from the answer. I don't see your beliefs as any different from any other faith.

 

[BrianJK]

The ball is in your court.
So,you are telling us that a book that was never intended to be a science book somehow came to be just that.
Can what I ask for be given?

Your presumption that the Bible was not intended to teach the literal history of creation is wrong.

If your caveat is that I explain to you my faith without using my faith to do so, I'd say that's pretty silly.

 

[BrianJK]

We asked for evidence, not idolatry.

Insults now?

If you hold what scientists call evidence over God's Word, that is on you.

I worship God and believe what He says. If you find worshipping God to be idolatry, I think you're confused as to what that means.