Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/6/2005 3:28:16 PM EDT
I beleive in God, i beleive that some being designed our world.

As we use science to discover more about our world, we see that there are laws, laws that must have been put into place by someone/something, who is God.

Through scientific method, we find that somethings will happen over and over again, and we can be 99.9999999% sure that next time a human being on the planet earth picks up a ball and lets it go, it will fall towards the earth. Through this scientific method we can better understand God's design of our bodies, of the elements, and harness it and create our own laws and organization, allowing for humaniity to prosper.

Through the scientific method, Darwin proposed a theory that humanity and all being evolve, and that looking at fossil record, spanning millions of years, you find solid, undeniable evidence that yes, creatures over millions of years change and evolve to their enviroment. However, why are there some people who seek to deny this scientific theory forum in public schools, when it is the most reasonable theory for how we came into being. God, in his ability to create this entire universe in its infinite complexities, probably did not choose to write the bible literally... Why are people interpretting the bible so literally? The earth is clearly not ~5000 years old as some theological scholars of the middle ages proposed, so why are some modern day biblical scholars so convinced that God snapped his fingers and suddenly the human form in its infinite complexities appeared? God has all of time to work with, don't you think that a few million years of evolution would be less then a snap to him?

Blah. All i'm trying to express is my confusion to why some religious leaders seek to silence Darwin's scientific theory, and offer up nothing better then a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 3:35:40 PM EDT
Back when I was religious, I once said something similar.

The problem is not the belief, but the people. Some people are so stubborn (sometimes just stupid or silly) that when told something that is against their point of view, they refuse to accept it.(stuff like the Earth revolving around the sun).

So basicly we got alot of people who say their belief is the only way it could be, and everyone else is wrong.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 4:25:03 PM EDT
As I have said on many occasions, I believe in the Bible, but there are many parts that I do not interpret literally. And I think it is reasonable for parts of both schools of thought to exist together. During Creation, the one thing the Bible does not address is defining what a day to God is. 24 hours? I think not, but I can't say for sure. So it is reasonable to believe that God is the Creator of all, and that during His creation of man, we went through a metamorphosis to get where we are now, and I would go so far as to say that we might not be "finished" just yet. Focus on the core principles of the Bible such as: God is the Creator of all, The Ten Commandments, that Jesus died for our sins and rose into Heaven on the third day allowing us to have eternal life in Heaven..just to mention a few. Interpreting some/a lot of the rest is a very personal proposition that I suspect most of us have our own ideas about.

Blake <><
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 9:04:54 AM EDT
The problem isn't with the idea of things changing, but that Darwinian Evolution is an ideology, not just science.

Darwin specifically stated that his theory keeps God out of the process. Hence, evolution is taught as purposeless and unguided. These two ideas are at direct odds with Christianity, which states that God was intimately involved with creation and He has a plan for His creation. So many people have put so much stock into evolution that it has practically become a religion for them (although they would never admit that, and may not even recognize that it's become that), because if God wasn't involved, then He didn't give us a moral code to live by, and we can do whatever we wish. Any gap in the theory, the problems with evolutionary theory, and any attempt to present those problems is seen as an attack on their religion. It really is a war over the minds of children. Who gets to influence the next generation?

Teaching the scientific process isn't the problem. Teaching it as an ideology (which is what is done) is the problem.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 10:31:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 10:32:49 AM EDT by QShok]
Evolution is theory. Tons of fossils dug up but no transitional species ever found. What does science have to offer? Lies. Darwin had jars of different animal embryos and they all looked the same proving evolution. Everyone who tried has failed to produce those results. In the '80s "Heidi" supposedly the missing link was proved to be a lie. Most recently the dinosaur with feathers was a fake too. All evidence of evolution failed peer review. Any objective person can see after 200 years the theory of evolution is no more of a fact then day one.

Creationism isn't scientific fact either but if science was open-minded and objective it probably would be fact by now. The Bible hasn't failed yet. The most recent discover is the pool of Siloam from John 9:7,11.

Shok

PS

More haggling found here.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 10:46:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Blake:
During Creation, the one thing the Bible does not address is defining what a day to God is. 24 hours? I think not, but I can't say for sure.

Blake <><




    Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


The Bible clearly states that a day is the evening and the morning. If we can't trust the Bible to accurately convey the simplest ideas like "days" then how do you expect anyone to put any worth to more complex ideas like salvation? If Christians refuse to believe one day is one rotation of the Earth, thereby giving us evening and morning, then all is lost.

Shok
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 10:50:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By loonybin:
The problem isn't with the idea of things changing, but that Darwinian Evolution is an ideology, not just science.

Darwin specifically stated that his theory keeps God out of the process. Hence, evolution is taught as purposeless and unguided. These two ideas are at direct odds with Christianity, which states that God was intimately involved with creation and He has a plan for His creation. So many people have put so much stock into evolution that it has practically become a religion for them (although they would never admit that, and may not even recognize that it's become that), because if God wasn't involved, then He didn't give us a moral code to live by, and we can do whatever we wish. Any gap in the theory, the problems with evolutionary theory, and any attempt to present those problems is seen as an attack on their religion. It really is a war over the minds of children. Who gets to influence the next generation?

Teaching the scientific process isn't the problem. Teaching it as an ideology (which is what is done) is the problem.



If you change your sentence to "some people make evolution into an ideology" you would be correct.

All science is taught from a naturalistic point of view. No scientific theory explicitly allows for God to make it rain, keep the earth's magnetic field going, or keep the sun producing energy. This was true even in the day of the famous Christian scientists like Newton. They still viewed what they did as learning God's method for creation.

If God exists, evolution is his handiwork, just as is gravity, plate techtonics, and the multitude of other scientific theories that don't explicitly acknowledge God. Only evolutionary theory is accused of excluding God for simply following the scientific method.

There is nothing that prevents a believer in God from accepting evolution as his method for achieving biodiversity.

Link Posted: 9/7/2005 10:56:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 10:57:00 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By Blake:
During Creation, the one thing the Bible does not address is defining what a day to God is. 24 hours? I think not, but I can't say for sure.

Blake <><




    Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


The Bible clearly states that a day is the evening and the morning. If we can't trust the Bible to accurately convey the simplest ideas like "days" then how do you expect anyone to put any worth to more complex ideas like salvation? If Christians refuse to believe one day is one rotation of the Earth, thereby giving us evening and morning, then all is lost.

Shok



You neglect to mention that he didn't create the sun until day 3, so your definition of a day would hardly apply. I expect to know evolution better than you, but its sad when you don't even understand your own holy book.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.



Link Posted: 9/7/2005 11:43:18 AM EDT
Judaism and the Torah really have no conflicts with the idea that creation did have an evolutionary dimension to them. We see that G-d says: let the earth produce the grass, etc, or else words like (he formed, he made) יצר and עשה (ויעש), which indicate something from something are used. In fact, the commentators tell us that everything was created on the first day in some potential form, and was then developed into its final form on the assigned day. Even the body of man is considered a part of the evolutionary process.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 11:44:47 AM EDT
I think it is amazing that we teach Darwins thoughts, be we do not teach them all. As he got older he denouced and recanted many of his idea's on evolution.

But that get's ignored.

Link Posted: 9/7/2005 11:51:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By Blake:
During Creation, the one thing the Bible does not address is defining what a day to God is. 24 hours? I think not, but I can't say for sure.

Blake <><




    Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


The Bible clearly states that a day is the evening and the morning. If we can't trust the Bible to accurately convey the simplest ideas like "days" then how do you expect anyone to put any worth to more complex ideas like salvation? If Christians refuse to believe one day is one rotation of the Earth, thereby giving us evening and morning, then all is lost.

Shok



_____________________________

The Hebrew Bible, written by Jews and understood by Jews generally acknowledge that Genesis is to be understood symbolically. God created and controls all phenomena revealed by modern science. This would have been the understanding of Jews even two thousand years ago.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 12:29:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 12:38:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 12:41:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MRW:
Really now, if you believe evolution is true, what do you need Jesus for?




Hey, that is a good question.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 1:14:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MRW:
Really now, if you believe evolution is true, what do you need Jesus for?




Forgiveness of sin. I don't personally believe this, but its consistent with the Christian worldview.

Whether Adam existed as an actual man who committed the first sin or if he was a symbol for the sinful nature of all men doesn't really matter. Either way you need forgiveness, and for Christians that comes through Jesus.

Its funny, but I was raised in a very fundamentalist congregation and never once was the doctrine of forgiveness taught in opposition to evolution. Science and religion are complementary disciplines, they have no need (nor can they) compete.

Link Posted: 9/7/2005 2:13:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
If you change your sentence to "some people make evolution into an ideology" you would be correct.



Such as Darwin himself, by his own words.


All science is taught from a naturalistic point of view. No scientific theory explicitly allows for God to make it rain, keep the earth's magnetic field going, or keep the sun producing energy. This was true even in the day of the famous Christian scientists like Newton. They still viewed what they did as learning God's method for creation.


But now, science is used by those in control as a way of denying God's existence or at the least marginalizing him to a simple observer. And therein lies the problem many have with how science is taught. It isn't taught as just science any more.


If God exists, evolution is his handiwork, just as is gravity, plate techtonics, and the multitude of other scientific theories that don't explicitly acknowledge God. Only evolutionary theory is accused of excluding God for simply following the scientific method.


And many would argue that it doesn't even follow the scientific method, and not even the laws of physics!


There is nothing that prevents a believer in God from accepting evolution as his method for achieving biodiversity.


Except for that whole "purposeless and unguided" bit....
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 2:16:18 PM EDT
ummmm, G-d created man as he is today.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:27:30 PM EDT
Creation is a just one of many teachings of the Bible that people who do not like the Bible will choke on. If you believe in the God of the Bible, the story of a six day creation will come pretty easily.

Trying to convince an atheist of a six day creation? That would be like coming to someone who's been shot and trying to apply a band aid to the scrape they got on their knee when they fell. It needs to be taken care of, but it's not first priority.

Evolution and the Bible cannot get along because the whole point of evolution is the lack of any surpeme being, much less one who demands perfection, as the Christian God does. No creator=no accountability outside of the autonomous human being, so that's an attractive teaching to imperfect people. It's also in stark contrast to the Bible.

Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:31:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:46:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:
Creation is a just one of many teachings of the Bible that people who do not like the Bible will choke on. If you believe in the God of the Bible, the story of a six day creation will come pretty easily.





How do you reconcile that belief with the Bible being obviously inaccurate in other facts? Doesn't the whole thing have to be literally true for that to hang together? Or can you believe that the 6 day creation part is literally true while other parts of the Bible are not literally true?



There are some parts of the Bible I do not take literally. Apololyptic literature and poetry, for instance, are not places to build your theology. They are not meant to be taken literally. Genesis is a narrative of what happened. Take it literally. Something learned in hermeneutics, I guess.

The Bible is obviously inaccurate in other places? Says who? Whose wisdom do you use to decide which parts are accurate? The Holy Spirit? No, the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible and the Bible claims to be accurate. Man's wisdom? It's pretty arrogant to criticize a book that claims to be from God. Sure, there are grammatical differences between early copies of the Bible. So what? The factual data is still there, and it's still good. Archaeology continues to confirm the truth of the Bible. On what do you base this presupposition that the Bible is obviously errant?
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:53:12 PM EDT
I think that they can other than the flaws in some evolutionary theory. In theory, many Christian faiths believe in the Divine Design.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:14:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:31:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:
Creation is a just one of many teachings of the Bible that people who do not like the Bible will choke on. If you believe in the God of the Bible, the story of a six day creation will come pretty easily.





How do you reconcile that belief with the Bible being obviously inaccurate in other facts? Doesn't the whole thing have to be literally true for that to hang together? Or can you believe that the 6 day creation part is literally true while other parts of the Bible are not literally true?



What part is not literally true?
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:33:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:34:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:


There are some parts of the Bible I do not take literally. Apololyptic literature and poetry, for instance, are not places to build your theology. They are not meant to be taken literally. Genesis is a narrative of what happened. Take it literally. Something learned in hermeneutics, I guess.

The Bible is obviously inaccurate in other places? Says who? Whose wisdom do you use to decide which parts are accurate? The Holy Spirit? No, the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible and the Bible claims to be accurate. Man's wisdom? It's pretty arrogant to criticize a book that claims to be from God. Sure, there are grammatical differences between early copies of the Bible. So what? The factual data is still there, and it's still good. Archaeology continues to confirm the truth of the Bible. On what do you base this presupposition that the Bible is obviously errant?



That the sun goes around the earth, the earth is flat, the earth is set on pillars or a foundation etc, fitting all those animals on the ark, that snakes eat dirt, rabbits chew cud blah blah blah there are tons of these examples when you google it.



Chapter/verse?
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:35:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
I beleive in God, i beleive that some being designed our world.

As we use science to discover more about our world, we see that there are laws, laws that must have been put into place by someone/something, who is God.

Through scientific method, we find that somethings will happen over and over again, and we can be 99.9999999% sure that next time a human being on the planet earth picks up a ball and lets it go, it will fall towards the earth. Through this scientific method we can better understand God's design of our bodies, of the elements, and harness it and create our own laws and organization, allowing for humaniity to prosper.

Through the scientific method, Darwin proposed a theory that humanity and all being evolve, and that looking at fossil record, spanning millions of years, you find solid, undeniable evidence that yes, creatures over millions of years change and evolve to their enviroment. However, why are there some people who seek to deny this scientific theory forum in public schools, when it is the most reasonable theory for how we came into being. God, in his ability to create this entire universe in its infinite complexities, probably did not choose to write the bible literally... Why are people interpretting the bible so literally? The earth is clearly not ~5000 years old as some theological scholars of the middle ages proposed, so why are some modern day biblical scholars so convinced that God snapped his fingers and suddenly the human form in its infinite complexities appeared? God has all of time to work with, don't you think that a few million years of evolution would be less then a snap to him?

Blah. All i'm trying to express is my confusion to why some religious leaders seek to silence Darwin's scientific theory, and offer up nothing better then a literal interpretation of the Bible.



You said it. He proposed a theory, not proven yet (or will be?).
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:44:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:56:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
...All i'm trying to express is my confusion to why some religious leaders seek to silence Darwin's scientific theory, and offer up nothing better then a literal interpretation of the Bible.



Religion is a search for security, not for truth.

Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:18:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By TROJANII:

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:


There are some parts of the Bible I do not take literally. Apololyptic literature and poetry, for instance, are not places to build your theology. They are not meant to be taken literally. Genesis is a narrative of what happened. Take it literally. Something learned in hermeneutics, I guess.

The Bible is obviously inaccurate in other places? Says who? Whose wisdom do you use to decide which parts are accurate? The Holy Spirit? No, the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible and the Bible claims to be accurate. Man's wisdom? It's pretty arrogant to criticize a book that claims to be from God. Sure, there are grammatical differences between early copies of the Bible. So what? The factual data is still there, and it's still good. Archaeology continues to confirm the truth of the Bible. On what do you base this presupposition that the Bible is obviously errant?



That the sun goes around the earth, the earth is flat, the earth is set on pillars or a foundation etc, fitting all those animals on the ark, that snakes eat dirt, rabbits chew cud blah blah blah there are tons of these examples when you google it.



Chapter/verse?




Sun stuff: Psalms

19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, (19:4-6)
The sun moves around the earth.
19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
19:6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

Flat
Ezekial
7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.

There are many references in the Bible to the earth being flat and the sky being kind of a solid bowl over the earth.

Noah took two (or 7) of each animal on the ark, do you need a verse for this one?

Rabbits
Leviticus
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Snakes
Genesis
3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:



If someone says that the sun rises or sets, do you jump on them for lying? No, because we understand what it means. It's figurative. Most of your examples come from Psalms. See my last post vis-a-vis poetry. How do you know Noah didn't fit those animals on the ark? It's a lot more believable than to say that an explosion caused the intricate world in which we live. When was the last time an explosion at a printing factory produced a dictionary?

Four corners of the land. Yes, and? That's just a metaphor that obviously means the entirety of the land. Be reasonable.

Same thing with the snake eating dust or dirt. There are some who believe that the original serpent might have had legs (I don't know). Thus, the crawling on the belly and eating dust is a pretty good word picture of how a snake moves now.

The Bible is not meant to be a scientific textbook. Just for the record, Isaiah 40:22 refers to the earth being round.

You still haven't told me how you decide which parts of the Bible are accurate.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:35:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 6:38:03 PM EDT by Aimless]
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:47:10 PM EDT


Originally Posted By Greenfeet:
How do you know Noah didn't fit those animals on the ark? It's a lot more believable than to say that an explosion caused the intricate world in which we live. .



I am stunned that anyone can take Noah's Ark literally.

I'd love to see someone demonstrate it's feasibility in even a tiny way. Say, catch breeding pairs of polar bears, kangaroos, emperorer penquins, black rhinos, bison and tigers. (Don't use any modern technology, of course.) And maybe represent the insect population with a measly 10,000 different species of beetles. Keep them alive on a boat for a few days, then re-establish them in the wild.

Any myth-buster volunteers out there?
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 8:27:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rodent:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:
How do you know Noah didn't fit those animals on the ark? It's a lot more believable than to say that an explosion caused the intricate world in which we live. .



I am stunned that anyone can take Noah's Ark literally.

I'd love to see someone demonstrate it's feasibility in even a tiny way. Say, catch breeding pairs of polar bears, kangaroos, emperorer penquins, black rhinos, bison and tigers. (Don't use any modern technology, of course.) And maybe represent the insect population with a measly 10,000 different species of beetles. Keep them alive on a boat for a few days, then re-establish them in the wild.

Any myth-buster volunteers out there?



Well I would gladly appeal to God's power to make it happen. But I believe it did. And you believe this world was caused by an explosion.

Any myth-buster volunteers out there?

Aimless, I have given some answer for everything you propose. This is not to assume that I have all the answers, only to emphasize that you still have not told me your criteria for deciding which parts of the bible are worth believing.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:45:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
I beleive in God, i beleive that some being designed our world.

As we use science to discover more about our world, we see that there are laws, laws that must have been put into place by someone/something, who is God.

Through scientific method, we find that somethings will happen over and over again, and we can be 99.9999999% sure that next time a human being on the planet earth picks up a ball and lets it go, it will fall towards the earth. Through this scientific method we can better understand God's design of our bodies, of the elements, and harness it and create our own laws and organization, allowing for humaniity to prosper.

Through the scientific method, Darwin proposed a theory that humanity and all being evolve, and that looking at fossil record, spanning millions of years, you find solid, undeniable evidence that yes, creatures over millions of years change and evolve to their enviroment. However, why are there some people who seek to deny this scientific theory forum in public schools, when it is the most reasonable theory for how we came into being. God, in his ability to create this entire universe in its infinite complexities, probably did not choose to write the bible literally... Why are people interpretting the bible so literally? The earth is clearly not ~5000 years old as some theological scholars of the middle ages proposed, so why are some modern day biblical scholars so convinced that God snapped his fingers and suddenly the human form in its infinite complexities appeared? God has all of time to work with, don't you think that a few million years of evolution would be less then a snap to him?

Blah. All i'm trying to express is my confusion to why some religious leaders seek to silence Darwin's scientific theory, and offer up nothing better then a literal interpretation of the Bible.




Your logic is one of the reasons that lead me to question the truth of Christianity.

I generally agree with another poster who mentioned that religion if for those in search of security over truth.

"If you see to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe,
If you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire."
Frederich Neitzchie

I think some of Jesus' and other biblical teachings are good ways to live one's life (Golden rule, Sermon on the Mount, advice in Proverbs and others) and there are bits of truth in them. However, the Bible is not a good starting point IMHO for an HONEST search for TRUTH. How can one honestly think they can find truth if they say the answer has to be in some specific book?

IMHO, an honest search for truth of any sort begins by a methodology, NOT blind faith in some specific book or alleged expert. In my way of thinking, the scientific method is an effective methodology to arrive at a valid conclusions to explain the world around us. Sure, you must have faith in basic assumptions, but those assumptions are incredibly simple in comparison to the faith in a God that you cannot see, feel, or otherwise detect.

I think there is much wisdom in Christianity and other religions, but there is also much garbage. I think you must determine for yourself which is which.

"Seek and ye shall find..." very true, however, it is very important to know if what you seek is TRUTH or PEACE, because the answers will likely not be the same.

Martin


Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:58:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:
.. And you believe this world was caused by an explosion...




It's been very thoroughly established that the universe did start with an explosion. It's still expanding, the youngest galaxies are at the center, the background radiation from the explosion can still be detected, etc. Cosmologists are very close to a "unified theory" that finally "connects the dots" of all the Einsteins out there, and we might hear it in our lifetime.

What caused the Big Bang? Maybe it was a god, or gods. It's unknowable at this point.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 5:02:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

You neglect to mention that he didn't create the sun until day 3, so your definition of a day would hardly apply. I expect to know evolution better than you, but its sad when you don't even understand your own holy book.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.







    Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
    Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
    Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.



On day one he created the sun so there was light and darkness, a 24 hour cycle. On day three the moon and stars were created to rule the night. By day three God had made the sun and moon, the sun on day one and the moon on day three.

Shok
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 5:39:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By Dino:

You neglect to mention that he didn't create the sun until day 3, so your definition of a day would hardly apply. I expect to know evolution better than you, but its sad when you don't even understand your own holy book.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.







    Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
    Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
    Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.



On day one he created the sun so there was light and darkness, a 24 hour cycle. On day three the moon and stars were created to rule the night. By day three God had made the sun and moon, the sun on day one and the moon on day three.

Shok



LOL

Apparently its not literal when it conflicts with your worldview eh?

Any other places where you have to use that interesting brand of rationalization to make things fit?

Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:05:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:
How do you know Noah didn't fit those animals on the ark? It's a lot more believable than to say that an explosion caused the intricate world in which we live. .



Because the ark was approximately 450'x70'x40.' There's no way all the animals would fit.

Edit maybe they were dehydrated? Folded?



X3 (3 DECKS)
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:07:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Rodent:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:
How do you know Noah didn't fit those animals on the ark? It's a lot more believable than to say that an explosion caused the intricate world in which we live. .



I am stunned that anyone can take Noah's Ark literally.

I'd love to see someone demonstrate it's feasibility in even a tiny way. Say, catch breeding pairs of polar bears, kangaroos, emperorer penquins, black rhinos, bison and tigers. (Don't use any modern technology, of course.) And maybe represent the insect population with a measly 10,000 different species of beetles. Keep them alive on a boat for a few days, then re-establish them in the wild.

Any myth-buster volunteers out there?




And try to make man out of dust? Who exactly does this God think he is? God, perhaps?
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:10:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Rodent:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:
.. And you believe this world was caused by an explosion...




It's been very thoroughly established that the universe did start with an explosion. It's still expanding, the youngest galaxies are at the center, the background radiation from the explosion can still be detected, etc. Cosmologists are very close to a "unified theory" that finally "connects the dots" of all the Einsteins out there, and we might hear it in our lifetime.

What caused the Big Bang? Maybe it was a god, or gods. It's unknowable at this point.



I thought until a few years ago, scientists thught the universe was collapsing, then they realized it was actually expanding. Because it is expanding is proof of an explosion?
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:13:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By Dino:

You neglect to mention that he didn't create the sun until day 3, so your definition of a day would hardly apply. I expect to know evolution better than you, but its sad when you don't even understand your own holy book.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.







    Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
    Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
    Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.



On day one he created the sun so there was light and darkness, a 24 hour cycle. On day three the moon and stars were created to rule the night. By day three God had made the sun and moon, the sun on day one and the moon on day three.

Shok



LOL

Apparently its not literal when it conflicts with your worldview eh?

Any other places where you have to use that interesting brand of rationalization to make things fit?




The only mistake on the first day issue I saw in an earlier post was the source of the light.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:15:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By MRW:
Really now, if you believe evolution is true, what do you need Jesus for?




Forgiveness of sin. I don't personally believe this, but its consistent with the Christian worldview.

Whether Adam existed as an actual man who committed the first sin or if he was a symbol for the sinful nature of all men doesn't really matter. Either way you need forgiveness, and for Christians that comes through Jesus.

Its funny, but I was raised in a very fundamentalist congregation and never once was the doctrine of forgiveness taught in opposition to evolution. Science and religion are complementary disciplines, they have no need (nor can they) compete.




They taught evolution in church? What "church" was that?
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:20:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By TROJANII:

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:


There are some parts of the Bible I do not take literally. Apololyptic literature and poetry, for instance, are not places to build your theology. They are not meant to be taken literally. Genesis is a narrative of what happened. Take it literally. Something learned in hermeneutics, I guess.

The Bible is obviously inaccurate in other places? Says who? Whose wisdom do you use to decide which parts are accurate? The Holy Spirit? No, the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible and the Bible claims to be accurate. Man's wisdom? It's pretty arrogant to criticize a book that claims to be from God. Sure, there are grammatical differences between early copies of the Bible. So what? The factual data is still there, and it's still good. Archaeology continues to confirm the truth of the Bible. On what do you base this presupposition that the Bible is obviously errant?



That the sun goes around the earth, the earth is flat, the earth is set on pillars or a foundation etc, fitting all those animals on the ark, that snakes eat dirt, rabbits chew cud blah blah blah there are tons of these examples when you google it.



Chapter/verse?




Sun stuff: Psalms

19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, (19:4-6)
The sun moves around the earth.
19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
19:6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

Flat
Ezekial
7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.

There are many references in the Bible to the earth being flat and the sky being kind of a solid bowl over the earth.

Noah took two (or 7) of each animal on the ark, do you need a verse for this one?

Rabbits
Leviticus
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Snakes
Genesis
3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:



And for all our "wisdom" and insight, we STILL say the sun is setting, implying the sun is moving, not the earth. Man! Are we stupid!
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:27:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TROJANII:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By Dino:

You neglect to mention that he didn't create the sun until day 3, so your definition of a day would hardly apply. I expect to know evolution better than you, but its sad when you don't even understand your own holy book.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.







    Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
    Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
    Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.



On day one he created the sun so there was light and darkness, a 24 hour cycle. On day three the moon and stars were created to rule the night. By day three God had made the sun and moon, the sun on day one and the moon on day three.

Shok



LOL

Apparently its not literal when it conflicts with your worldview eh?

Any other places where you have to use that interesting brand of rationalization to make things fit?




The only mistake on the first day issue I saw in an earlier post was the source of the light.



If you read Genesis literally then light was created on the first day (from what we have no idea, because the sun was not created until the 3rd day)

Since the sun wasn't created until day 3, then we have 2 days where our current understanding of what a day is does not apply.

The greater light (aka the sun) was not created until day 3, any other reading of the Bible is non-literal.

There is no such thing as a true Biblical literalist, every one of them twists the words when the meaning is illogical or uncomfortable to their worldview. Which is exactly what they accuse non-literalists of.

Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:30:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TROJANII:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By MRW:
Really now, if you believe evolution is true, what do you need Jesus for?




Forgiveness of sin. I don't personally believe this, but its consistent with the Christian worldview.

Whether Adam existed as an actual man who committed the first sin or if he was a symbol for the sinful nature of all men doesn't really matter. Either way you need forgiveness, and for Christians that comes through Jesus.

Its funny, but I was raised in a very fundamentalist congregation and never once was the doctrine of forgiveness taught in opposition to evolution. Science and religion are complementary disciplines, they have no need (nor can they) compete.




They taught evolution in church? What "church" was that?



RIF

"never once was the doctrine of forgiveness taught in opposition to evolution"

They taught the doctrine of forgiveness, not evolution.

Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:34:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2005 7:40:21 AM EDT by TROJANII]

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By TROJANII:

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:


There are some parts of the Bible I do not take literally. Apololyptic literature and poetry, for instance, are not places to build your theology. They are not meant to be taken literally. Genesis is a narrative of what happened. Take it literally. Something learned in hermeneutics, I guess.

The Bible is obviously inaccurate in other places? Says who? Whose wisdom do you use to decide which parts are accurate? The Holy Spirit? No, the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible and the Bible claims to be accurate. Man's wisdom? It's pretty arrogant to criticize a book that claims to be from God. Sure, there are grammatical differences between early copies of the Bible. So what? The factual data is still there, and it's still good. Archaeology continues to confirm the truth of the Bible. On what do you base this presupposition that the Bible is obviously errant?



That the sun goes around the earth, the earth is flat, the earth is set on pillars or a foundation etc, fitting all those animals on the ark, that snakes eat dirt, rabbits chew cud blah blah blah there are tons of these examples when you google it.



Chapter/verse?




Sun stuff: Psalms

19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, (19:4-6)
The sun moves around the earth.
19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
19:6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

Flat
Ezekial
7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.

There are many references in the Bible to the earth being flat and the sky being kind of a solid bowl over the earth.

Noah took two (or 7) of each animal on the ark, do you need a verse for this one?

Rabbits
Leviticus
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Snakes
Genesis
3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:




http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html
Those Wascally Wabbits!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skeptical Crud About Cud
James Patrick Holding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lev. 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (See also Deut. 14:7)
This is one of the most popular objections in the skeptical book, and it's basically this: Rabbits are not ruminants; they practice refection. Refection is a process in which rabbits eat their own dung mixed with undigested material. The Hebrew does not use the word for "dung". Therefore this passage is wrong. (The objection is also registered against the verses mentioning the coney, or hyrax; however, the identification of this animal is uncertain -- we will assume it to be an animal that refects as well.)

Two issues are at hand: the definition of "cud" and that of "chewing." Let's take a close look at the Hebrew version of both. Here is the word for "cud" according to Strong's:

gerah, the cud (as scraping the throat):--cud.
There are a few factors we need to keep in mind here. First, this word is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law.

Second, refection is a process whereby rabbits pass pellets of partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste material) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. It is not just "dung" that the rabbits are eating, which is probably why the Hebrew word for "dung" was not used here.

Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is what we moderns call "chewing the cud." They regurgiate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more after while mixing it with saliva.

So then: partially digested food is a common element here. We therefore suggest that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food -- the process is not the issue, just the object.

"Yeah, right, Holding! So are you more of an expert in Hebrew than all those Bible scholars like Strong who decided that 'cud' was the best word to use here? Get real!!!"
More of an expert in Hebrew, no -- the problem is that those Hebrew experts aren't experts in animal biology. It's commonly noted, in a weaker defense of this verse, that rabbits look like they chew cud, such that even Linneaus was fooled by them and classified them as ruminants -- and even many modern books on rabbits have no reference to it. Everyone sees rabbits chewing and might come to the same conclusion, but few know about refection -- least of all experts in Hebrew who spend most of their days indoors out of the sight of rabbits.

"Just shot yourself in the foot, Holding! You admitted that few people know about refection. Tell us why! It's because rabbits do it at night and underground. Isn't it more likely that Moses made a big fat mistake like Linneaus, based on appearances?"
Rabbits actually do this mostly at night and underground -- not always; and the reason for this is that the behavior usually takes place 3-8 hours after eating. Now catch this: One reason so few people know about this behavior today is because we spend so much time indoors -- and because when we are outdoors, we tend to stomp around and scare the jeebers out of timid creatures like rabbits. So little wonder we don't see it much! And even rabbit owners don't see it because they of course feed their bunnies on their schedules -- so that refection happens while they are asleep!

In contrast, the ancients lived mainly outdoors and many of them were pastoral sorts who spent hours in the field. So -- don't think for a moment that this wasn't something the average ancient wouldn't have known about. They were a lot more observant than we are (because they needed to be to survive!) and spent a lot more time in places where they could see this behavior. (At the same time, it would be rather foolish -- and an argument from silence -- to make the point that refection is not mentioned in any other ancient documents. For this objection to have merit, one must produce a surviving ancient documentation that should have mentioned it, but didn't -- and that's rather a hard row to hoe!)

"That's only half the problem, Holding! You forgot the other half -- the verse says 'bring up' the cud -- sounds like regurgitation to me!"
Our other key word here is 'alah, and it is found in some grammatical form on literally every page of the OT. This is because it is a word that encompasses many concepts other than "bring up." It also can mean ascend up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up, and much more. It is a catch-all verb form describing the moving of something to another place. (The literal rendering here is, "maketh the gerah to 'alah.")

Now in the verses in question, 'alah is used as a participle. Let's look at the other verses where it is used this way (NIV only implies some of these phrases; where in parentheses, the phrase is in the original, sometimes in the KJV):

Josh. 24:17 It was the Lord our God himself who brought us and our fathers up out of Egypt....

1 Sam. 7:10 While Samuel was sacrificing (offering) the burnt offering...

Nahum 3:3 Charging cavalry, flashing swords (lifted), and glittering spears!

Isaiah 8:7 ...therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the River...

2 Chron. 24:14 When they had finished, they brought the rest of the money...

Ps. 135:7 He makes clouds rise (up) from the ends of the earth...

2 Sam. 6:15 ...while he and the entire house of Israel brought the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets. (Similar quote, 1 Chr. 15:28)

So: the Hebrew word is question is NOT specific to the process of regurgitation; it is a phrase of general movement. And related to the specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does "maketh" the previously digested material to "come" out of the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does) and does thereafter does chew "predigested material"! The mistake is in our applying of the scientific terms of rumination to something that does not require it.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:37:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2005 7:39:27 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By TROJANII:

And for all our "wisdom" and insight, we STILL say the sun is setting, implying the sun is moving, not the earth. Man! Are we stupid!



I actually agree with that, its a statement that is correct given an earthly frame of reference.

The problem is its supposed to be the inerrant word of an all knowing God. Why would His book have an earthly frame of reference?

It makes sense if the human who was God's vessel had a say in the editorial process. If so, the Bible is not God's word, but God's word as told by _unknownauthor_


Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:43:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2005 7:43:46 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By TROJANII:


Please see this site regarding your rabbits chewing cud issue. http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html



That whole argument boils down to an error on the part of the Jewish writer who was not a biologist.

The problem is its supposed to be inerrant and the word of God. Does God not know the difference?

Its a mistake that makes perfect sense if the writer had a say in the editoral process. In which case the Bible is inspired, but not inerrant.

It doesn't matter how the error showed up, if there is an error in the Bible then it is not inerrant.

Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:52:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By TROJANII:

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:


There are some parts of the Bible I do not take literally. Apololyptic literature and poetry, for instance, are not places to build your theology. They are not meant to be taken literally. Genesis is a narrative of what happened. Take it literally. Something learned in hermeneutics, I guess.

The Bible is obviously inaccurate in other places? Says who? Whose wisdom do you use to decide which parts are accurate? The Holy Spirit? No, the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible and the Bible claims to be accurate. Man's wisdom? It's pretty arrogant to criticize a book that claims to be from God. Sure, there are grammatical differences between early copies of the Bible. So what? The factual data is still there, and it's still good. Archaeology continues to confirm the truth of the Bible. On what do you base this presupposition that the Bible is obviously errant?



That the sun goes around the earth, the earth is flat, the earth is set on pillars or a foundation etc, fitting all those animals on the ark, that snakes eat dirt, rabbits chew cud blah blah blah there are tons of these examples when you google it.



Chapter/verse?




Sun stuff: Psalms

19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, (19:4-6)
The sun moves around the earth.
19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
19:6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

Flat
Ezekial
7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.

There are many references in the Bible to the earth being flat and the sky being kind of a solid bowl over the earth.

Noah took two (or 7) of each animal on the ark, do you need a verse for this one?

Rabbits
Leviticus
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Snakes
Genesis
3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:



http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat?

No, this false idea is not taught in Scripture!
Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the "four corners" of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the "language of appearance," just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. [DD]

In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]

A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."

Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]

The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM]

Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth "within 50 miles of the present estimate." [Encyclopedia Brittanica]

The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a flat disk with oceans around it. [JSM]

The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. [DD]

The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, "In that day," then in verse 34, "In that night." This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously. [JSM]

"When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate." [DD]



Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:54:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By TROJANII:

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:


There are some parts of the Bible I do not take literally. Apololyptic literature and poetry, for instance, are not places to build your theology. They are not meant to be taken literally. Genesis is a narrative of what happened. Take it literally. Something learned in hermeneutics, I guess.

The Bible is obviously inaccurate in other places? Says who? Whose wisdom do you use to decide which parts are accurate? The Holy Spirit? No, the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible and the Bible claims to be accurate. Man's wisdom? It's pretty arrogant to criticize a book that claims to be from God. Sure, there are grammatical differences between early copies of the Bible. So what? The factual data is still there, and it's still good. Archaeology continues to confirm the truth of the Bible. On what do you base this presupposition that the Bible is obviously errant?



That the sun goes around the earth, the earth is flat, the earth is set on pillars or a foundation etc, fitting all those animals on the ark, that snakes eat dirt, rabbits chew cud blah blah blah there are tons of these examples when you google it.



Chapter/verse?




Sun stuff: Psalms

19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, (19:4-6)
The sun moves around the earth.
19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
19:6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

Flat
Ezekial
7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.

There are many references in the Bible to the earth being flat and the sky being kind of a solid bowl over the earth.

Noah took two (or 7) of each animal on the ark, do you need a verse for this one?

Rabbits
Leviticus
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Snakes
Genesis
3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:



When you follow too close on a dirt road, are you "eating" dust? Surely, if you crawled on the ground like a snake, you would "eat" dust, if not intentionally.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:55:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By TROJANII:

And for all our "wisdom" and insight, we STILL say the sun is setting, implying the sun is moving, not the earth. Man! Are we stupid!



I actually agree with that, its a statement that is correct given an earthly frame of reference.

The problem is its supposed to be the inerrant word of an all knowing God. Why would His book have an earthly frame of reference?

It makes sense if the human who was God's vessel had a say in the editorial process. If so, the Bible is not God's word, but God's word as told by _unknownauthor_

Because it was written by earthly author, inspired by God.



Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:57:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By TROJANII:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By Dino:

You neglect to mention that he didn't create the sun until day 3, so your definition of a day would hardly apply. I expect to know evolution better than you, but its sad when you don't even understand your own holy book.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.







    Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
    Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
    Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.



On day one he created the sun so there was light and darkness, a 24 hour cycle. On day three the moon and stars were created to rule the night. By day three God had made the sun and moon, the sun on day one and the moon on day three.

Shok



LOL

Apparently its not literal when it conflicts with your worldview eh?

Any other places where you have to use that interesting brand of rationalization to make things fit?




The only mistake on the first day issue I saw in an earlier post was the source of the light.



If you read Genesis literally then light was created on the first day (from what we have no idea, because the sun was not created until the 3rd day)

Since the sun wasn't created until day 3, then we have 2 days where our current understanding of what a day is does not apply.

The greater light (aka the sun) was not created until day 3, any other reading of the Bible is non-literal.

There is no such thing as a true Biblical literalist, every one of them twists the words when the meaning is illogical or uncomfortable to their worldview. Which is exactly what they accuse non-literalists of.




You are forgetting the greatest light, the Son.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top