PDA

View Full Version : Noah's Ark


Pages : [1] 2

revefsreleets
12-07-2009, 03:09 PM
This thread is a corollary to another, but it deserves it's own thread.

The offseason may be approaching much faster than ANY of us anticipated. So why not start the locker room talk early?

I have questions for the people on this board who believe that the bible should be literally interpreted. Noah's Ark is a great place to start:


Is it true that the dimensions of the Ark were 155 meters long, 25 meters wide and 15 meters high and it was to contain three decks, a side-opening door and a one-cubit square window at the top?

Where did Noah fit the 30 million known pairs of species?

How did Noah load all these animals in the 24 hours the bible said it took to load them? 460 animals and organisms entered PER SECOND?

How did the very few people on the Ark feed these millions of animals?

Where did the waste of all these animals go? I mean, there are a LOT of stalls to clean, no?

How did community organisms like bee's survive if there was only a pair?

How did Noah gather animals that were undiscovered at that point (assuming that ALL animals existed, since the World is only 6,000 years old)? Like animals from Australia?

Where did the Dinosaurs go?

This is only the beginning of the questions I have...the veritable tip of the iceberg...just want to dip my toe and see what response I get...

SteelCityMom
12-07-2009, 03:23 PM
I don't know how any others on this board feel, but I've looked into this before, about how Creationists feel about it. It's hard to imagine how some of themselves take their "research" seriously...but here's some of the answers you're looking for lol.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/caring-for-the-animals

revefsreleets
12-07-2009, 03:39 PM
LOL...

What Did the Dinosaurs Eat?

Dinosaurs could have eaten basically the same foods as the other animals. The large sauropods could have eaten compressed hay, other dried plant material, seeds and grains, and the like. Carnivorous dinosaurs—if any were meat-eaters before the Flood—could have eaten dried meat, reconstituted dried meat, or slaughtered animals. Giant tortoises would have been ideal to use as food in this regard. They were large and needed little food to be maintained themselves. There are also exotic sources of meat, such as fish that wrap themselves in dry cocoons.


Um....errrr....the Dino's shared the Ark with Noah? 6,000 years ago? That's wrong in many ways...the explanation of the Creationist for the DISAPPEARANCE of the dinosaurs IS Noah's flood...

SteelCityMom
12-07-2009, 04:09 PM
It depends on which Creationist you ask I guess...some of them are just all over the place.

"Dinosaurs were also explained. According to John Whitcomb, co-author of the seminal creationist book, The Genesis Flood (1961), Noah's ark carried 1,000 different kinds of dinosaurs as well as all of the other species, and the book has sold more than a quarter of a million copies in English.

Considered the father of modern creationism, Whitcomb is critical of those who accept progressive creationism or intelligent design."

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20050721/creationists-explain-dinosaurs-ice-age-flood-big-bang/index.html

"A vegetarian Tyrannosaurus rex frolicked alongside human beings only a few thousand years ago in the Garden of Eden until Eve decided to munch on that apple, according to the Creation Museum, which opens in Kentucky today.

The $27 million (Ł14 million) exhibition is funded by evangelical Christians, who apparently believe that by reclaiming dinosaurs and fossils for their literal biblical interpretation of natural history, teenagers are less likely to look at internet pornography or get pregnant out of wedlock.

This sprawling 50-acre (20hectare) site is the latest effort to counter the evolutionary science taught in state schools that Answers in Genesis, the religious group behind the museum, claims has chipped away at the nation’s moral fabric.

It uses much of the same technology seen in mainstream museums. There are realistic moving, roaring dinosaurs and a lifesized model of a ship being built by animatronic craftsmen. In this corner of northern Kentucky the dinosaurs get to go on the ship, which happens to be none other than Noah’s Ark."

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article1848419.ece

"In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate (seven of the “clean” animals) were brought by God to the Ark. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/04/03/dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark

"If Dinosaurs were extinct before the flood, then the enormous force from a coastless current would have destroyed any fossilized remains. So we know they could not have died millions of years ago like some believe.

Also, thousands of gallons of running water are needed to fossilize an animal buried in the huge sedimentary deposits caused by the flood.

The very presence of dinosaur fossils today is (in part) proof that they existed up to the time of the flood. So if they were still alive in the days of Noah, then he would have had to take them on board with him.

God said to take "Two of each kind" of animal on to the ark."

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dino_ark.html

There's so much more too...delving into the writings of Creationists is truly an adventure.

BlastFurnace
12-07-2009, 05:54 PM
This thread is a corollary to another, but it deserves it's own thread.

The offseason may be approaching much faster than ANY of us anticipated. So why not start the locker room talk early?

I have questions for the people on this board who believe that the bible should be literally interpreted. Noah's Ark is a great place to start:


Is it true that the dimensions of the Ark were 155 meters long, 25 meters wide and 15 meters high and it was to contain three decks, a side-opening door and a one-cubit square window at the top?

Where did Noah fit the 30 million known pairs of species?

How did Noah load all these animals in the 24 hours the bible said it took to load them? 460 animals and organisms entered PER SECOND?

How did the very few people on the Ark feed these millions of animals?

Where did the waste of all these animals go? I mean, there are a LOT of stalls to clean, no?

How did community organisms like bee's survive if there was only a pair?

How did Noah gather animals that were undiscovered at that point (assuming that ALL animals existed, since the World is only 6,000 years old)? Like animals from Australia?

Where did the Dinosaurs go?

This is only the beginning of the questions I have...the veritable tip of the iceberg...just want to dip my toe and see what response I get...

I am a Christian, but I am not scholared like someone like Preacher, but I will take a stab at this:

Where did Noah fit the 30 million known pairs of species?: Roughly 1656 years passed between the Creation and the Flood. The Bible does not indicate the amount of animal species that were present on the earth at the time. Most Bible Scholars state that there was 30,000 or less animals on the Ark at that time, but we don't know that for sure. It also doesn't indicate the age or maturity of each of the animals that were taken on board. Additionally, Noah’s ark was built only to float, not to ail anywhere. Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a "barge" shape, not a pointed "boat" shape. This would greatly increase the cargo capacity.

How did Noah load all these animals in the 24 hours the bible said it took to load them? 460 animals and organisms entered PER SECOND? The Bible indicates that the animals came to Noah (Gen 7:9) and entered the Ark. I'm not sure where you are getting the 24 hour period, but the Bible indicates that God told Noah 7 days prior to the flood waters advancing to get his family and the animals on the boat (Genesis 7:4:11). Again, there is no evidence that there were as many animals as you indicate, but what I do know is the kind of animals that were put on the boat and that God directed the animals to Noah.


How did the very few people on the Ark feed these millions of animals?

God commanded Noah to store every kind of food for himself, his family, and for the animals (Genesis 6:21). It is also indicated that Noah did all that God had commanded him to do (Genesis 6:22). There have been studies on this very topic showing that it is possible for 8 people, working around 60 hours a week, could feed this many animals. Additionally, from everything I know about God and his power, it was God's power working through those 8 people that fed those animals. When God calls people to do something, he equips them to do it.

Where did the waste of all these animals go? I mean, there are a LOT of stalls to clean, no? - The Bible doesn't indicate anything about how they did this. That's not to say that there wasn't something that God had Noah build within the ark to take care of this either.

How did Noah gather animals that were undiscovered at that point (assuming that ALL animals existed, since the World is only 6,000 years old)? Like animals from Australia? - I answered this one before. According to the Bible, God directed the animals to come to Noah (Gen 7:9). We must consider the fact that only every "kind" of animal needs to go on the ark. Not every species of that kind. This is an important point. It reduces the number of animals (living and extinct) from millions, to thousands!

Where did the Dinosaurs go? - The Bible does not list the names of every creature on the Ark. It does say that one set of every kind of air-breathing animal was on board (Genesis 6:19-20, 7:15-16). To me, that indicates that Dinosaurs were on the ark. There is evidence that large animals were on the earth after the flood as well...as Job mentions the Behemoth. Again, as far as the maturity of the animal, we don't know that, but what we do know, from the dimensions described in scripture, that there was room enough for them. Taking a younger dinosaur would allow for less food consumption by them, less room taken up, and possibly easier care.

Preacher
12-07-2009, 07:18 PM
This thread is a corollary to another, but it deserves it's own thread.

The offseason may be approaching much faster than ANY of us anticipated. So why not start the locker room talk early?

I have questions for the people on this board who believe that the bible should be literally interpreted. Noah's Ark is a great place to start:


Is it true that the dimensions of the Ark were 155 meters long, 25 meters wide and 15 meters high and it was to contain three decks, a side-opening door and a one-cubit square window at the top?

Where did Noah fit the 30 million known pairs of species?

How did Noah load all these animals in the 24 hours the bible said it took to load them? 460 animals and organisms entered PER SECOND?

How did the very few people on the Ark feed these millions of animals?

Where did the waste of all these animals go? I mean, there are a LOT of stalls to clean, no?

How did community organisms like bee's survive if there was only a pair?

How did Noah gather animals that were undiscovered at that point (assuming that ALL animals existed, since the World is only 6,000 years old)? Like animals from Australia?

Where did the Dinosaurs go?

This is only the beginning of the questions I have...the veritable tip of the iceberg...just want to dip my toe and see what response I get...


:rofl:

You REALLY don't have any hope for the playoffs do you? :chuckle:

These are great questions which I don't have time to answer (one thread takes up most of my free time right now... I am WAY behind), but I think, (and we will discuss this later), the answers come from both 1. Misinterpretation and 2., a little too simplistic look at the narrative from your part (seeing it as a children's story from the bible, instead of the depth of the narrative, as it relates to number 1).

Remind me in a few days or so, and I will get into this a bit more. Deal?

xfl2001fan
12-08-2009, 07:33 AM
If the only human survivors were Noah, his 3 sons and their wives...does that mean that the rest of mankind was recreated from incest?

That would explain so much about the state of the world today. :flap:

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-08-2009, 07:50 AM
Not an expert...but since I am 43 and can figure out that its logistically easier to gather and feed "baby" animals.....I'm guessing that a 500 year old Noah could figure the same thing out.

:chuckle:

Just saying.

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-08-2009, 07:51 AM
If the only human survivors were Noah, his 3 sons and their wives...does that mean that the rest of mankind was recreated from incest?

That would explain so much about the state of the world today. :flap:

It certainly explains Tim Lumber.

The_WARDen
12-08-2009, 08:41 AM
I didn't know people still believed in that fairy tale.

:noidea:

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 09:33 AM
If the only human survivors were Noah, his 3 sons and their wives...does that mean that the rest of mankind was recreated from incest?

That would explain so much about the state of the world today. :flap:

That would be the 2nd time that occurred. The children of Adam and Eve did the same thing.

I believe what the Bible says about creation and have never doubted that it occurred just the way the Bible says it did.

Godfather
12-08-2009, 09:38 AM
That would be the 2nd time that occurred. The children of Adam and Eve did the same thing.

I believe what the Bible says about creation and have never doubted that it occurred just the way the Bible says it did.

We're all related if you go back far enough. Scientists agree with that.

xfl2001fan
12-08-2009, 09:57 AM
We're all related if you go back far enough. Scientists agree with that.

Yes, the just disagree on whether it's via Fish or Monkey's. :flap:

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 09:59 AM
Yes, the just disagree on whether it's via Fish or Monkey's. :flap:

I don't believe it was either one of those. Scientists can't prove that it was either or both of them neither regardless of what they say.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 09:59 AM
It certainly explains Tim Lumber.

Who is Tim Lumbar?

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-08-2009, 10:39 AM
I didn't know people still believed in that fairy tale.

:noidea:

If you dont...please try and not be rude towards others faith.

xfl2001fan
12-08-2009, 10:41 AM
I don't believe it was either one of those. Scientists can't prove that it was either or both of them neither regardless of what they say.

So some scientists believe it's a Fish (which they can't prove) or Monkey (which they can't prove) and so you discount them based on lack of proof.

What's your belief?
Now prove it! (Well, it's been discounted).


There are a great number of mysteries in life with which will never be answered in our lifetime. True proof doesn't exist...only faith based on personal choices. Some choose to go the scientific route and discount the religious aspects. Others choose the religious route and discount the scientific method. Some take the middle ground (somewhere in between) and others choose to not think on it at all (or as little as possible) realizing the futility of it (or cuz they're just too darn lazy to be bothered with it.)

That's life.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 10:50 AM
So some scientists believe it's a Fish (which they can't prove) or Monkey (which they can't prove) and so you discount them based on lack of proof.

What's your belief?
Now prove it! (Well, it's been discounted).


There are a great number of mysteries in life with which will never be answered in our lifetime. True proof doesn't exist...only faith based on personal choices. Some choose to go the scientific route and discount the religious aspects. Others choose the religious route and discount the scientific method. Some take the middle ground (somewhere in between) and others choose to not think on it at all (or as little as possible) realizing the futility of it (or cuz they're just too darn lazy to be bothered with it.)

That's life.

I wasn't there at the Creation to be able to visually prove it.

What I do know is that there has never been an archeological or historical find that has ever contradicted what the Bible teaches. Archeologists have said that cities didn't exist that the Bible said did...and what happens...these cities have been discovered. People have been trying to disprove events in the Bible for years, but never with success.

The Bible's historical track record speaks for itself and that is why it has credibility with me. I believe what God's word says....even though I never saw it. It goes beyond the faith that I have.

People don't want to acknowledge that historical evidences in the Bible are true....because if they did...it would mean that they would have to acknowledge the other words contained it in are true as well.

Scientists state the things they do as if they are fact. Teachers in school teach evolution (Fish, Monkey, etc) to my children as if it is fact...I know because I have been asked questions about it. My college professors were teaching evolution as fact despite not having enough evidence to prove that man came from some tadpole. When these people are challenged, they respond as if you don't know what you are talking about....even though down deep...they know they can't prove their theory at all.

The bottom line in all of this is that people don't want to acknowledge that the Bible is true because that would necessitate a change in a lot of lifestyles in the world.

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 11:05 AM
I wasn't there at the Creation to be able to visually prove it.

What I do know is that there has never been an archeological or historical find that has ever contradicted what the Bible teaches. Archeologists have said that cities didn't exist that the Bible said did...and what happens...these cities have been discovered. People have been trying to disprove events in the Bible for years, but never with success.

The Bible's historical track record speaks for itself and that is why it has credibility with me. I believe what God's word says....even though I never saw it. It goes beyond the faith that I have.

People don't want to acknowledge that historical evidences in the Bible are true....because if they did...it would mean that they would have to acknowledge the other words contained it in are true as well.

Scientists state the things they do as if they are fact. Teachers in school teach evolution (Fish, Monkey, etc) to my children as if it is fact...I know because I have been asked questions about it. My college professors were teaching evolution as fact despite not having enough evidence to prove that man came from some tadpole. When these people are challenged, they respond as if you don't know what you are talking about....even though down deep...they know they can't prove their theory at all.

The bottom line in all of this is that people don't want to acknowledge that the Bible is true because that would necessitate a change in a lot of lifestyles in the world.

You could use this reverse logic on religious folks as well. Some think that if one thing in the Bible is proven to be not true than the whole idea of it could come crumbling down.

One thing that science leaves the door open for is change and interpretation. Science presents theories which can be debated and changed over time depending on new discoveries. Religion is very stagnant and unchanging. The reason (IMO) that Creationists want to believe that the stories of Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark are true is, like I mentioned previously, if one thing is not 100% true to them in the Bible, then nothing in it can be right. Nevermind the fact that the flood story very much predates Noah and the Bible in multiple civilizations. Creationists somehow believe that if one thing is wrong in the Bible, that makes God fallible (nevermind that man wrote the book) and it would somehow shatter their faith. Science, like I said, doesn't work like that. New things are discovered and incorporated into existing theories every day.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 11:19 AM
You could use this reverse logic on religious folks as well. Some think that if one thing in the Bible is proven to be not true than the whole idea of it could come crumbling down.

One thing that science leaves the door open for is change and interpretation. Science presents theories which can be debated and changed over time depending on new discoveries. Religion is very stagnant and unchanging. The reason (IMO) that Creationists want to believe that the stories of Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark are true is, like I mentioned previously, if one thing is not 100% true to them in the Bible, then nothing in it can be right. Nevermind the fact that the flood story very much predates Noah and the Bible in multiple civilizations. Creationists somehow believe that if one thing is wrong in the Bible, that makes God fallible (nevermind that man wrote the book) and it would somehow shatter their faith. Science, like I said, doesn't work like that. New things are discovered and incorporated into existing theories every day.

The point is though, that there hasn't been a discovery that has contradicted Biblical history yet. Men have been trying for years and haven't come up with a single one yet. Every single time they have said a civilization did not exist, over time, that very civilization is found.

Arguments in past centuries among man were debated on whether the earth was round or flat...In Isaiah 40:22, the Bible said that it was round centuries before man finally figured that out.

There is no way to prove that stories of the flood predate Noah. Where can you prove that? If by fossils or layers of the earth, that has been proven to be fallable and highly open to interpretation. If anything, the stores from other civilizations prove that the flood did take place, which validates what the Bible says about the topic.

The equal argument can be made is that man is fearful to face the fact that the Bible might be 100% accurate as well. That is why they try so hard to disprove it. and even come up with theories that they know are not accurate and pass them on as fact. The problem with Scientists theories is that even when their theories come "crumbling down", they just come up with a new theory. It's a never ending cycle with them.

revefsreleets
12-08-2009, 12:10 PM
I'm sorry, but you guys lost me at "Dinosaurs on the Ark"....

So the explanation is that Noah had around 30,000 baby animals. What about all the baby animals that need special attention and care....wouldn't that sap up an awful lot of time? And how did these few people become so knowledgeable in Zoology as to be able to care for 30,000 individual baby animals for 40 days? Some of these animals eat many times their body weight each week, so we are still talking about a LOT of food. And i still can't imagine what 30,000 animals, even baby ones, crapping all over the Ark for 40 days must've smelled like, let alone the logistics of cleaning it all up...

How about fish? There are fish that live only in fresh water, and fish that live only in salt water. If there's a big flood, and 95% of the worlds water is salt water (from the Oceans), wouldn't that like kill all the fresh water fish? Did Noah have some big-assed aquariums on the Ark, too?

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 12:11 PM
The point is though, that there hasn't been a discovery that has contradicted Biblical history yet. Men have been trying for years and haven't come up with a single one yet. Every single time they have said a civilization did not exist, over time, that very civilization is found.

Arguments in past centuries among man were debated on whether the earth was round or flat...In Isaiah 40:22, the Bible said that it was round centuries before man finally figured that out.

There is no way to prove that stories of the flood predate Noah. Where can you prove that? If by fossils or layers of the earth, that has been proven to be fallable and highly open to interpretation. If anything, the stores from other civilizations prove that the flood did take place, which validates what the Bible says about the topic.

The equal argument can be made is that man is fearful to face the fact that the Bible might be 100% accurate as well. That is why they try so hard to disprove it. and even come up with theories that they know are not accurate and pass them on as fact. The problem with Scientists theories is that even when their theories come "crumbling down", they just come up with a new theory. It's a never ending cycle with them.

As well it should be a never ending circle with science. If one theory is proven wrong, then it is replaced. It's part of expanding knowledge. Like I said, Creationists (and many other religious beliefs) leave no room for this. There is only one fact and it can never ever be wrong, or the whole thing has to be wrong. It's a very warped logic IMO.

As for the flood myths...yes there is proof of flood myth stories predating Noah's ark (which was recorded around 2nd century BCE), some by thousands of years. Sumer, Babylonia and Greece to name a few. The Epic of Gilgamesh is the best known one, and information on it is easily accessible. One that is older than it is Sumerian myth of Eridu Genesis.

"The oldest recorded occurrence of the flood myth dates from roughly 2800 BCE. Called the Eridu Genesis, the fragmentary tale describes a Sumerian priest-king named Ziusudra who builds a boat at the command of a god, Enki, who has warned that the gods plan to destroy life on earth with a flood. The deluge lasts seven days, after which Ziusudra makes a sacrifice to the gods An and Enlil, receives immortality, and sets about repopulating the world. There has been speculation that this particular story, as well as many other flood myths, derives from an actual event — the ancient Sumerian King List mentions a catastrophic flood that occurred in 2900 BCE — but so far there is no ironclad evidence supporting this view."

http://ancienthistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/prechristian_versions_of_noahs_ark

Also, by saying that there is no ironclad evidence that the story of Noah's Ark was not the first and only real flood myth, you have to accept that there is no ironclad evidence to support that it is. The only evidence that can be used is carbon-dating of the records of these stories, and as of now, they show that the stories of Noah's Ark were not the first or only legend of a type of flood myth.

I'm not here trying to tell you that everything that scientists discover is absolute fact, I'm just saying that I prefer the scientific method because it leaves the door open for interpretation. I'm not saying that the Bible is 100% false either. For all I know, it could be 100% true, but I'm not going to just blindly believe everything in it, just as I do not blindly believe every scientific theory that has ever and will ever be presented. Both have the possibility of being wrong in my eyes.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 12:14 PM
I'm sorry, but you guys lost me at "Dinosaurs on the Ark"....

How about fish? There are fish that live only in fresh water, and fish that live only in salt water. If there's a big flood, and 95% of the worlds water is salt water (from the Oceans), wouldn't that like kill all the fresh water fish? Did Noah have some big-assed aquariums on the Ark, too?

Why would Noah need to bring fish onto the Ark? Their natural habitat is water. The earth was flooded with water. Noah just left them in their natural habitat.

revefsreleets
12-08-2009, 12:17 PM
Why would Noah need to bring fish onto the Ark? Their natural habitat is water. The earth was flooded with water. Noah just left them in their natural habitat.

Again, drop a fresh water fish in the Ocean and it will be dead in 10 minutes. The VAST majority of water on this planet is salt water, so this would have resulted in basically a planet covered in salt water diluted with and extra 5% fresh water. This flood lasted for 40 days...and I'm guessing the fresh water supply was tainted for years after...

Vincent
12-08-2009, 12:30 PM
An amusing Bill Cosby routine from the distant past...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n0KHt8xrQkk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n0KHt8xrQkk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Disclaimer: Not posted to take any position on the subject, but just because it is an amusing bit of comedy history. Haven't heard it in 40 years, so it sounds "different" from what I remember, but the words seem the same. This originally came out on a vinyl LP.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 12:34 PM
As well it should be a never ending circle with science. If one theory is proven wrong, then it is replaced. It's part of expanding knowledge. Like I said, Creationists (and many other religious beliefs) leave no room for this. There is only one fact and it can never ever be wrong, or the whole thing has to be wrong. It's a very warped logic IMO.

As for the flood myths...yes there is proof of flood myth stories predating Noah's ark (which was recorded around 2nd century BCE), some by thousands of years. Sumer, Babylonia and Greece to name a few. The Epic of Gilgamesh is the best known one, and information on it is easily accessible. One that is older than it is Sumerian myth of Eridu Genesis.

"The oldest recorded occurrence of the flood myth dates from roughly 2800 BCE. Called the Eridu Genesis, the fragmentary tale describes a Sumerian priest-king named Ziusudra who builds a boat at the command of a god, Enki, who has warned that the gods plan to destroy life on earth with a flood. The deluge lasts seven days, after which Ziusudra makes a sacrifice to the gods An and Enlil, receives immortality, and sets about repopulating the world. There has been speculation that this particular story, as well as many other flood myths, derives from an actual event — the ancient Sumerian King List mentions a catastrophic flood that occurred in 2900 BCE — but so far there is no ironclad evidence supporting this view."

http://ancienthistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/prechristian_versions_of_noahs_ark

Also, by saying that there is no ironclad evidence that the story of Noah's Ark was not the first and only real flood myth, you have to accept that there is no ironclad evidence to support that it is. The only evidence that can be used is carbon-dating of the records of these stories, and as of now, they show that the stories of Noah's Ark were not the first or only legend of a type of flood myth.

I'm not here trying to tell you that everything that scientists discover is absolute fact, I'm just saying that I prefer the scientific method because it leaves the door open for interpretation. I'm not saying that the Bible is 100% false either. For all I know, it could be 100% true, but I'm not going to just blindly believe everything in it, just as I do not blindly believe every scientific theory that has ever and will ever be presented. Both have the possibility of being wrong in my eyes.

The belief that I have the Noah's account was the first account of the flood is what I mentioned before. Biblical history ha been proven over and over again...despite man's efforts to disprove it. Why shouldn't I believe that what the Bible says is exactly what happened. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that it didn't happen that way.

As far as the other accounts of the flood and saying that they pre-date Noah...that is just someone's guess. The flood took place 1656 years after the Creation account in Genesis 1 and 2. Yes, I am sure that other civilizations told of the event to their ancestors, but back in those times, that is what they traditionally did with their own history. As an example, it is recorded in the Bible over and over again how the Israelites were to tell their children what God had done in their history. I am sure that other civilizations did the same exact thing before the nation of Israel was established. Keep in mind, that the languages were confused in Genesis 11 at the tower of Babel, which falls around 1800 years after the Creation. After the flood, the earth was re-populated beginning with Noah's son's and their wives...who had the first hand account of the flood. The story of the flood was just passed down from them...and then after the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11...it was probably passed down, written down as well for the descendents of those people. After God confused their language, he scattered these people throughout the earth (Genesis 11:9). From the creationists point of view, that's how the story ended up in so many different cultures. Again, there is absolutely no proof that any of these civilizations that you mention pre-date Noah.

I don't blindly believe everything in the Bible either, but I do read it every day and have questioned things myself. What I come back to every single time is the trustworthiness of each account it describes and how each attempt to discredit it has been thwarted. The Bible, It's history, and Credibility have endured over time and will continue to do so.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 12:44 PM
Again, drop a fresh water fish in the Ocean and it will be dead in 10 minutes. The VAST majority of water on this planet is salt water, so this would have resulted in basically a planet covered in salt water diluted with and extra 5% fresh water. This flood lasted for 40 days...and I'm guessing the fresh water supply was tainted for years after...

I don't have a problem with your illustration of the fresh water fish and the salt water for today's world...but how do you know what the water was like 1656 years after the Creation and how do you know that the fish that lived at that time were not able to adapt to their surroundings? Obviously, these fish were able to survive the flood because fish were recorded as living in the Bible after the flood. Comparing today's salinity in the Ocean with what it was like centures ago is complete guesswork. What I do know, is that the fish survived.

Also, God instructed Noah to take every kind of Bird and every animal that walks on the ground (Genesis 6:20). He never mentioned anything about fish. That tells me that God sustained the fish in the water. What God destroyed with the flood were things on the ground. Additionally, speaking of fish...many fish species today have the capacity to adapt to both fresh and salt water within their own lifetimes. They probably had the same ability to live in both environments back then as well.

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 12:46 PM
The belief that I have the Noah's account was the first account of the flood is what I mentioned before. Biblical history ha been proven over and over again...despite man's efforts to disprove it. Why shouldn't I believe that what the Bible says is exactly what happened. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that it didn't happen that way.

As far as the other accounts of the flood and saying that they pre-date Noah...that is just someone's guess. The flood took place 1656 years after the Creation account in Genesis 1 and 2. Yes, I am sure that other civilizations told of the event to their ancestors, but back in those times, that is what they traditionally did with their own history. As an example, it is recorded in the Bible over and over again how the Israelites were to tell their children what God had done in their history. I am sure that other civilizations did the same exact thing before the nation of Israel was established. Keep in mind, that the languages were confused in Genesis 11 at the tower of Babel, which falls around 1800 years after the Creation. After the flood, the earth was re-populated beginning with Noah's son's and their wives...who had the first hand account of the flood. The story of the flood was just passed down from them...and then after the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11...it was probably passed down, written down as well for the descendents of those people. After God confused their language, he scattered these people throughout the earth (Genesis 11:9). From the creationists point of view, that's how the story ended up in so many different cultures. Again, there is absolutely no proof that any of these civilizations that you mention pre-date Noah.

I don't blindly believe everything in the Bible either, but I do read it every day and have questioned things myself. What I come back to every single time is the trustworthiness of each account it describes and how each attempt to discredit it has been thwarted. The Bible, It's history, and Credibility have endured over time and will continue to do so.

I have a hard time believing you when you say that you don't just blindly believe what the Bible has to say, but you will discount things like carbon dating of archeological finds that show that there are flood stories that are thousands of years older than the one of Noah.

Again, there is absolutely no proof that any of these civilizations that you mention pre-date Noah.

Seriously? There's no proof that the Sumerians, Egyptians and Babylonians predate Noah? Do you even give an ounce of credit to anything science has to offer at all?

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 01:14 PM
I have a hard time believing you when you say that you don't just blindly believe what the Bible has to say, but you will discount things like carbon dating of archeological finds that show that there are flood stories that are thousands of years older than the one of Noah.



Seriously? There's no proof that the Sumerians, Egyptians and Babylonians predate Noah? Do you even give an ounce of credit to anything science has to offer at all?

Ho do you know if they pre-dated Noah? How does science positively know that these civilizations pre-date Noah? Because the Ark has not been positively found, there is absolulety no way to prove that any of these civilizations pre-date Noah's existence. What I have shown you, from the Tower of Babel, is how the story of the flood did spread to other civilizations.

The Bible explains how civilizations came to be from the Creation to the Flood and afterwards. Science does nothing but guess as to how this took place and even they don't agree. Although science does offer some truth, because enough of it has changed and been proven wrong over time, why should I put my trust in something that is always changing?

There is plenty of questions about the validity of carbon dating in the science world itself. Why should I take that with any kind of credibility when the science community doesn't even agree on it's validity. Science also makes the assumption that the rate of decay has always been the same in the past over the many centuries. This is something that is not verifiable so the rate of decay can never really be a fact.

I give plenty of credence to what science offers, when it can positively prove what they teach. When they mention theories and testwork that they can't even agree on as valid...that they know they can't prove, then I have to question what they say. Believe me, I heard my college professors (at UT Austin) put digs at the Bible quite a bit, but when you approach them and ask them for proof of what they say, they can't do it. They just fall back on their "education" and accuse you of being ignorant. I'm sorry, but that doesn't prove anything.

And yes, I do question things I read in the Bible. Admittedly, I have not found one reason though to doubt what it says yet though.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 01:14 PM
The density of logical fallacy in these two sentences is approaching irrational critical mass.

Explain

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-08-2009, 01:42 PM
Rev

I have to question your motives for creating this thread. You dont believe in God and dont believe in the literal view of Biblical history. So my question to you would be....

What exactly can a believer tell you that would make you change your mind? If the answer is nothing, then why the need for a post and why try and minimilize others Faith?

Seriously. With your posts on Jesus and then after reading this thread....I dont think that I am the only one to sense a "hostile" attitude towards Christianity.

Why the need to "prove" something through the creation of a thread? A discourse on beliefs would be welcome, but your posts are beginning to reek of arrogant disregard of what others hold sacred.

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-08-2009, 01:46 PM
Anybody else care to join in on this one?

We've got circular logic, burden of proof, genetic fallacy, relativism, begging the question, factual error....

Please apply the same rules to Macro-Evolution, then come back and tell me if it can past the same litmus test you apply to faith based beliefs.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 01:47 PM
Anybody else care to join in on this one?

We've got circular logic, burden of proof, genetic fallacy, relativism, begging the question, factual error....

Again...please explain.

if you are going to make this claim...please explain.

stlrtruck
12-08-2009, 01:59 PM
It takes as much faith to believe something is, as it does to believe that it isn't.

Some people want to believe in science because it has tangible results, although those results - at times - are flawed and inaccurate. They also can not prove or disprove biblical events, although they have found remains of animals in areas where they ought not be (and no I don't have a link, I'm recalling studies that were brought up in my biology class in college).

Some people choose to believe the bible, the written word of God. Without a seeable foundation to stand on, their faith is their test. To believe God at His word that these things happened.

After the different paths I've walked, I've turned my head to the heavens. Trust in God's Holy Word that those events in the bible are factual, and that one day God will enlighten me as how it all went down. Until then, I'll trust His Word over a man-made science.

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-08-2009, 02:10 PM
Look... people have an irrational desire to believe certain things are true whether the belief is justified by the facts or not and they get snippy when their beliefs are challenged.

You mean like.....global warming?

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 02:16 PM
Look... people have an irrational desire to believe certain things are true whether the belief is justified by the facts or not and they get snippy when their beliefs are challenged. Can't be helped. It's really not a personal attack to point out the obvious discrepancies, so please don't jump defensive. You're going to go on believing whatever you want to believe regardless of what I have to say about it.

I'm not getting snippy about anything. I have had a discussion with Revs and SCM that has gone great.

Where have I gotten snippy with anyone in this discussion?

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 02:21 PM
circular logic- The bible is infallible, thus everything in it is true. Since everything in it is true, the bible must be infallible.
burden of proof- It is incumbent upon you to prove that the bible is true. It is not incumbent upon anybody else to prove it false.
genetic fallacy- Science is at odds with religion. Therefore science is wrong.
relativism- your faith overrides any objective measure of truth, therefore the truth is whatever you wish it to be.
begging the question- the Noah's ark story is true, therefore anything that contradicts it is false.
factual error- Science has proven many claims of fact within the bible to be false. Your statement otherwise does not make it so.



I'm not. Those are just the fallacies I noticed. I probably missed some.

What is the scientific evidence that has proven the Bible wrong?

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 02:23 PM
Nuthin' personal, BF. If the shoe doesn't fit, chuck it aside. :hug: That's meant for whoever is sitting there waiting to flame me (always seems to happen in these discussions)...

I have no intention of saying anything to flame you. I like these kind of discussions. They bring out both sides of the issue.

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-08-2009, 02:23 PM
LLT,
Absolutely. :chuckle:
That's a whole 'nother subject tho'...

So you acknowledge that "facts" presented by the scientific community can be biased and based on a predetermined result.

Why is it so hard then to question "scientific fact" in regards to carbon dating and predetermined attitudes towards biblical archeology?

xfl2001fan
12-08-2009, 02:42 PM
I wasn't there at the Creation to be able to visually prove it.

What I do know is that there has never been an archeological or historical find that has ever contradicted what the Bible teaches. Archeologists have said that cities didn't exist that the Bible said did...and what happens...these cities have been discovered. People have been trying to disprove events in the Bible for years, but never with success.

The Bible's historical track record speaks for itself and that is why it has credibility with me. I believe what God's word says....even though I never saw it. It goes beyond the faith that I have.

People don't want to acknowledge that historical evidences in the Bible are true....because if they did...it would mean that they would have to acknowledge the other words contained it in are true as well.

Scientists state the things they do as if they are fact. Teachers in school teach evolution (Fish, Monkey, etc) to my children as if it is fact...I know because I have been asked questions about it. My college professors were teaching evolution as fact despite not having enough evidence to prove that man came from some tadpole. When these people are challenged, they respond as if you don't know what you are talking about....even though down deep...they know they can't prove their theory at all.

The bottom line in all of this is that people don't want to acknowledge that the Bible is true because that would necessitate a change in a lot of lifestyles in the world.

You can't prove Jesus actually said what he said can you? You only have heresy to go on. Ask any Pastor when Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were actually written. They were written after the fact.

Who did the Angel talk to when Jesus was resurrected? Was it just Mary Magdalene? Was it Jesus Mom? Was it both? The 4 Gospel's can't seem to agree.

Why is Jesus Resurrection not on the same day every year? You'd think that, as a Christian, that date (in particular) would be important to you. It's not even always in the same month from year to year...

There are flaws in your thinking...just like there are flaws in modern Science.

Modern Science tells me that there must be a higher being of some sort...because even if you believe in the "Big Bang Theory", that matter must have come from somewhere...and I refuse to believe that we are just a bunch (trillions upon trillions) of "chance events" that formed the world today. There must be some kind of ID (intelligent design)...and a great number of scientists agree with that.

I'm not sold on Adam living for over 900 years...or Noah being over 500 and building an Ark. I believe there was a mass flood in that area of the world at some point in time (as a great number of religions pretty much all have a Flood Story.) Those particular portions of the bible are fairy tales...that were passed along from one generation to the next via word of mouth...allowing for embellishment to set in.

Maybe I'm wrong...maybe you're right...but you don't "KNOW" what the truth is. You have FAITH in your sytsem. Many scientists have FAITH in their system (and don't know for sure whether they're right or wrong...they just make what is known as an educated guess).

stlrtruck
12-08-2009, 02:42 PM
factual error- Science has proven many claims of fact within the bible to be false. Your statement otherwise does not make it so.


I would love to see links of science proving the bible false.

Nevermind, I saw your previous post.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 02:51 PM
It would be well-poisoning to assume that a single (or even multiple) example of scientific bias would call into question the entire scientific record. It would be a tu quoque fallacy to spin "science is sometimes wrong" into "science is always wrong". And of course it would be a false dilemma to spin "science is wrong" into "religion is right".


In addition to what has already been mentioned, the age of the Universe, the demise of geocentrism, the dinosaurs, and an entire truckload of other facts. But really, why bother taking that route? You're going to dismiss any scientific "evidence" I provide, and that would be a waste of time on both our parts.

How's about I use the bible to disprove itself instead? :popcorn:

Gen 32:30 "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." John 1:18 , "No man hath seen God at any time..."

The Bible is the word of God and thus is infallible. Gen 32:30 thus must be true. Since Gen 32:30 is true, John 1:18 must therefore be false. Since John 1:18 is false, the bible must be fallible. Since the Bible is fallible, it must necessarily *not* be the word of God.
QED. :coffee:

I'm glad you brought that up about the Genesis verse and the verse in the book of John.

The phrase "face to face" in the Hebrew mindset means "personally," "directly," or "intimately." Moses had this kind of intimate relationship with God. Prophets in the O.T. had a extremely close relationship with God. But Moses, like all other mortals, never saw an actual "face" of God.

Additionally, we know two attributes about God. First, the Bible states that he is a spirit (John. 4:24). Being a spirit, that means that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39).

So, again, in the case of the Genesis verses you mentioned, God does not have a physical face or a physical body. Being "face to face" with God simply refers to being in God's direct presence in an intimate way.

To further explain these verses, look at Deuteronomy 34:10. That verse indicates that Moses knew God face to face. This verse further explains the relationship that Moses had with God.

xfl2001fan
12-08-2009, 02:55 PM
I'm glad you brought that up about the Genesis verse and the verse in the book of John.

The phrase "face to face" in the Hebrew mindset means "personally," "directly," or "intimately." Moses had this kind of intimate relationship with God. Prophets in the O.T. had a extremely close relationship with God. But Moses, like all other mortals, never saw an actual "face" of God.

Additionally, we know two attributes about God. First, the Bible states that he is a spirit (John. 4:24). Being a spirit, that means that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39).

So, again, in the case of the Genesis verses you mentioned, God does not have a physical face or a physical body. Being "face to face" with God simply refers to being in God's direct presence in an intimate way.

To further explain these verses, look at Deuteronomy 34:10. That verse indicates that Moses knew God face to face. This verse further explains the relationship that Moses had with God.


Which means that we aren't reading the bible...but the "accepted translation" of the bible. Accepted by...

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 03:12 PM
You can't prove Jesus actually said what he said can you? You only have heresy to go on. Ask any Pastor when Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were actually written. They were written after the fact.

Who did the Angel talk to when Jesus was resurrected? Was it just Mary Magdalene? Was it Jesus Mom? Was it both? The 4 Gospel's can't seem to agree.

Why is Jesus Resurrection not on the same day every year? You'd think that, as a Christian, that date (in particular) would be important to you. It's not even always in the same month from year to year...

There are flaws in your thinking...just like there are flaws in modern Science.

Modern Science tells me that there must be a higher being of some sort...because even if you believe in the "Big Bang Theory", that matter must have come from somewhere...and I refuse to believe that we are just a bunch (trillions upon trillions) of "chance events" that formed the world today. There must be some kind of ID (intelligent design)...and a great number of scientists agree with that.

I'm not sold on Adam living for over 900 years...or Noah being over 500 and building an Ark. I believe there was a mass flood in that area of the world at some point in time (as a great number of religions pretty much all have a Flood Story.) Those particular portions of the bible are fairy tales...that were passed along from one generation to the next via word of mouth...allowing for embellishment to set in.

Maybe I'm wrong...maybe you're right...but you don't "KNOW" what the truth is. You have FAITH in your sytsem. Many scientists have FAITH in their system (and don't know for sure whether they're right or wrong...they just make what is known as an educated guess).

You can't prove Jesus actually said what he said can you? You only have heresy to go on. Ask any Pastor when Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were actually written. They were written after the fact.

Proof that Jesus lived has been documented by even non-Christians in the first century. That's a pretty well documented fact. His enemies agreed that he lived. The Jews made reference to Him in their Talmud, a companion to their Scriptures. The Jewish historian Josephus, an eyewitness to these things, wrote about him.

Who did the Angel talk to when Jesus was resurrected? Was it just Mary Magdalene? Was it Jesus Mom? Was it both? The 4 Gospel's can't seem to agree.

Matthew mentions two Mary's - Mary Magdeline and the Other Mary

Mark mentions Mary Magdeline and Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Luke mentions Mary Magdeline and Mary, the mother of James (Jesus's brother)

John only mentions Mary Magdeline

Just because someone wasn't mentioned within the text, doesn't mean that they were not present at the time. Within the Bible, different verses comment on other verses. What you see is consistency in what took place. You need to take all 4 accounts to understand what took place.

Why is Jesus Resurrection not on the same day every year? You'd think that, as a Christian, that date (in particular) would be important to you. It's not even always in the same month from year to year...

The day that Jeus arose from the dead is the same day every year. We don't know that day though. Man has made a holiday that acknowldeges his birth. It's really a non-issue as to what day he arose. The important fact is that he did arise from the dead.

Indo
12-08-2009, 03:17 PM
Interesting thread...whatever the intention

My 2 cents


Because of my profession I have, by necessity, developed a very scientific mind. As they say, "In God We Trust, But All Others Need Data (scientific proof)"

Consider this...
Galileo was banished (excommunicated) from the Church for suggesting (and proving) that the Earth is not the center of the Universe (mentioned previously--geocentrism). Now, the Bible/Church says that it is the center of the Universe.
The Bible is clearly WRONG in this matter. Is it likely that there are other instances where the Bible is Wrong? I think it has to be answered "Yes"

The Fallacy ( inconsistencies) in the Bible comes from the fact that it was written by Men (who are absolutely subject to all of the inadequacies that come from being Human). Perhaps God Is Perfect, but the humans who passed stories from one to another and ultimately wrote them down are not.

I am not trying to undermine, ridicule or otherwise question anyone's Beliefs/Faith. I am here simply to say that I continuously question my own---in an effort to understand/learn these things with an open mind. There are many flood myths as well as other stories which may be subject to many different interpretations---and one must keep in mind the mindset of the people living at the time these events supposedly occurred.
Two examples:
The Plague of Locusts.
Did God (thru Moses) send a Plague of Locusts upon Egypt. Or was there simply a bad Locust infestation that year which was attributed to God's punishment of the Egyptians
The Parting of the Sea---did the Red Sea really open up, allow Moses and all his people to pass, and then close on Ramses soldiers?

As you can see, this can go on and on. I think it takes a combination of scientific proof and Faith...


I'll leave you with a conundrum:

Can God (who is Perfect) Create a Stone so heavy that He can't lift it?
(if He's Perfect, why can't he lift it? And if he can lift it, He obviously can't Create such a stone)

I think the answer has to be "Yes", but I am quite certain that my Brain/intellect cannot possibly conceive how that could be the correct answer

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 03:19 PM
Sorry, but you have just personally proven that the literal text of the Bible is, in fact, fallible. As such, you have to concede that (at the very least) the current King James version is not, in fact, the "word of God", no?

It could not possibly be any other way, since most of the Bible ended up on the cutting room floor at the Council of Trent in 1546 (God was decidedly *not* in attendance).

I'm not sure how you can come up with that the Bible is fallable by the quote you chose. The Hebrew word means what it means. Bible verses explain other Bible verses. Sorry, but based upon what you wrote, I don't see how you have proven that the Bible is not the word of God.

I'm not sure what happened in the Councel of Nicea, the Council of Trent, or any other Councel. What I do know is that there were letters written by the Apostles and passed along to other churches (Colossians 4:16) and those that saw him, wrote about him (1 John 1:1-4).

Indo
12-08-2009, 03:28 PM
Another interesting thought

Some scholars (religious and otherwise) feel that there is a very distinct possiblity that Jesus and Mohamed were the same person...



If you read about other religions ("other" than Christianity) with an absolutely open mind you will find that the similarities are astounding...


I am not certain that the stories in the Bible are true---they may represent man's (human being's) way of trying to explain/understand the immense world in which they lived/live.
But I am also not certain that they aren't true, either

What I do think is that there is something that links us all

whether you call it God, or Yahweh, or Allah or The Force (no, actually, I am not trying to be facetious).

In Richard Bach's book Illusions:The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, he calls it the Infinite Radiant Is

I think that says it all

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 03:32 PM
stlrtruck,


I'll give you a very simple one, one that you can verify yourself. Just don't get mad at me, okay?

Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."

Science has proven conclusively that the Earth is, in fact, round rather than flat. There has not existed within the last 6,000 years, a mountain that would be capable of showing all the kingdoms of the world. Nor would such a thing be possible.

Another example: Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

It has been proven conclusively (and I can personally provide 3 proofs of fact) that there is no such thing as a circle with a diameter of 10 units and a circumference of 30 units.

Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."

Satan, in his spiritual realm, has supernatural abilities. It would actually be impossible for the supernatural to be absent during a meeting between Jesus and the devil, as described in Matthew 4:1-8. Think of how Satan was wandering around the earth in the beginning of the book of Job. He wasn't walking or riding an animal, he was doing this supernaturally. That is an ability he has and that God has allowed. The Devil found Jesus in the desert in Matthew 4:3? The only way that the Devil could bring Jesus to the 'the highest point of the temple' in Matthew 4:5 and transport Jesus to the 'very high mountain' in Matthew 4:8 is through supernatural means.

Another example: Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

It has been proven conclusively (and I can personally provide 3 proofs of fact) that there is no such thing as a circle with a diameter of 10 units and a circumference of 30 units

I am not an expert on measurements, but I found an interesting article about this that may shed light on this:

http://flyinghouse.com/creator/theo/solomon.html

Indo
12-08-2009, 03:38 PM
BTW,
Religious discussions, like politics, usually becoming very heated and inflammatory. I must commend all of those involved for keeping this civilized and interesting...

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 03:38 PM
How would you know that? Have you read the Hebrew text?

Because the so-called "word of God" conflicts in the English version. Therefore the English version cannot, by definition, be accurate. You have just said as much not more than 6 posts ago.


Point in fact, none of those that "saw him, wrote about him". Not sure if you were aware of that fact.

That is not true. I John 1 indicates that personal eye-witnesses did.

Peter wrote two books in the N.T. He was an apostle and one of the qualifications of being an apostle is that they had to have seen Jesus in the flesh. (Acts 1:21-22)

Admittedly, I am not a Hebrew scholar, but I know people who are and have studied the very topic you brought up about "Face to Face".

There is not a contradiction between the Hebrew and English translation. It takes some research and digging to explain it, but that doesn't mean that there is a contradiction.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 03:39 PM
BTW,
Religious discussions, like politics, usually becoming very heated and inflammatory. I must commend all of those involved for keeping this civilized and interesting...

So far, I think we have accomplished that.

I agree. If it gets heated, then that defeats the purpose.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 03:51 PM
BF,

"Supernatural means" and "miracles" are a convenient way to explain away the patently absurd, but it misses the point:
Such a mountain cannot exist, as it is impossible to simultaneously view more than half the earth's surface from a mountain even if it's infinitely high.



Octagons are not "round all about", are they? They're not "round" *anywhere*. Again, either the translation is faulty or the original text is incorrect. Either way, the English text is false.

The Bible indicates that people would count it as absurd (1 Corinthians 1:18), so it doesn't surprise me that some people cannot accept that Satan did this supernaturally. I realize that Jesus was taken on top of the mountain, but I never said that Satain was literally able to show everything all at once, but what I do know is that Satan was able to show Jesus what he was tempting him with supernaturally.

Did you really read the entire article of what that guy wrote?

TroysBadDawg
12-08-2009, 03:53 PM
And just who had to clean out the bottom of the boat after all them animals relie4ving themselves, the first case of ocean polution?

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 03:58 PM
Then John 1 is incorrect.


Also false. These points have been proven conclusively by biblical scholars. I hate to bust your bubble (no, really) but none of the "testaments" were written by eyewitnesses.


That's not what you just said. You just told me that "face to face" in English is not the same thing as "face to face" in Hebrew, did you not?

Aside... I'd also like to commend everybody for keeping their feathers unruffled. :drink:

What verse are you referring to in John 1?

What Biblical scholars are you quoting about 1 and 2 Peter and 1 John? 1 Peter 1 indicates that the writer was an Aposlte named Peter. Acts 1 indicates the qualifications of an Apostle was to have seen Jesus in the flesh. That is good enough for me. Besides, just because someone says that they are a Biblical scholar, doesn't mean that they aren't liberal with the text or that they are not just flat wrong. When a "Bible scholar" disagrees with the Bible, you side with the Bible.

There are no doubt challenging verses within the Bible that requrie some additional research. "Face to Face" is one of them. At times, it takes additional digging into the original language and comparing it to other Bible verses to understand what was meant by the writer. If there are difficulties between the English language and the Hebrew, the reader owes it to himself to do more digging.

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 04:02 PM
Ho do you know if they pre-dated Noah? How does science positively know that these civilizations pre-date Noah? Because the Ark has not been positively found, there is absolulety no way to prove that any of these civilizations pre-date Noah's existence. What I have shown you, from the Tower of Babel, is how the story of the flood did spread to other civilizations.

How do you know they didn't predate Noah? To me, it has nothing to do with the non-discovery of the Ark, it has to do with artifacts that were found and dated. Such as...the pyramids (for one example). If you want to believe that every word in the Bible is factual and include no errors (even though they were written by men over 2000 years ago), then that's fine, it's your own choice. I just don't believe something off of one source. Also, you haven't shown me anything, you've just quoted stories from the Bible. If I'm going to believe every word in the Bible, then I guess there's nothing stopping me from believing every Greek myth ever written (since there are people and places that were written about in the myths that have been proven to exist)...or better yet, what's to stop me from believing the tall tales of Paul Bunyan and Babe the Big Blue Ox...I'm sure we can search the history of this nation and find a rather tall forest logger who owned an ox.

The Bible explains how civilizations came to be from the Creation to the Flood and afterwards. Science does nothing but guess as to how this took place and even they don't agree. Although science does offer some truth, because enough of it has changed and been proven wrong over time, why should I put my trust in something that is always changing?

Why should I put my trust in something that allows no room for change?

There is plenty of questions about the validity of carbon dating in the science world itself. Why should I take that with any kind of credibility when the science community doesn't even agree on it's validity. Science also makes the assumption that the rate of decay has always been the same in the past over the many centuries. This is something that is not verifiable so the rate of decay can never really be a fact.

Examples? And I'm not trying to be snarky or rude, I've just never seen or read anything about this. And I'll agree...some things are not verifiable, but there are things in the Bible that are not verifiable either...therefore, they cannot be fact.

I give plenty of credence to what science offers, when it can positively prove what they teach. When they mention theories and testwork that they can't even agree on as valid...that they know they can't prove, then I have to question what they say. Believe me, I heard my college professors (at UT Austin) put digs at the Bible quite a bit, but when you approach them and ask them for proof of what they say, they can't do it. They just fall back on their "education" and accuse you of being ignorant. I'm sorry, but that doesn't prove anything.

For hundreds of years, there were debates and arguments about which books should and shouldn't be included in the Bible. The ones that got the least votes essentially, didn't make it in. Scientific theories kind of work in the same way. And you're absolutely right, falling back on calling someone ignorant is not a good way to prove anything. I still believe there's a lot that science and religious studies can learn from each other. I'm just more skeptical of the latter than I am of the former for reasons that I've already mentioned.

We are probably both skeptical of the other for very similar reasons, mine being that I was often chastised by my Sunday school teachers and parents for daring to question anything about the Bible when I was younger. It did nothing than make me want to question it more, since my questions were not being sufficiently answered by anything more than "because the Bible says so".

And yes, I do question things I read in the Bible. Admittedly, I have not found one reason though to doubt what it says yet though.

I guess this is just where we'll never see eye to eye on the topic. Like I said, we're both skeptical for our own reasons, they're just very different reasons.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 04:06 PM
"the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."
That is the text.

I understand that this is the text, but what I do know is that Satan is able to do this supernaturally. At this time Jesus was in human form on a physical mountain. He had supernatural abilities, just as Satan has. I don't have a problem at all seeing this a way that Satan did it in this precise way.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 04:15 PM
How do you know they didn't predate Noah? To me, it has nothing to do with the non-discovery of the Ark, it has to do with artifacts that were found and dated. Such as...the pyramids (for one example). If you want to believe that every word in the Bible is factual and include no errors (even though they were written by men over 2000 years ago), then that's fine, it's your own choice. I just don't believe something off of one source. Also, you haven't shown me anything, you've just quoted stories from the Bible. If I'm going to believe every word in the Bible, then I guess there's nothing stopping me from believing every Greek myth ever written (since there are people and places that were written about in the myths that have been proven to exist)...or better yet, what's to stop me from believing the tall tales of Paul Bunyan and Babe the Big Blue Ox...I'm sure we can search the history of this nation and find a rather tall forest logger who owned an ox.



Why should I put my trust in something that allows no room for change?



Examples? And I'm not trying to be snarky or rude, I've just never seen or read anything about this. And I'll agree...some things are not verifiable, but there are things in the Bible that are not verifiable either...therefore, they cannot be fact.



For hundreds of years, there were debates and arguments about which books should and shouldn't be included in the Bible. The ones that got the least votes essentially, didn't make it in. Scientific theories kind of work in the same way. And you're absolutely right, falling back on calling someone ignorant is not a good way to prove anything. I still believe there's a lot that science and religious studies can learn from each other. I'm just more skeptical of the latter than I am of the former for reasons that I've already mentioned.

We are probably both skeptical of the other for very similar reasons, mine being that I was often chastised by my Sunday school teachers and parents for daring to question anything about the Bible when I was younger. It did nothing than make me want to question it more, since my questions were not being sufficiently answered by anything more than "because the Bible says so".



I guess this is just where we'll never see eye to eye on the topic. Like I said, we're both skeptical for our own reasons, they're just very different reasons.

The questions you ask are fair to ask and, personally, I hate it that you were chatised by anyone for questioning what you were reading. I've had questions and I have no problems with my children having doubts, questions, etc. Unfortunately, sometimes Christians get angry when people have questions...legitimate questions....and that is the wrong approach. There was even doubt among those who followed Jesus in the New Testament, but he never ridiculed them or put them down. I feel people should be handled the same way Jesus handled them.

As far as the Carbon Dating questions, I'm not a scientist. What I do know is that there are plenty of articles written about Carbon Dating and that there are plenty that show problems with this procedure. Being that it is science and ever changing, I have a great deal of difficulty putting any faith into it. The Bible gives an explanation and I have found no reason to doubt it. Even though I have had physical ailments in my life, I have always found God to be faithful to me physically, and I believe he is faithful to mankind in presenting them with a way of knowing Him and what he is about.

Admittedly, when it comes to anything that contradicts the Bible...whether it be Science or a Bible Scholar, I will always side with what the Bible says. For me, It's the only book I have ever read that gives the true meaning of life. Science does not offer anything that give me purpose for my being here on earth. The Bible does.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 04:18 PM
Here's my take:

Imagine that nobody had ever heard of the Bible. You stumbled across it in the back of a used book store. Would you read through it and then say "Hey, this explains everything! The giant fish, the parting of the Red Sea, God and Satan making a parlor bet over Job...It all makes sense!" ?
Of course you wouldn't. Without an emotional compulsion to accept it as true from the outset, you'd just chuck it in the wastebasket.
The only reason people believe this stuff is because grown-ups shoved into that soft spot they had when they were little and their skulls hadn't fused yet.

Sorry, but that's how I see it.

That is entirely not true. It was not shoved into any soft spot for me. There are plenty of people who approached the Bible to disproove it and ended up becoming Christians. Josh McDowell wrote two books called Evidence that Demands a Verdict and another called More than a Carpenter. He was a skeptic who went out to disproove the Bible.....what he found out changed his life.

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 04:21 PM
Here's my take:

Imagine that nobody had ever heard of the Bible. You stumbled across it in the back of a used book store. Would you read through it and then say "Hey, this explains everything! The giant fish, the parting of the Red Sea, God and Satan making a parlor bet over Job...It all makes sense!" ?
Of course you wouldn't. Without an emotional compulsion to accept it as true from the outset, you'd just chuck it in the wastebasket.
The only reason people believe this stuff is because grown-ups shoved into that soft spot they had when they were little and their skulls hadn't fused yet.

Sorry, but that's how I see it.

I agree with you on this. It's like how I always read Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse and Indian mythology (among others) and always found the stories very interesting, and very easy to apply to daily life...much like the Bible. They are filled with lineage, stories of creation, chaos, devastation, greed, betrayal, love and lust, higher beings, death, afterlife, hell...all the same kinds of themes you find in the Bible. The stories are great, uplifting and make you take a closer look at your own life and how you've been leading it. The only real problem I have with religion (and pretty much all of them throughout the time of man has done this) is that they have been twisted and perverted over time and have been used for purposes outside of what the original intent was meant to be. When religion and politics and money all start to mix together, it becomes a lethal combination.

Indo
12-08-2009, 04:22 PM
Toughest Question of them all

If a man came claiming that he was The Messiah returned to Earth, would you believe him? (Not just BlastFurnace, but anyone)

The Bible says he will come again.
But there ARE a lot of crazies out there---Schizophrenics, in particular, tend to be hyper-religious--

So how do you distinguish if this guy is The Real Deal---or if he's just a guy that quit taking his psych meds?

Now remember---he's on the street corner preaching 'Love Thy Neighbor" and "come follow me and I will lead you to Holy Salvation"

I have asked myself this question in the past, and I still can't come to grips with how to answer it

Preacher
12-08-2009, 04:27 PM
So some scientists believe it's a Fish (which they can't prove) or Monkey (which they can't prove) and so you discount them based on lack of proof.

What's your belief?
Now prove it! (Well, it's been discounted).


There are a great number of mysteries in life with which will never be answered in our lifetime. True proof doesn't exist...only faith based on personal choices. Some choose to go the scientific route and discount the religious aspects. Others choose the religious route and discount the scientific method. Some take the middle ground (somewhere in between) and others choose to not think on it at all (or as little as possible) realizing the futility of it (or cuz they're just too darn lazy to be bothered with it.)

That's life.


Thank you. That is probably the smartest post I have read on this board in a very long time.

Whether it is creation or evolution, in the end, you believe it by faith. You accept the metanarrative and tuck all the "observations" into your chosen metanarrative.

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 04:27 PM
Toughest Question of them all

If a man came claiming that he was The Messiah returned to Earth, would you believe him? (Not just BlastFurnace, but anyone)

The Bible says he will come again.
But there ARE a lot of crazies out there---Schizophrenics, in particular, tend to be hyper-religious--

So how do you distinguish if this guy is The Real Deal---or if he's just a guy that quit taking his psych meds?

Now remember---he's on the street corner preaching 'Love Thy Neighbor" and "come follow me and I will lead you to Holy Salvation"

I have asked myself this question in the past, and I still can't come to grips with how to answer it

I think that's a good question, and part of the reason that people have a lot of trouble turning down folks like Jim Jones and David Koresh.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 04:28 PM
Toughest Question of them all

If a man came claiming that he was The Messiah returned to Earth, would you believe him? (Not just BlastFurnace, but anyone)

The Bible says he will come again.
But there ARE a lot of crazies out there---Schizophrenics, in particular, tend to be hyper-religious--

So how do you distinguish if this guy is The Real Deal---or if he's just a guy that quit taking his psych meds?

Now remember---he's on the street corner preaching 'Love Thy Neighbor" and "come follow me and I will lead you to Holy Salvation"

I have asked myself this question in the past, and I still can't come to grips with how to answer it

The difference is that when Jesus comes back, he will descend from the clouds and every eye will see him (Revelation 1:7).

There has always been false prophets since the O.T. days, but God has given us a formula to know whether someone like that speaks from God's heart. If the person says he is speaking a new revelation from God and it doesn't happen, he is not speaking for God (Deuteronomy 18:21). In the same manner, if someone speaks something that is not consistent with God's word, I don't count him as speaking a new revelation from God (Galatians 1:7-9).

People can be deceived, but that is why studying the Bible is important. It weeds out the deceivers.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 04:36 PM
I think the "Christians" would be the first ones to nail Him to a tree for blasphemy if He returned, but I could be wrong.

Personally, I would not believe Him, but I wouldn't attack Him either.

Actually, people won't be able to nail Jesus to a tree when he comes back. The next time he comes back, he is coming to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him (Hebrews 9:28)

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 04:38 PM
The questions you ask are fair to ask and, personally, I hate it that you were chatised by anyone for questioning what you were reading. I've had questions and I have no problems with my children having doubts, questions, etc. Unfortunately, sometimes Christians get angry when people have questions...legitimate questions....and that is the wrong approach. There was even doubt among those who followed Jesus in the New Testament, but he never ridiculed them or put them down. I feel people should be handled the same way Jesus handled them.

As far as the Carbon Dating questions, I'm not a scientist. What I do know is that there are plenty of articles written about Carbon Dating and that there are plenty that show problems with this procedure. Being that it is science and ever changing, I have a great deal of difficulty putting any faith into it. The Bible gives an explanation and I have found no reason to doubt it. Even though I have had physical ailments in my life, I have always found God to be faithful to me physically, and I believe he is faithful to mankind in presenting them with a way of knowing Him and what he is about.

Admittedly, when it comes to anything that contradicts the Bible...whether it be Science or a Bible Scholar, I will always side with what the Bible says. For me, It's the only book I have ever read that gives the true meaning of life. Science does not offer anything that give me purpose for my being here on earth. The Bible does.

By the same token I will say that I'm not a history professor or an archeologist, and therefore really have no absolute say in whether civilizations like the Egyptians and so forth were around before Noah. I just know that Noah was not the first man on Earth (and even the literal interpretation of the Bible would agree that there were people roaming the Earth for thousands of years before Noah). I can say with much assurance that these people before Noah told stories and wrote things down. Mix biblical history with archeological finds, and it's not so far-fetched to think that the civilizations that were said to exist before Noah, really did exist and that the stories they wrote down have since been recovered, and that some of these stories included flood myths...among other myths that parallel stories in the Bible.

Science is cold and unfeeling, I'm not surprised that many get the feeling that it doesn't offer them a purpose for being here. It's not meant to. It doesn't answer the questions of why, just the how. Isn't is somehow possible that God or a higher being gave humans the knowledge he did for a reason? So that if they couldn't understand the why on Earth, they could at least question the how?

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 04:40 PM
People can be deceived, but that is why studying the Bible is important. It weeds out the deceivers.

Wouldn't you agree then, that the people who wrote and others that have modified and translated the Bible could also be wrong, or could be trying to deceive?

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 04:42 PM
By the same token I will say that I'm not a history professor or an archeologist, and therefore really have no absolute say in whether civilizations like the Egyptians and so forth were around before Noah. I just know that Noah was not the first man on Earth (and even the literal interpretation of the Bible would agree that there were people roaming the Earth for thousands of years before Noah). I can say with much assurance that these people before Noah told stories and wrote things down. Mix biblical history with archeological finds, and it's not so far-fetched to think that the civilizations that were said to exist before Noah, really did exist and that the stories they wrote down have since been recovered, and that some of these stories included flood myths...among other myths that parallel stories in the Bible.

Science is cold and unfeeling, I'm not surprised that many get the feeling that it doesn't offer them a purpose for being here. It's not meant to. It doesn't answer the questions of why, just the how. Isn't is somehow possible that God or a higher being gave humans the knowledge he did for a reason? So that if they couldn't understand the why on Earth, they could at least question the how?

I agree with you in that there was a lot of people on the earth before the flood. The descendents of Adam and Eve lived 1656 years before the Flood took place. There is no telling how many people lived on earth in that many years. From what I read in the Bible though, the languages and races were not confused...or made different....until around 200 years after the Flood at the Tower of Babel.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 04:44 PM
Wouldn't you agree then, that the people who wrote and others that have modified and translated the Bible could also be wrong, or could be trying to deceive?

Personally, I think that some who are translating today have been liberal with the text..but I do believe that when there is doubt that we have the responsibility to research it for ourselves.

Indo
12-08-2009, 04:49 PM
By that rationale, the Easter Bunny is every bit as factually correct as God.
I don't buy it, and I personally reject any notion of truth being subjective. If I were to (for example) choose to believe that Allah will protect me (his Holy Warrior) from harm if I were to machine-gun a reception hall full of Iraq War vets, that "faith" will not make my execution for murder any less real.
Truth and reality are objective. You get old, you die. You sit on a tack, you will bleed from the butt. You drink too much, you will get sick. These laws are objective, and no amount of "faith" will change them.

I generally agree with this, but let me throw a proverbial monkey-wrench into it

We all know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the color of blood, right?

We know (objectively) it's red.

What if I were to tell you that I have seen green blood. And I am talking about Human blood---ain't no Vulcans here!

I was scuba diving---down about 60 feet. Cut my hand on something while swimming around a shipwreck. And the blood came out GREEN!
The reality of the situation was that my blood was green. This WAS and IS THE TRUTH. It happens that the ocean water selectively filters out light the deeper you go. By the time you get to about 60ish feet, the longer wavelengths of light/color (such as red) no longer exist (as long as you are relying on ambient light from the sun---shine a flashlight, and the green blood turns red again)

The point --- sometimes Truth and Reality are Relative to a given situation. And, if the situation changes, so does the Reality. It's all a matter of perspective.

In fact, Einstein's Theories (General and Special) are uniquely related to one's perspective

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 05:22 PM
I agree with you in that there was a lot of people on the earth before the flood. The descendents of Adam and Eve lived 1656 years before the Flood took place. There is no telling how many people lived on earth in that many years. From what I read in the Bible though, the languages and races were not confused...or made different....until around 200 years after the Flood at the Tower of Babel.

Well, that all depends on if you believe in the literal meaning of the Bible or not. None of this can be proved or disproved really. All we have to go on is stories told by men over time.

Here's an interesting situation that was presented by Penn and Teller on their show about the Bible. Yes, it is a very biased show, and is meant more for humor than anything else, but I think this example they gave speaks for itself about how facts about a person or event can be diluted over time.

They used Elvis as an example, and not just that fact that people have been reporting for years since his death that he is really still alive and well. They used his favorite foods recipes and specifically his favorite fried chicken recipe. They cited two different cookbooks that claimed to both have Elvis' favorite recipe for fried chicken...problem was, the recipes were different. How could this be! How will we ever know which one is the right one! How could there be conflicting knowledge of this when Elvis has only been dead for just over 30 years! Do you know there are people who still think Elvis never did drugs? EVER!

I use this as an example, because think of how people shared stories 2000 years ago...they didn't even have newspapers and talk shows and such to share information...and even with those things, people still get things wrong. Just something to think about.

Preacher
12-08-2009, 05:39 PM
I generally agree with this, but let me throw a proverbial monkey-wrench into it

We all know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the color of blood, right?

We know (objectively) it's red.

What if I were to tell you that I have seen green blood. And I am talking about Human blood---ain't no Vulcans here!

I was scuba diving---down about 60 feet. Cut my hand on something while swimming around a shipwreck. And the blood came out GREEN!
The reality of the situation was that my blood was green. This WAS and IS THE TRUTH. It happens that the ocean water selectively filters out light the deeper you go. By the time you get to about 60ish feet, the longer wavelengths of light/color (such as red) no longer exist (as long as you are relying on ambient light from the sun---shine a flashlight, and the green blood turns red again)

The point --- sometimes Truth and Reality are Relative to a given situation. And, if the situation changes, so does the Reality. It's all a matter of perspective.

In fact, Einstein's Theories (General and Special) are uniquely related to one's perspective

Indo, that is an excellent response.

Truth is truth based on the metanarrative you are a part of. Foundationalism has been found to be as faulty as any other methodology. That is why I subscribe to speech-act theory where foundationalism is removed, and logical foundations are found within the individual story. Thus, Blood IS red, in a story where someone is walking on the street and cuts themself. Blood IS GREEN, in a story where someone is scuba diving at 60 feet.

There are very few absolutes. Speed of light...thought to be an absolute. NOw we know it is not. It can be increased or decreased up to 20 percent or so. Light wave is energy, well, yes, but it is also matter. I can go on and on.

Anyone looking for "Absolute Fact" will ONLY find it based on the foundational premises which they start out from. Evolution does not and can not see creation because it starts out from an anthropocentric foundation. Therefore, its very premise precludes anything that man cannot cognitively understand.

Creation starts out with a premise of God. Therefore, its very precludes "chance" in our environment.

The same is true anything we look at. Christianity and Science are two metanarratives. People CHOOSE to make one or the other THEIR metanarrative. That choice is a choice of faith, because by choosing the one, you are automatically precluding the choice of the other.

There are others, who try to mix the metanarratives. But in doing so, they to are taking a step of faith, because they believe they can mix two distinct stories into one, but at some point, they have to make a choice as to which story is foundational to the other.

"Its all in Derrida. What DO they teach in these schools these days?" :chuckle: (Sorry C.S. Lewis, I just couldn't resist.

MasterOfPuppets
12-08-2009, 05:44 PM
just think... if noah woulda just squashed those 2 mosquito's, we wouldn't have to deal with them now.... :doh:

Indo
12-08-2009, 05:53 PM
Indo,
Neither here nor there. Objectively speaking, your blood was red. It merely appeared green in the absence of longer wavelength light (in accordance with the laws of physics).
What I'm talking about is the intellectual dishonesty of claiming all perceptions as equal because they are all "chosen".
I may "choose" to believe that sleeping on the railroad tracks is a fundamentally bad idea, or I may "choose" to believe that God loves me and would never let me come to harm. I guarantee you that those two viewpoints are *not* equally true.

I would love to continue this, but I don't really have time right now.

As for the color of blood while diving---I would submit to you that it is BOTH red and green (and, in fact, if you go deeper, blue...)---according to the Laws of Physics (truth of physics).
If I jump off a building, I will fall. According to the Laws of Gravity---unless, of course, I am standing on the Moon (or some other celestial body where the Laws (truths) change.
The point is that Truth sometimes does depend on the situation

I agree that all of that may not be relevant here.

Perhaps it's not "intellectual dishonesty", but rather Misguided (for lack of a better word) faith.
I, for one, would have trouble having faith even "as a grain of Mustard seed" that I would not come to harm if I slept on the tracks. There are those, however, who would say that I came to harm because I did not have even that small amount of faith that I would not come to harm.
My answer to them is to prove it to me. Show me your faith when it REALLY matters

Gotta run
have a good evening

Preacher
12-08-2009, 06:04 PM
As to the OP.

Since I am wasting time, I might as well answer it.

1. What is exactly being destroyed? It is the הָאָ֖רֶץ ( pronounced ha'aretz). This word has multiple meanings. It can mean the entire earth, the earth under the sky, the region, the space or distance for a country, etc. (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon is a good resource to look this up. If you or anyone wants, it is on page 75-76).

Now, how do we interpret it? Well, first we must translate it. In verse 17, it says specifically "under the skies, all which is on the earth." That means that this noun should be seen only in relation to the sky. Not the entire Hebrew cosmology (waters above and below the earth), but only the earth itself would be rained upon. But a part or a whole? That is still up for debate. All that has life is not specified to all known animals, animals in the region, or world wide. Previous interpreations have thought of it as world wide, but there is no reason for it in teh Hebrew.

John Sailhamer, in The Pentateuch as Narrative teaches that the Genesis account is representative of the promised land based on the Sinaitic covenant. If so, the flood needs only represent the area of Israel.

If this is true, then the "Behemoths" which means animals are only those things which existed in that land.

Or you can go another way, if you accept the flood as the totality of the world, then what do you do with the numbers? The answer is, Adaptation, which again, Christians have no problem with. Thus, it wasn't one leopard, one lion, one . . . but, two felines, two canines, etc. and adaption took them to where we are at now.

Therefore, you have to very divergent but equally appealing ways to understand the bible in in light of modern thoughts.

However, could you answer me this question? If the flood was NOT real. Then why is it that almost every culture in the world has a flood myth?

Oh yeah, and a careful reading of the story will tell you that Noah's three sons all had wives. Which means, the children were not of incest. Their children were the prodigy of 1st cousins. And hey, THAT is STILL legal in Tennessee! :chuckle:

As to Adam and Eve, there is a big possibility of Adam being "mankind" and not man. But that is for a different discussion.

Indo
12-08-2009, 06:07 PM
Oh, and Preach, I am one of those that somehow tries to mesh BOTH Science and Religion/Faith into my Belief System. It CAN be a struggle to come to grips with all of it...

But it is why I constantly question..well...pretty much everything!

I have been told that questioning God (or, His existence) is essentially blasphemous.
but, sorry to say, I cannot get into my head any God that does not allow the critical thought process of one who questions things. In my mind, any god who is so insecure that he/she/it does not allow questioning of his existence does not "deserve" the title (does that make sense?)

I am that I am
(that's all that needs to be said. Believe in me, or don't. I exist either way. AND it's OK to question...)

I could go on for hours with this---thought-provoking and interesting to hear other viewpoints
BUT I GOTTA GO, REALLY!

Preacher
12-08-2009, 06:16 PM
Well, that all depends on if you believe in the literal meaning of the Bible or not. None of this can be proved or disproved really. All we have to go on is stories told by men over time.

Here's an interesting situation that was presented by Penn and Teller on their show about the Bible. Yes, it is a very biased show, and is meant more for humor than anything else, but I think this example they gave speaks for itself about how facts about a person or event can be diluted over time.

They used Elvis as an example, and not just that fact that people have been reporting for years since his death that he is really still alive and well. They used his favorite foods recipes and specifically his favorite fried chicken recipe. They cited two different cookbooks that claimed to both have Elvis' favorite recipe for fried chicken...problem was, the recipes were different. How could this be! How will we ever know which one is the right one! How could there be conflicting knowledge of this when Elvis has only been dead for just over 30 years! Do you know there are people who still think Elvis never did drugs? EVER!

I use this as an example, because think of how people shared stories 2000 years ago...they didn't even have newspapers and talk shows and such to share information...and even with those things, people still get things wrong. Just something to think about.

The problem is, that example doesn't hold water when compared with the history of textual transmission. We have multiple documents over hundreds of years. These documents were held by those in direct competition with each other over the question of orthodoxy. Yet, the similarities of those documents are breath-taking. I have a VERY technical book on the issue if you would like to read it. It actually lists and explains what each fragment is, the Papyri, Uncials, Miniscules, etc. etc.

Let me know if you are interested. I'll PM you the author and book.

Suffice it to say however, if you accept Homer's Odyssey as a true replica of the original... if you accept Philo, the Stoics, Plato, etc. writing as good replica's of the original, then there is simply no reason to accept the NT's writing as authentic to the original, because the sources for that which modern museums now have are so much greater, and so much earlier, than any of those other texts. To deny the authenticity of the writings of the bible is to deny the authenticity of EVERY ancient document before about 400 AD. Because they just don't come as witnessed and complete as the New Testament. (and yes, A LOT of the nT is partial scrolls).

So, historically, one must accept the NT is an accurate replica of what was written. Granted, there are variants. But the variants are listed at the bottom of Greek texts in the major Greek bibles (Nestle-Aland, Westcott-Hort).

The question therefore, is not whether the replicas are faithful to the originals, but whether you believe what the originals said. That, is the question of the ages.

I say yes, many say no.

tony hipchest
12-08-2009, 06:39 PM
agree 100% preacher (and not based on falth, but based on history, science, archaeology, and the study of ancient literature and manuscripts).

i would also suggest that elvis has as much to do in this conversation, as dinosaurs do.

MasterOfPuppets
12-08-2009, 06:47 PM
agree 100% preacher (and not based on falth, but based on history, science, archaeology, and the study of ancient literature and manuscripts).

i would also suggest that elvis has as much to do in this conversation, as dinosaurs do.
how bout my skeeter observation ? i thought it was pretty insightful and relevant...:tap:

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 06:49 PM
The problem is, that example doesn't hold water when compared with the history of textual transmission. We have multiple documents over hundreds of years. These documents were held by those in direct competition with each other over the question of orthodoxy. Yet, the similarities of those documents are breath-taking. I have a VERY technical book on the issue if you would like to read it. It actually lists and explains what each fragment is, the Papyri, Uncials, Miniscules, etc. etc.

Well, I gave the brief account of the example, P&T listed all the ingredients and both were similar, but had differing amounts of some of the ingredients. Much like the 4 different accounts of Jesus' life are similar, but have small differences in them.

I've never doubted that some of the stories in the Bible actually did happen, I just question whether or not they were exaggerated over time or distorted over time, much like the story of Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyan grew into tall tales. Like I said, these stories can most likely be traced back to real people, but they were exaggerated upon. Also, there are many different documents that tell the stories of Greek gods and Egyptian gods, and they were held very highly in regards to the religions of the time and area, but are now seen as nothing but myths...despite the fact that people, places and events that took place at the time and were written about were found to be true.


Suffice it to say however, if you accept Homer's Odyssey as a true replica of the original... if you accept Philo, the Stoics, Plato, etc. writing as good replica's of the original, then there is simply no reason to accept the NT's writing as authentic to the original, because the sources for that which modern museums now have are so much greater, and so much earlier, than any of those other texts. To deny the authenticity of the writings of the bible is to deny the authenticity of EVERY ancient document before about 400 AD. Because they just don't come as witnessed and complete as the New Testament. (and yes, A LOT of the nT is partial scrolls).

So, historically, one must accept the NT is an accurate replica of what was written. Granted, there are variants. But the variants are listed at the bottom of Greek texts in the major Greek bibles (Nestle-Aland, Westcott-Hort).

The question therefore, is not whether the replicas are faithful to the originals, but whether you believe what the originals said. That, is the question of the ages.

I say yes, many say no.

I agree that the NT writings are authentic, but as I have previously stated, I'm not beyond the thinking that some of them were exaggerated upon. It's part of human nature to embellish and make things bigger than they really are, especially when passing on stories and heritage down through the generations. That's pretty much the reason why I have trouble believing that every story presented in the Bible should be taken as literally as it is written.

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 06:52 PM
However, could you answer me this question? If the flood was NOT real. Then why is it that almost every culture in the world has a flood myth?


I for one don't question that a flood actually happened. And that floods happened (much as they do today) in different parts of the world. I don't think anyone was actually questioning the validity of whether or not there was actually a flood.

Here's the best example of where Noah's Ark story came from. Yes, it's a clip from Penn and Teller...and please, I hope it doesn't offend anyone, that's not my intent for posting it, I simply want to expound on where my thoughts are concerning the story.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cq0dBFqJZc0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cq0dBFqJZc0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 06:54 PM
agree 100% preacher (and not based on falth, but based on history, science, archaeology, and the study of ancient literature and manuscripts).

i would also suggest that elvis has as much to do in this conversation, as dinosaurs do.

I merely brought that up as an example of how people distort accounts of others lives, nothing more.

The thread started as questioning the validity of dinosaurs on Noah's Ark...which Creationists actually believe.

tony hipchest
12-08-2009, 06:59 PM
Rev

I have to question your motives for creating this thread. You dont believe in God and dont believe in the literal view of Biblical history. So my question to you would be....

What exactly can a believer tell you that would make you change your mind? If the answer is nothing, then why the need for a post and why try and minimilize others Faith?

Seriously. With your posts on Jesus and then after reading this thread....I dont think that I am the only one to sense a "hostile" attitude towards Christianity.

Why the need to "prove" something through the creation of a thread? A discourse on beliefs would be welcome, but your posts are beginning to reek of arrogant disregard of what others hold sacred.i would say it is nothing more than a diversion from the EPIC FAIL in the Jesus thread.

this isnt a new topic, and i gather revs just wanted to get back into what he feels is his realm (reeks of a 1 trick pony to me though).

my response would stay the same now as it was then-

MY favorite Bible fairy tale is Noah's Ark. Following is a complete debunking...it's long but pretty thorough...

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html

Here's a sample:
As an idea of how many insects Noah would have had to take on the ark, here is a list of insect orders with the number of species in each (source - Natural History Museum):


COLLEMBOLA: 6000 eg. springtails
THYSANURA: 370 e.g.. silverfish
EPHEMEROPTERA: 2100 eg. mayflies
ODONATA: 5500 eg. dragonflies
PLECOPTERA: 2000 eg. stoneflies
BLATTODEA: 3700 eg. profanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofa nityfilterroaches
ISOPTERA: 2300 eg. termites
MANTODEA: 1800 eg. mantids
DERMAPTERA: 1800 eg. earwigs
ORTHOPTERA: 20500 eg. grasshoppers
PHASMATODEA: 2500 eg. stick insects
PSCOPTERA: 3200 eg. bark lice
PHTHIRAPTERA: 3000 eg. biting lice
HEMIPTERA: 82000 eg. aphids
THYSANOPTERA: 5000 eg. thrips
MEGALOPTERA: 250 eg. alderflies
RAPHIDIOPTERA: 175 eg. snakeflies
NEUROPTERA: 5000 eg. ant-lions
COLEOPTERA: 400000 eg. beetles
MECOPTERA: 400 eg. scorpion flies
SIPHONAPTERA: 2400 eg. fleas
DIPTERA: 120000 eg. fruit-flies
TRICHOPTERA: 10000 eg. caddisflies
LEPIDOPTERA: 150000 eg. butterflies
HYMENOPTERA: 130000 eg. ants, bees

giving a grand total of approx. 965420 different species of insect, about a million (and these are just the species known to western science. There could be another several million unknown species). Given a male and female, make that at least two million insects aboard the ark, ranging in size from a millimetre, up to six inches in size, many having extremely specialised requirements for life, (not to mention quite an appetite for eating other insects...).
Creationists object to the idea of "species" aboard the Ark, preferring to use "kind" instead. Thus, instead of having nearly a million beetles running around it (beetles not being known for sitting patiently in their pens), Noah simply had a male and female of one "kind" of beetle from which all the others known today have "diversified" (or "evolved", but let's not mention that word). Now, let's say the Flood happened 4,000 years ago, and there are 400,000 known species of beetle. A quick sum tells us that, on average, 100 new species of beetle have evolved (or been Created) every year from those two original parents. That's two new species of beetle a week! In order to explain the current diversity of life, creationists need to conjure up a form of evolution that proceeds at a rate which would make any biologist fall off her stool in astonishment!

i dont think noah collected bugs, just like i dont believe he built 2 huge tanks to save the great white shark, i mean whats the point of saving fish from a flood? :noidea:

the "fairy tale" must be put into historical context. at the time it was written the world was perceived to be flat and to not extend much further than the visible horizon. 4000 years ago, people in the mid east had no idea about the species in the rain forest or penguins.

as for the link provided, i checked it out way back then. even from an objective and scientific point of view, i found it to be horribly flawed and extremely biased with an appearant agenda.

ignore the "complete debunking" and "pretty thorough" commentary, as it is merely opinion stated as fact.

Preacher
12-08-2009, 07:02 PM
I agree that the NT writings are authentic, but as I have previously stated, I'm not beyond the thinking that some of them were exaggerated upon. It's part of human nature to embellish and make things bigger than they really are, especially when passing on stories and heritage down through the generations. That's pretty much the reason why I have trouble believing that every story presented in the Bible should be taken as literally as it is written.


First, to your other post... I know your not trying to be offensive, but just putting out there how you are thinking through the issues. I too like Penn and Teller. I also appreciate your sensitivity to the discussion.

As to what you quoted above... so your "issues" for lack of a better word, is not the transmission of the text, but rather the story itself being changed, stretched, etc? Am I characterizing your argument right? (I don't want to put words in your mouth or belittle your argument. I am trying to honor your thoughts here by making sure I understand exactly what you are saying. It leads to much better discussions!

tony hipchest
12-08-2009, 07:10 PM
I merely brought that up as an example of how people distort accounts of others lives, nothing more.

The thread started as questioning the validity of dinosaurs on Noah's Ark...which Creationists actually believe.pigeon meet hole.

if that was the premise under which this thread was started, i would call it incredibly flawed and typical strawman.

seperating creationists and evolutionists in this manner is about as effective as saying either/or olberman / rush contain ALL of lives truths when it comes to politics...

:noidea:

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 07:10 PM
First, to your other post... I know your not trying to be offensive, but just putting out there how you are thinking through the issues. I too like Penn and Teller. I also appreciate your sensitivity to the discussion.

As to what you quoted above... so your "issues" for lack of a better word, is not the transmission of the text, but rather the story itself being changed, stretched, etc? Am I characterizing your argument right? (I don't want to put words in your mouth or belittle your argument. I am trying to honor your thoughts here by making sure I understand exactly what you are saying. It leads to much better discussions!

Yeah, that's pretty much it in a nutshell for me. And it's not that I don't think the stories are great moral stories...they are, I just don't think they were ever meant to be taken so literally, much like I don't take the stories in Greek or Norse mythology as literal fact. I honestly think that some of them were just stories that were used "around the campfire" if you will, or to explain unexplainable events of the time.

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 07:11 PM
pigeon meet hole.

if that was the premise under which this thread was started, i would call it incredibly flawed and typical strawman.

seperating creationists and evolutionists in this manner is about as effective as saying either/or olberman / rush contain ALL of lives truths when it comes to politics...

:noidea:

Meh, call it whatever you want, I still find it to be an interesting conversation and have enjoyed having it.

tony hipchest
12-08-2009, 07:25 PM
Meh, call it whatever you want, I still find it to be an interesting conversation and have enjoyed having it.are you conceding that is the premise under which this thread was started? it is an interesting conversation, especially being that i have such an unconventional take.

man was created in the image of God and then took a bite from the tree of knowledge.

right there from page one in the bible, we are separated from "creationist" to "evolutionists".

science and religion go hand in hand in my mind. they are married like the yin to the yang.

written language, domestication of animals, and civilization as we know it originated in the euphrates valley. the bible is about the 1st source to corroborate this.

this is when mankind reached its evolutionary highpoint (in His image).

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 07:38 PM
/me hugs SCM. I woulda repped you repeatedly through this thread, but it won't let me. I'll bow out and let the discussion meander on. It's been a real pleasure being able to kick this stuff around without getting verbally assaulted. Thanks, all!

It was a good discussion. I enjoyed it as well.

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 08:13 PM
are you conceding that is the premise under which this thread was started? it is an interesting conversation, especially being that i have such an unconventional take.

man was created in the image of God and then took a bite from the tree of knowledge.

right there from page one in the bible, we are separated from "creationist" to "evolutionists".

science and religion go hand in hand in my mind. they are married like the yin to the yang.

written language, domestication of animals, and civilization as we know it originated in the euphrates valley. the bible is about the 1st source to corroborate this.

this is when mankind reached its evolutionary highpoint (in His image).

No, I'm not conceding that what you stated was the premise under which the thread was started. I'm basically stating that I don't care what the premise was and that you can think whatever you want about the premise of why it was started lol.

As far as science and religion working hand in hand goes...I'm still not sure I believe fully in religion. I find it interesting and think that science and religion can learn a lot from each other. But as far as believing in an Almighty God and everything written in the Bible...I'll probably be forever on the fence about it. I've left the door open in my mind for a variation of possibilities though.

I also question that the Bible is the first text to corroborate civilization and it's evolutionary high point. The Egyptians and Hindus were writing their religious texts for hundreds and thousands of years before Moses wrote the Torah.

tony hipchest
12-08-2009, 08:35 PM
well, in that case (much like revs), i expect anything i say to be meet with a simple "meh" instead of an actual rebuttal (it does make it sound as if your arguments stand on nothing but pigeon holing, though). :hunch:



I also question that the Bible is the first text to corroborate civilization and it's evolutionary high point. The Egyptians and Hindus were writing their religious texts for hundreds and thousands of years before Moses wrote the Torah.with all due respect to the hindus and egyptians, writing came from the land of adam and eve....

Cuneiform script (pronounced /kjuːˈniː.ɨfɔrm/ kew-NEE-i-form or /ˈkjuːnɨfɔrm/ KEW-ni-form) is the earliest known writing system in the world.[1] Cuneiform writing emerged in the Sumerian civilization of southern Iraq around the 34th century BC[2] during the middle Uruk period, beginning as a pictographic system of writing. Cuneiform was the most widespread and historically significant writing system in the Ancient Near East.[3]

the worlds first census is in the middle east, from the bible.

that dont mean i discount the great works of cavemen drawing on walls or the hieroglyphics of the egyptians.

im one to think once a system for writing was finally developed, it quickly spread across the known world.

its kind of instinctual, yet God given. kinda like mathematics transcends all languages.

BlastFurnace
12-08-2009, 08:46 PM
LOL...I was a ton calmer here during a discussion about Creation and Science than I am during the game day threads. Maybe I should hang out over here on Thursday night.

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 08:54 PM
well, in that case (much like revs), i expect anything i say to be meet with a simple "meh" instead of an actual rebuttal.

Geez...calm down, all I said is I don't care how you view the OP, I just enjoy the topic of debate. By all means though, see more into than there really is...doesn't bother me any.

with all due respect to the hindus and egyptians, writing came from the land of adam and eve....



the worlds first census is in the middle east, from the bible.

that dont mean i discount the great works of cavemen drawing on walls or the hieroglyphics of the egyptians.

im one to think once a system for writing was finally developed, it quickly spread across the known world.

its kind of instinctual, yet God given. kinda like mathematics transcends all languages.

Well...it seems that Wikipedia conflicts with itself lol.

The Rigveda (Sanskrit: ऋग्वेद ṛgvedá, a compound of ṛc "praise, verse"[1] and veda "knowledge") is an ancient Indian sacred collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns. It is counted among the four canonical sacred texts (śruti) of Hinduism known as the Vedas.[2] Some of its verses are still recited as Hindu prayers, at religious functions and other occasions, putting these among the world's oldest religious texts in continued use. [3]

It is one of the oldest extant texts of any Indo-European language. Philological and linguistic evidence indicate that the Rigveda was composed in the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, roughly between 1700–1100 BC[4] (the early Vedic period). There are strong linguistic and cultural similarities with the early Iranian Avesta, deriving from the Proto-Indo-Iranian times, often associated with the early Andronovo (Sintashta-Petrovka) culture of ca. 2200-1600 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda




The oldest known religious texts are Pyramid texts of Ancient Egypt that date to 2400-2300 BCE. The Epic of Gilgamesh from Sumeria is also one of the earliest literary works dating to 2150-2000 BCE, that includes various mythological figures . The Rigveda of Hinduism is proposed to have been composed between 1700–1100 BCE[1] making it possibly the world's oldest religious text still in use. The oldest portions of the Zoroastrian Avesta are believed to have been transmitted orally for centuries before they found written form, and although widely differing dates for Gathic Avestan (the language of the oldest texts) have been proposed, scholarly consensus floats at around 1000 BCE.[citation needed]

The first scripture printed for wide distribution to the masses was The Diamond Sutra, a Buddhist scripture, and is the earliest recorded example of a dated printed text, bearing the Chinese calendar date for 11 May 868 CE.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text#History_of_religious_texts

1. Pictorial use, in which the character is designed to convey to the mind the idea of the object it represents, and nothing more. This pictorial representation sometimes stands instead of a phonetic name for the object, but the most common use of it is to make the phonetic group of characters more intelligible by being subjoined to them. Thus, to the names of individuals the figure of a man is subjoined.[6]
2. Hieroglyphical writing is the symbolical, in which the object delineated is not meant to convey to the mind the idea of itself, but of something associated with it and suggested by it.
3. Phonetic writing, is really by far the most extensive. The greater part of the characters are as truly letters as if the language were English or Greek; syllable characters are the exception, not the rule.

In the ancient Egyptian inscription of any length it is found these three modes of writing in use together, but with a great predominance of phonetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing




What you are saying though is purely subjective as writing, in its most general terms, is just a drawn device to indicate a message and is composed of glyphs.

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 08:59 PM
LOL...I was a ton calmer here during a discussion about Creation and Science than I am during the game day threads. Maybe I should hang out over here on Thursday night.

Gameday threads are pure evil...I'm sure of it lol.

tony hipchest
12-08-2009, 09:35 PM
What you are saying though is purely subjective as writing, in its most general terms, is just a drawn device to indicate a message and is composed of glyphs.

you basically just compared "one of the oldest" with THE OLDEST. :hunch:

but since this thread has also turned into the "scientists are always right" thread, i gotta go with the majority of scientists and cunieform.

no need to get in a huff. you believe in one subjective science and i believe in another.

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 10:00 PM
you basically just compared "one of the oldest" with THE OLDEST. :hunch:

but since this thread has also turned into the "scientists are always right" thread, i gotta go with the majority of scientists and cunieform.

no need to get in a huff. you believe in one subjective science and i believe in another.

Lol, I'm sorry you think I'm getting into a huff or that I think scientists are always right (I for one, most certainly do not...and neither do most respectable scientists, which is why they present theories and not facts written in stone). I'm just having an enjoyable discussion and think the Egyptian and Hindu texts are interesting.

Why are you always reading more into something than there really is?

tony hipchest
12-08-2009, 10:14 PM
Lol, I'm sorry you think I'm getting into a huff or that I think scientists are always right (I for one, most certainly do not...and neither do most respectable scientists, which is why they present theories and not facts written in stone). I'm just having an enjoyable discussion and think the Egyptian and Hindu texts are interesting.

Why are you always reading more into something than there really is?

LOL. im sorry you think i need to calm down....

:rolleyes: (see how that works?)

:smile: - like most kids, egyptian archaeology is my favorite. (i find biblical much more interesting though. i like how moses, along with other egyptian leaders have been stricken from their documented "records").

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 10:18 PM
LOL. im sorry you think i need to calm down....

:rolleyes: (see how that works?)

:smile:

Um, sure...ok?

I'm sorry you're sorry?

Is there a point to you wanting to make a big deal out of nothing? There was a perfectly civil discussion going on before you started with the claims of an OP will ill intent and pigeon holing (for whatever reason)...can we get back to that please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore your further attempts to deflect the flow of the discussion.

tony hipchest
12-08-2009, 10:34 PM
Um, sure...ok?

I'm sorry you're sorry?

Is there a point to you wanting to make a big deal out of nothing? There was a perfectly civil discussion going on before you started with the claims of an OP will ill intent and pigeon holing (for whatever reason)...can we get back to that please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore your further attempts to deflect the flow of the discussion.did you not pigeonhole all "creationists"?

i just pointed out the obvious. :hunch:

no need to deflect from the fact that you did (although i see where it doesnt help out your argument much). :noidea:

there are still points i made. feel free to address them at anytime.... athough i already know that the 4-5 earliest forms of writing are "one of the earliest forms" of writing.

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 10:39 PM
did you not pigeonhole all creationists? i just pointed out the obvious. no need to deflect from the fact that you did (although it doesnt help out your argument much). :noidea:

If I did, it was not my intent. I'm sorry if me using Creationist thought as an example of belief in the literal meaning of Noah's Ark. Not sure how it weakens my argument at all, especially since I've pointed out more than once that they may be 100% right and I may be 100% wrong for all I know.

Listen, I'm only going to say this one more time, because this has been a very friendly thread until you started in on the OP and myself. I for one, am not sure why this whole tone is necessary all of the sudden. If you disagree with something I've said, just point it out and discuss it. There's really no need to get snarky...I'm much more easy going than that (on most occasions lol).

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 10:45 PM
there are still points i made. feel free to address them at anytime.... athough i already know that the 4-5 earliest forms of writing are "one of the earliest forms" of writing.

I know you did...and I responded to them. What else would you like me to say about the earliest religious texts? (since that was what the original topic that we discussed was on)

tony hipchest
12-08-2009, 10:48 PM
If I did, it was not my intent. I'm sorry if me using Creationist thought as an example of belief in the literal meaning of Noah's Ark. Not sure how it weakens my argument at all, especially since I've pointed out more than once that they may be 100% right and I may be 100% wrong for all I know.well i can easily accept that at face value, although i dont know if saying you can be 100% right or 100% wrong is any argument at all (let alone a strong one).

but i get what youre saying.

you really dont know.

and that is where i would say those with faith in that "that has been written" have an edge.

but that is just me, and i dont expect you (or those with the same skeptisism w/o any answers) to side with me.

not my loss. not my gain. :noidea:

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 10:55 PM
well i can easily accept that at face value, although i dont know if saying you can be 100% right or 100% wrong is any argument at all (let alone a strong one).

Well, that's kind of where this whole discussion got going. Can scientists be 100% sure of the theories they present? No, of course not...and they don't claim to. Can Creationists (or any believer in the literal meaning of the BIble) be 100% sure of what is written in the Bible? They say they are b/c of faith (and I accept that), but that can't prove they're right any more than a scientist can prove they're wrong.

but i get what youre saying.

you really dont know.

and that is where i would say those with faith in that "that has been written" have an edge.

but that is just me, and i dont expect you (or those with the same skeptisism w/o any answers) to side with me.

not my loss. not my gain. :noidea:

And that's fine. I'm content to believe that no one of will really know the truth until we're dead. I don't see anyone as having an edge at all concerning this topic, at least while they're still alive.

Anyway, this is probably a good place to end this (for tonight at least). I've enjoyed the good debate from everyone.

tony hipchest
12-08-2009, 11:00 PM
If you disagree with something I've said, just point it out and discuss it. There's really no need to get snarky...I'm much more easy going than that (on most occasions lol).is anyone who contends you opinion "snarky" in your eyes? is your opinion on the matter the "end all, be all"?

i dont care if i sway your beliefs. i pretty much have an unorthodox belief of acceptance that neither side is willing to accept.

the silence on this is proof of that and speaks volumes IMO.

expecting democrats and republicans to merge in a common thought is just a microcosm of hoping science and religion to see "eye to eye".

SteelCityMom
12-08-2009, 11:06 PM
is anyone who contends you opinion "snarky" in your eyes? is your opinion on the matter the "end all, be all"?

i dont care if i sway your beliefs. i pretty much have an unorthodox belief of acceptance that neither side is willing to accept.

the silence on this is proof of that and speaks volumes IMO.

expecting democrats and republicans to merge in a common thought is just a microcosm of expecting science and religion to see "eye to eye".

Huh? Ok..whatever. I guess you haven't read through this thread much. BF and I were having a perfectly civil discussion and I don't think he agreed with me very much lol.

It's your tone that is snarky...and you know it. I could care less if you agree with me or not, in fact, I prefer that you don't...it makes debate much more interesting.

Why your bringing politics into this either I'm not sure.

Anyway, have a good night. Sorry if you've taken anything I've said the wrong way...but you just sort of brought the mood of this thread down.

tony hipchest
12-08-2009, 11:23 PM
.

Why your bringing politics into this either I'm not sure.

Anyway, have a good night. Sorry if you've taken anything I've said the wrong way...but you just sort of brought the mood of this thread down. :sofunny: wow. WHOOOSH!!!!!!

politics was just an 'easy" analogy. i wouldve simply said "black and white" if i knew "rep and dem" was gonna be taken so literally and cause sensitivities.

but i guess that brings us right back to the OT of this thread... things being taken too literally and so much sensitivities being built up on those literal generalizations (pigeon meet hole).

thats my take and i am sticking to it. im pretty certain i havent taken anything wrong from the way you have intended so no reason to be sorry. :smile: :drink:

Borski
12-08-2009, 11:26 PM
Sorry, I don't have time to read all the pages of this right now, but I thought I'd add my 2 cents.

I consider myself to have a very strong Christian belief.

but in my opinion, not off of the Bible is literal, for example alot of Jesus' parables where stories to teach something. The Protical Son and the Good Samaritan most likely did not exist but where an example on how Christians should act.

Granted Noah's ark is not the same as Jesus' Parables. and I obviously don't know exactly what happened. I am sure Noah existed and there was a Flood. did it cover the whole earth, or did it cover the "known world" I'm not sure. Also, you think that if Noah wasnt able to get all the creatures on the Ark that God could have just made a couple more?

Another thing, I hate the 6,000 year argument. the 7 days in which God created the earth could very simply be interpreted as 7 steps. each "day" could span billions of years.

I'm a little tired right now so if this was a little incoherent, I apologize.

SteelCityMom
12-09-2009, 12:06 AM
:sofunny: wow. WHOOOSH!!!!!!

politics was just an 'easy" analogy. i wouldve simply said "black and white" if i knew "rep and dem" was gonna be taken so literally and cause sensitivities.

but i guess that brings us right back to the OT of this thread... things being taken too literally and so much sensitivities being built up on those literal generalizations (pigeon meet hole).

thats my take and i am sticking to it. im pretty certain i havent taken anything wrong from the way you have intended so no reason to be sorry. :smile: :drink:

Lol...Yes, it went over my head. :doh: I honestly just didn't understand how politics fit into it. It's late for me, and I'm tired and can't sleep, and the general mood my head is in now...it's no wonder it went over my head. Wasn't trying to be sensitive about it lol.

I really don't think anyone's been overly sensitive about the topic. Some people take the stories and timelines in the Bible literally, some don't...and not everyone who has a Christian faith does. Anyway, it was just an interesting way to pass the time for the evening...nothing more, nothing less.

tony hipchest
12-09-2009, 12:27 AM
Lol...Yes, it went over my head. :doh: I honestly just didn't understand how politics fit into it. It's late for me, and I'm tired and can't sleep, and the general mood my head is in now...it's no wonder it went over my head. Wasn't trying to be sensitive about it lol.

I really don't think anyone's been overly sensitive about the topic. Some people take the stories and timelines in the Bible literally, some don't...and not everyone who has a Christian faith does. Anyway, it was just an interesting way to pass the time for the evening...nothing more, nothing less.i didnt mean to make it too complicated.

a republican and democrat, or muslim or christian, or a creationist vs. evolutionist, or cat lover/dog lover, are just about as likely to see "eye to eye".

i could go on if further clarification is needed (it kinda all hinged on opposite sides of the spectrum)...

i sure hope people get the meaning of "opposite" and "spectrum" here. :hunch:

SteelCityMom
12-09-2009, 12:30 AM
i didnt mean to make it too complicated.

a republican and democrat, or muslim or christian, or a creationist vs. evolutionist, or cat lover/dog lover, are just about as likely to see "eye to eye".

i could go on if further clarification is needed...


Lol, no...I got it thanks. It wasn't too complicated, trust me...just tired and have a lot on my mind.

xfl2001fan
12-09-2009, 08:32 AM
You can't prove Jesus actually said what he said can you? You only have heresy to go on. Ask any Pastor when Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were actually written. They were written after the fact.

Proof that Jesus lived has been documented by even non-Christians in the first century. That's a pretty well documented fact. His enemies agreed that he lived. The Jews made reference to Him in their Talmud, a companion to their Scriptures. The Jewish historian Josephus, an eyewitness to these things, wrote about him. I don't question that Jesus lived. Read what I actually wrote. You can't prove what Jesus actually said what He said? A lot of the bibles that are in print have His words in a red text. Did He actually say that stuff? Did Matthew write the book of Matthew? Did Mark write the book of Mark? Did Luke write the book of Luke? Or...did someone write them (for them) based off of word of mouth stories told over hundreds of years? I don't know about you, but I have played a game when I was a kid where I whisper something in someone's ear and have them pass that sentence along to someone else...and by the time it got back to me, it was 99% of the time something entirely different. If it got wrote down by the last person and was treated as "gospel", the line would be incomplete and incorrect.

I don't question the existance of God. Nor do I question the existance of Jesus. I question the minute details of the bible. I believe that the morals are great morals to live by (whether they be the 10 Commandments or the Golden Rule") but the fine tuned specifics...those need to be questioned. If God wanted robots, he wouldnt' have given us intellect and free will. And he certainly wouldn't have made us human with all of our failings.

Who did the Angel talk to when Jesus was resurrected? Was it just Mary Magdalene? Was it Jesus Mom? Was it both? The 4 Gospel's can't seem to agree.

Matthew mentions two Mary's - Mary Magdeline and the Other Mary

Mark mentions Mary Magdeline and Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Luke mentions Mary Magdeline and Mary, the mother of James (Jesus's brother)

John only mentions Mary Magdeline

Just because someone wasn't mentioned within the text, doesn't mean that they were not present at the time. Within the Bible, different verses comment on other verses. What you see is consistency in what took place. You need to take all 4 accounts to understand what took place.
I have read all 4 accounts...the thing is, the Bible specifically mentions a great deal of things that don't necessarily add up. See the note above as to why I question those very details.
Why is Jesus Resurrection not on the same day every year? You'd think that, as a Christian, that date (in particular) would be important to you. It's not even always in the same month from year to year...

The day that Jeus arose from the dead is the same day every year. We don't know that day though. Man has made a holiday that acknowldeges his birth. It's really a non-issue as to what day he arose. The important fact is that he did arise from the dead.
What day did Easter fall on last year? What day will it fall on next year? Again, we are not truly interested in celebrating His ressurection because we don't bother to try and research when it happened. Instead, we base it on a pagan holiday that may not be in the same month from one year to the next. If His Birth was important enough to "assign" a specific date to...why wouldn't His Death and Resurrection have the same?

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-09-2009, 08:37 AM
I think the answer has to be "Yes", but I am quite certain that my Brain/intellect cannot possibly conceive how that could be the correct answer

I think THIS alone is the problem that unbelievers run into. In trying to comprehend the "infinite"...they run into "finite" problems in logic.

SteelMember
12-09-2009, 08:51 AM
I have to say, this has been a very interesting thread.

Dismissing the "intent" of the OP, I have read some very respectful and insightful posts.

Congrats to you all. :drink:

Oh, and Preach, I am one of those that somehow tries to mesh BOTH Science and Religion/Faith into my Belief System. It CAN be a struggle to come to grips with all of it...

But it is why I constantly question..well...pretty much everything!

I have been told that questioning God (or, His existence) is essentially blasphemous.
but, sorry to say, I cannot get into my head any God that does not allow the critical thought process of one who questions things. In my mind, any god who is so insecure that he/she/it does not allow questioning of his existence does not "deserve" the title (does that make sense?)

I am that I am
(that's all that needs to be said. Believe in me, or don't. I exist either way. AND it's OK to question...)

I could go on for hours with this---thought-provoking and interesting to hear other viewpoints
BUT I GOTTA GO, REALLY!

And is this not the gift of Freewill...?

I don't believe "GOD" exists to control, but instead to guide.
It is up to each of us to take from it what we want, and/or need.

Also, the word faith has been brought up several times, and sometimes even used in terms with science. I guess I'm confused on this, because my definition of faith is something one believes which can not be proved.

How does that relate to a science when in most cases, an absolute or definitive answer is what is being sought initially? What is scientific faith? Hopes that an experiment/test have a pre-conceived conclusion. :noidea:

BlastFurnace
12-09-2009, 08:54 AM
I don't question that Jesus lived. Read what I actually wrote. You can't prove what Jesus actually said what He said? A lot of the bibles that are in print have His words in a red text. Did He actually say that stuff? Did Matthew write the book of Matthew? Did Mark write the book of Mark? Did Luke write the book of Luke? Or...did someone write them (for them) based off of word of mouth stories told over hundreds of years? I don't know about you, but I have played a game when I was a kid where I whisper something in someone's ear and have them pass that sentence along to someone else...and by the time it got back to me, it was 99% of the time something entirely different. If it got wrote down by the last person and was treated as "gospel", the line would be incomplete and incorrect.

I don't question the existance of God. Nor do I question the existance of Jesus. I question the minute details of the bible. I believe that the morals are great morals to live by (whether they be the 10 Commandments or the Golden Rule") but the fine tuned specifics...those need to be questioned. If God wanted robots, he wouldnt' have given us intellect and free will. And he certainly wouldn't have made us human with all of our failings.


I have read all 4 accounts...the thing is, the Bible specifically mentions a great deal of things that don't necessarily add up. See the note above as to why I question those very details.

What day did Easter fall on last year? What day will it fall on next year? Again, we are not truly interested in celebrating His ressurection because we don't bother to try and research when it happened. Instead, we base it on a pagan holiday that may not be in the same month from one year to the next. If His Birth was important enough to "assign" a specific date to...why wouldn't His Death and Resurrection have the same?

Since you are probably young enough to not have witnessed many things in history, how can you be absolutely sure that anyone ever said anything then. Whenever anything is quoted from anyone before your birth that you did not see on film, but just in writing.....do you doubt that it was said by that particular person as well. If not, why not? How do you know that certain events really took place in history if you didn't witness them and only saw them in pictures and went by eyewitness accounts? Do you doubt that post Biblical historical events occurred as well? If not, why not?

It is true, the Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years by more than 40 different authors. What is noticed though is the consistency in which the writers relayed each story. Over a period of 1800 years, if the "story around the room" theory holds any water, the added details and misprepresentation would have been much greater. As it stands, the writers were very consistent with what took place even though some wrote about the same event 100 of years later. As for the N.T. the Pauline Epistles (the Apostle Paul's letters to the early church) were authored between A.D. 50 - 67. The author of Hebrews is unknown, but the book is commonly thought to have been written around A.D. 70. The epistles of the other Apostles were written between A.D. 48 - 90. The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is believed to have been penned by the Apostle John between A.D. 70 - 95.

How much research have you really done regarding the resurrection of Christ in the Bible? What other things don't add up in your view? How much honest digging have you done in the scriptures to try to figure these things out? Or, are you going by what other people have written. I am not asking this to belittle you, I would really like to know.

Again about Easter....what does it really matter what day it falls on every year. It would be impossible to determine the actual day that Jesus was born, died, and resurrected. What we do know is that it happened and that is what Christians celebrate.

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-09-2009, 08:54 AM
Here's my take:


The only reason people believe this stuff is because grown-ups shoved into that soft spot they had when they were little and their skulls hadn't fused yet.

Sorry, but that's how I see it.

And the only reason that someone DOESN'T want to believe it...is because they have unethical behavior and poor character in their life and dont want to think about the possibility of an "Ultimate Judge".

See how judgemental and ignorant that sounds?.....Think about it before you post next time.

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-09-2009, 09:54 AM
It would be well-poisoning to assume that a single (or even multiple) example of scientific bias would call into question the entire scientific record. It would be a tu quoque fallacy to spin "science is sometimes wrong" into "science is always wrong". And of course it would be a false dilemma to spin "science is wrong" into "religion is right".

That is a straw man argument...please dont do that.

I never said that science is "always wrong" nor did I even hint at questioning the entire "scientific record".

My point...which you missed or ignored...was that the scientific community can and has based theory on predetermined conclusions. It would be a "buffet mentality" for you to acknowledge that possibility in regards to global warming but disregard that possibility in regards to Biblical History.


How's about I use the bible to disprove itself instead?

Gen 32:30 "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." John 1:18 , "No man hath seen God at any time..."

Again you are thinking "within the box" of your own prejudices and placing restrictions on Biblical accounts that the Bible doesnt put upon itself.

I am assuming you know enough about Christianity to understand the Trinity. If not, its the belief that God is made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. All three being eternal.

Most theologians consider the first passage that you are quoting as one of the pre-incarnate appearing of Christ...(also happened to Joshua at the City of Jericho).


It is God the Father that the Bible says no man has ever seen (face to face).

You disproved nothing.

GoSlash27
12-09-2009, 10:20 AM
See how judgemental and ignorant that sounds?.....Think about it before you post next time.

I am aware of that, which is why I apologized for it when I made the statement. Nevertheless, that is how I see it.

My point...which you missed or ignored...was that the scientific community can and has based theory on predetermined conclusions. It would be a "buffet mentality" for you to acknowledge that possibility in regards to global warming but disregard that possibility in regards to Biblical History.
I certainly did not miss or ignore your point, but logically speaking you have no case. The possibility that scientific bias exists in this matter is not proof that it exists, nor is it proof that the Bible is historically accurate. There's nothing "straw man" about it. You attempted to spin "global warming" into "theology"; two completely different subjects. You have offered no proof that science is incorrect in the pertinent subjects, nor have you offered any proof that the bible is accurate. Nor could you.

Look... no offense, but the tone of your writing indicates some combativeness on your part in regards to this subject. Not that I'm blaming you for that, but I'm not looking to get into a shouting match here. If it's all the same to you, I'd rather discuss it with someone who's a little less emotionally involved.

xfl2001fan
12-09-2009, 10:57 AM
Since you are probably young enough to not have witnessed many things in history, how can you be absolutely sure that anyone ever said anything then. Whenever anything is quoted from anyone before your birth that you did not see on film, but just in writing.....do you doubt that it was said by that particular person as well. If not, why not? How do you know that certain events really took place in history if you didn't witness them and only saw them in pictures and went by eyewitness accounts? Do you doubt that post Biblical historical events occurred as well? If not, why not?

My question isn't the big events. There was a large flood in that area of the world. Too many stories, accounts, etc...

Did it actually rain for 40 days and 40 nights? Did Noah really live for 500 years? Those specifics are to be questioned (IMO). Because those are the numbers of fairy tales. Like several others here, I have a mix of Science/Religion that I believe will (eventually) lead us to finding more of the true answers that we have. As stated previously in this thread, it will still come down to faith...whether it's faith in the Scientific version or faith in the Religious version. You clearly have applied more faith on the religious aspect (which there is nothing wrong with that approach) than I have. I do have faith in God/Jesus and all of that. However, my intellect and faith in science forces me to question the specifics. Instead of actually taking the bible literally, I take it as a collection of parables intended to guide me through this world and into the next. To state the the bible is 100% true is to state that 40+ men (who all wrote portions of the bible) were infalliable when writing their texts. I'm not infalliable when I am typing my name...though I've written it countless number of times...I still make mistakes.

You might counter with God Inspired...I counter with why aren't we adding more to the bible? Why aren't more people that "God Inspired" anymore? We'll go in an endless circle. I question to learn, I question to improve upon my faith. I question to help others learn and to help them imrpove upon their faith. Otherwise, it's the Blind leadnig the Blind.

It is true, the Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years by more than 40 different authors. What is noticed though is the consistency in which the writers relayed each story. Over a period of 1800 years, if the "story around the room" theory holds any water, the added details and misprepresentation would have been much greater. As it stands, the writers were very consistent with what took place even though some wrote about the same event 100 of years later. As for the N.T. the Pauline Epistles (the Apostle Paul's letters to the early church) were authored between A.D. 50 - 67. The author of Hebrews is unknown, but the book is commonly thought to have been written around A.D. 70. The epistles of the other Apostles were written between A.D. 48 - 90. The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is believed to have been penned by the Apostle John between A.D. 70 - 95.
But the specifics have been muddled some. That's why some texts were included in the Bible...and some were excluded. The Bible you read is the "accepted version". Not the whole bible, not all of the texts but the "accepted" texts. What does that tell you? That someone (or in this case a group of someones) ommitted stuff for a reason. What was their true purpose in ommitting them? You'll never truly know..because they could have been saying one thing and meaning something else. This particular point (ommitting texts) is what sets a lot of Non-Christians (and even some Christians) up in arms. Who are we to determine what truly belongs in the bible and what doesn't? Where these men who wrote the texts not also God Inspired?
How much research have you really done regarding the resurrection of Christ in the Bible? What other things don't add up in your view? How much honest digging have you done in the scriptures to try to figure these things out? Or, are you going by what other people have written. I am not asking this to belittle you, I would really like to know.
I've done some, not a whole lot. I take some stuff on faith (of the religous aspect) and some on faith (of the scientific aspect) because I KNOW that I'll never have all the answers...until I've moved on. For all that you know, we could both be wrong...the Extremist Muslims could have it right...and that we are supposed to kill the infidels who refuse to convert. My faith says they're wrong, their faith says mine is wrong. We don't know for sure. We won't know...so we improvise...and believe what we choose to believe. Nothing more, nothing less. You have made a choice...and it differs (slightly) from my choice. Neither is right, neither is wrong. They just are.
Again about Easter....what does it really matter what day it falls on every year. It would be impossible to determine the actual day that Jesus was born, died, and resurrected. What we do know is that it happened and that is what Christians celebrate.

The Day should matter because it's the day that He went from being the Son of God (in the Flesh) to His Spiritual Ascent into heaven where He belongs. Maybe that's not important to you...but I place a great importance on the greatest miracle since His birth. No mircale since can touch it.

Instead, some Christian leaders tied His Resurrection in with some Pagan holiday to boost their numbers. (Then again, they did the same with His Birth...)

Sound scandalous? It does to me.

ACORN does something like that...and the political world is up in arms. But Christians accept the decision with faith that in the end, all will be right.

If I were to die and go to heaven...I'll have a tombstone with my name on it that will have the exact date of my birth and death. Why would Jesus family not have kept some sort of record of that account? How does something that momentus not make it safely through the annuls of time? If His spoken words made it through with "amazing accuracy"...the date of his Birth, Death and Resurrection should be the same right?

BlastFurnace
12-09-2009, 11:11 AM
My question isn't the big events. There was a large flood in that area of the world. Too many stories, accounts, etc...

Did it actually rain for 40 days and 40 nights? Did Noah really live for 500 years? Those specifics are to be questioned (IMO). Because those are the numbers of fairy tales. Like several others here, I have a mix of Science/Religion that I believe will (eventually) lead us to finding more of the true answers that we have. As stated previously in this thread, it will still come down to faith...whether it's faith in the Scientific version or faith in the Religious version. You clearly have applied more faith on the religious aspect (which there is nothing wrong with that approach) than I have. I do have faith in God/Jesus and all of that. However, my intellect and faith in science forces me to question the specifics. Instead of actually taking the bible literally, I take it as a collection of parables intended to guide me through this world and into the next. To state the the bible is 100% true is to state that 40+ men (who all wrote portions of the bible) were infalliable when writing their texts. I'm not infalliable when I am typing my name...though I've written it countless number of times...I still make mistakes.

You might counter with God Inspired...I counter with why aren't we adding more to the bible? Why aren't more people that "God Inspired" anymore? We'll go in an endless circle. I question to learn, I question to improve upon my faith. I question to help others learn and to help them imrpove upon their faith. Otherwise, it's the Blind leadnig the Blind.


But the specifics have been muddled some. That's why some texts were included in the Bible...and some were excluded. The Bible you read is the "accepted version". Not the whole bible, not all of the texts but the "accepted" texts. What does that tell you? That someone (or in this case a group of someones) ommitted stuff for a reason. What was their true purpose in ommitting them? You'll never truly know..because they could have been saying one thing and meaning something else. This particular point (ommitting texts) is what sets a lot of Non-Christians (and even some Christians) up in arms. Who are we to determine what truly belongs in the bible and what doesn't? Where these men who wrote the texts not also God Inspired?

I've done some, not a whole lot. I take some stuff on faith (of the religous aspect) and some on faith (of the scientific aspect) because I KNOW that I'll never have all the answers...until I've moved on. For all that you know, we could both be wrong...the Extremist Muslims could have it right...and that we are supposed to kill the infidels who refuse to convert. My faith says they're wrong, their faith says mine is wrong. We don't know for sure. We won't know...so we improvise...and believe what we choose to believe. Nothing more, nothing less. You have made a choice...and it differs (slightly) from my choice. Neither is right, neither is wrong. They just are.


The Day should matter because it's the day that He went from being the Son of God (in the Flesh) to His Spiritual Ascent into heaven where He belongs. Maybe that's not important to you...but I place a great importance on the greatest miracle since His birth. No mircale since can touch it.

Instead, some Christian leaders tied His Resurrection in with some Pagan holiday to boost their numbers. (Then again, they did the same with His Birth...)

Sound scandalous? It does to me.

ACORN does something like that...and the political world is up in arms. But Christians accept the decision with faith that in the end, all will be right.

If I were to die and go to heaven...I'll have a tombstone with my name on it that will have the exact date of my birth and death. Why would Jesus family not have kept some sort of record of that account? How does something that momentus not make it safely through the annuls of time? If His spoken words made it through with "amazing accuracy"...the date of his Birth, Death and Resurrection should be the same right?

You still didn't answer my question. Do you doubt every other non-biblical historical event or words that occurred that there is no visual or vocal evidence that they occured? Even if there is visual or vocal evidence, do you believe that history has skewed that as well so that it is not reliable? That seems to be the stance that you take with Biblical History. If you don't apply the same doubt to non-biblical events, why not?

SteelCityMom
12-09-2009, 11:19 AM
Since you are probably young enough to not have witnessed many things in history, how can you be absolutely sure that anyone ever said anything then. Whenever anything is quoted from anyone before your birth that you did not see on film, but just in writing.....do you doubt that it was said by that particular person as well. If not, why not? How do you know that certain events really took place in history if you didn't witness them and only saw them in pictures and went by eyewitness accounts? Do you doubt that post Biblical historical events occurred as well? If not, why not?

This is an absolutely fair argument...and not to step in and hijack your conversation, just wanted to get my 2 cents in on this. I always took what was written in history books with the same grain of salt that I take what was written in the Bible. Things get skewed over time IMO, and it's hard to know what are factual historical records and what are just stories and legends that are handed down. For instance, we all learned the stories of Lincoln never telling a lie and Washington cutting down the cherry tree. These are probably not accurate accounts of anything, yet they are good moral stories. Word of mouth became a written story and somehow they ended up in kids history books. In another sense, there are definitive records of things like the meetings of the Continental Congress to draft the Declaration of Independence. While we can never be 100% sure of the words stated in these meetings, since we were not there, we can be pretty certain that what was recorded on paper from these meetings is what actually took place.


Again about Easter....what does it really matter what day it falls on every year. It would be impossible to determine the actual day that Jesus was born, died, and resurrected. What we do know is that it happened and that is what Christians celebrate.

The reason the time of year is important in Easter celebration is because many cultures before Christianity had "renewal" celebrations at this time of year. Some were just because of the renewal of the harvests, some Pagan religions celebrated the death and rebirth of their deity (namely Attis) at this time. I respect that Christians wish to celebrate what they believe to be the death and resurrection of Christ during this time, but there are accounts of similar celebrations (namely Pagan ones) that took place during this time.

"Many, perhaps most, Pagan religions in the Mediterranean area had a major seasonal day of religious celebration at or following the Spring Equinox. Cybele, the Phrygian fertility goddess, had a fictional consort who was believed to have been born via a virgin birth. He was Attis, who was believed to have died and been resurrected each year during the period MAR-22 to MAR-25. "About 200 B.C. mystery cults began to appear in Rome just as they had earlier in Greece. Most notable was the Cybele cult centered on Vatican hill ...Associated with the Cybele cult was that of her lover, Attis (the older Tammuz, Osiris, Dionysus, or Orpheus under a new name). He was a god of ever-reviving vegetation. Born of a virgin, he died and was reborn annually. The festival began as a day of blood on Black Friday and culminated after three days in a day of rejoicing over the resurrection." 3

Wherever Christian worship of Jesus and Pagan worship of Attis were active in the same geographical area in ancient times, Christians "used to celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus on the same date; and pagans and Christians used to quarrel bitterly about which of their gods was the true prototype and which the imitation."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter.htm

xfl2001fan
12-09-2009, 11:32 AM
You still didn't answer my question. Do you doubt every other non-biblical historical event or words that occurred that there is no visual or vocal evidence that they occured? Even if there is visual or vocal evidence, do you believe that history has skewed that as well so that it is not reliable? That seems to be the stance that you take with Biblical History. If you don't apply the same doubt to non-biblical events, why not?

Absolutely I question a lot of historical events. The "Truth" of events (particularly when it pertains to war) is written by the victors. The closer we get to "current" the more validity the "truths" are likely to hold. We have a better system of checks and balances in place now...although the almight Wikipedia is relied on entirely too much. This converstaion, however, pertains to biblical events (it started with Noah and progressed from there.)

Let's one very simple (but important) example of a biblical question.

Christians are raised to believe that God created Adam and then Eve. And that all of mankind was spawned from there. This is a fairy tale. Adam, could have meant "mankind" as has been stated previously...but if that's the case, why aren't we taught that from the get go? Why do we teach a lie (that it was someone named Adam and someone named Eve?) If God did in fact create someone called Adam and someone called Eve...why did he not create others? If he did, why were they not mentioned? Who else at from the Tree of Knowledge that caused them to be cast out of the Garden? Or were we all spawned from Adam, Eve and their (obviously) incestuest children? Can I find the Gardne of Eden on my GPS? If not, where did it go? Did God destroy it? I know the bible mentions an angel and a sword of fire...but that'd be pretty obvious to see in this day and age.

You get what I'm saying? I don't doubt that God created us. It's the specifics (the minute details) that I question. I have faith in God. I have faith that if I follow the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule, that I'll have a shot at getting into heaven. That my faith in the higher being will allow my eternity (which is truly impossible to envision) to be a pleasant one. I'll worry more about my eternity when I'm dead (let the living be concerned with the living...a parable that Jesus taught) and concner myself with the here and now...and improving the lives of my family and my future generations.

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-09-2009, 11:37 AM
I certainly did not miss or ignore your point, but logically speaking you have no case. The possibility that scientific bias exists in this matter is not proof that it exists, nor is it proof that the Bible is historically accurate. There's nothing "straw man" about it. You attempted to spin "global warming" into "theology"; two completely different subjects. You have offered no proof that science is incorrect in the pertinent subjects, nor have you offered any proof that the bible is accurate. Nor could you.



Nice try...but its not a spin. Again, attempt to argue fairly.

The debate has become one of science vs theology...so it actually is very pertinent.

The point was that:
1) If the scientific community can be shown to have a history of basing "Theory" on forgone conclusions and...
2) Then teach theory as fact....

Then the basis of your argument becomes one of faith..and faith alone, because the "facts" may be biased.

You have admitted that the scientific community has "bought in" to global warming. I agree and would add that it is choicing to ignore any facts that do not support their forgone conclusion thereby tipping the "proof" to their favor. Likewise...If the scientific community chooses to ignore those facts that support Biblical History it tips the "proof" towards secularism.

You have offered no proof that science is correct and the Bible isnt....you have attempted...but you have not succeeded.

Look... no offense, but the tone of your writing indicates some combativeness on your part in regards to this subject. Not that I'm blaming you for that, but I'm not looking to get into a shouting match here. If it's all the same to you, I'd rather discuss it with someone who's a little less emotionally involved.

....and no offense...but when you categorize people of faith as "having soft spots in their skull that have not fused together" then you have given up the right to act like a victim and start whining about someone giving you back what you are serving.

If you dont want that sort of retoric...then you need to stop giving it.

SteelMember
12-09-2009, 01:39 PM
What day did Easter fall on last year? What day will it fall on next year? Again, we are not truly interested in celebrating His ressurection because we don't bother to try and research when it happened. Instead, we base it on a pagan holiday that may not be in the same month from one year to the next. If His Birth was important enough to "assign" a specific date to...why wouldn't His Death and Resurrection have the same?

I believe Passover has a lot ot do with the dating here. The differences in the Hebrew calander and the Gregorian Calendar. We are dependant on their "estimation" when converting.

Passover, the Last Supper as Jesus' Sedar, Jesus as the Passover Lamb, and the Resurection

The timing was well thought out... even predicted in some texts.

____________________

I am still a bit confused by your use of faith as it pertains to science. Are you using it as a synonym for belief?
As in, your belief in science, or your faith in science and it's absolutes.

xfl2001fan
12-09-2009, 02:39 PM
I believe Passover has a lot ot do with the dating here. The differences in the Hebrew calander and the Gregorian Calendar. We are dependant on their "estimation" when converting.

Passover, the Last Supper as Jesus' Sedar, Jesus as the Passover Lamb, and the Resurection

The timing was well thought out... even predicted in some texts.

____________________

I am still a bit confused by your use of faith as it pertains to science. Are you using it as a synonym for belief?
As in, your belief in science, or your faith in science and it's absolutes.

What I'm referring to (in regards to Passover) is along these lines. If I die tomorrow, then I will have died on 10 Decmeber 2009. 10 years from now, if my wife is going to put flowers on my grave on the anniversary, it will fall on 10 December 2019. The "celebration" of my moving on won't change dates from year to dear.

When Jesus died...and then arose...you'd think that we'd use the exact same date every year...not base it off of the lunar cycle in conjunction with some pagan holiday.

At least with His birth, it falls on the same date every year...even if we are fairly confident that it isn't actually His true birthdate (and is tied in with a pagan holiday that has His birth associated with the New Year).

And yet...the same texts that can't give us His dates of momentous occasions (birth/death)...can manage to give us His words. And not just one or two great lines...but lengthy conversations. This is why I mention that I question the specifics...but not the generalities.

As for faith in science, yeah, I wanted to use it as a synonym for belief. It didn't feel right when I was typing it up to say faith in religion and belief in science. Faith (IMO) sounds stronger than belief...and I didn't want someone else (anybody else) to try and read too far into my words spinning the discussion a little further away from the point I am trying to make.

revefsreleets
12-09-2009, 02:40 PM
Rev

I have to question your motives for creating this thread. You dont believe in God and dont believe in the literal view of Biblical history. So my question to you would be....

What exactly can a believer tell you that would make you change your mind? If the answer is nothing, then why the need for a post and why try and minimilize others Faith?

Seriously. With your posts on Jesus and then after reading this thread....I dont think that I am the only one to sense a "hostile" attitude towards Christianity.

Why the need to "prove" something through the creation of a thread? A discourse on beliefs would be welcome, but your posts are beginning to reek of arrogant disregard of what others hold sacred.

I only got this far (and I have to go back and read from here on...) but who said I didn't believe in God?

I never said that? If I did I was playing Devil's advocate and retracted later...

I question man-made, organized religion...and by the looks of this thread, I'm very much spot-on in doing so...

BlastFurnace
12-09-2009, 02:46 PM
I'm very much spot-on in doing so...

I don't get that impression at all from this thread.

What kind of religion would be right for you then? Would it be a religion that had every single question answered without any need for faith?

There's not a single thing on earth that fits into that description...religion or not.

revefsreleets
12-09-2009, 02:59 PM
I don't get that impression at all from this thread.

What kind of religion would be right for you then? Would it be a religion that had every single question answered without any need for faith?

There's not a single thing on earth that fits into that description...religion or not.


Ok...I'm caught up.

To answer your question, I was taught that Religion and Science can be reconciled, and that the bible was written by men who were trying their best to describe things they didn't necessarily understand, or things that were filtered through their extremely narrow view of the World (someone brought that up earlier, the whole "Earth as the center of the Universe" thing).

They were extremely limited by their lack of knowledge at the time. How would a dude a couple thousand years ago describe Cowboys stadium if they could see it? Think in THOSE terms.

Look, anyone can believe anything they want...but I find it odd and unusual that people will, on one hand, make fun and dismiss Scientology out-of-hand, and on the other, totally delude themselves into believing equally fantastical nonsense simply because that's the way they were taught since they were kids. At least be even-handed...if you don't think Xenu flew Boeing 707 shaped spaceships across the Universe into volcano's eons ago, fine, but don't bash it while also asserting that humans domesticated dinosaurs, and acting like people who don't believe THAT are ignorant fools.

I take umbrage with people who will very narrow-mindedly deride ME for saying that it's silly to completely deny scientific evidence, sometimes OVERWHELMING evidence simply because holding a strictly literal view of a book written a couple millennium ago told them that what their eyes actually see and their ears actually hear CAN'T be true...God gave us logical minds, and the ability to reason...I doubt he's pleased to see people not using those gifts, ESPECIALLY in his name...

BlastFurnace
12-09-2009, 04:18 PM
Ok...I'm caught up.

To answer your question, I was taught that Religion and Science can be reconciled, and that the bible was written by men who were trying their best to describe things they didn't necessarily understand, or things that were filtered through their extremely narrow view of the World (someone brought that up earlier, the whole "Earth as the center of the Universe" thing).

They were extremely limited by their lack of knowledge at the time. How would a dude a couple thousand years ago describe Cowboys stadium if they could see it? Think in THOSE terms.

Look, anyone can believe anything they want...but I find it odd and unusual that people will, on one hand, make fun and dismiss Scientology out-of-hand, and on the other, totally delude themselves into believing equally fantastical nonsense simply because that's the way they were taught since they were kids. At least be even-handed...if you don't think Xenu flew Boeing 707 shaped spaceships across the Universe into volcano's eons ago, fine, but don't bash it while also asserting that humans domesticated dinosaurs, and acting like people who don't believe THAT are ignorant fools.

I take umbrage with people who will very narrow-mindedly deride ME for saying that it's silly to completely deny scientific evidence, sometimes OVERWHELMING evidence simply because holding a strictly literal view of a book written a couple millennium ago told them that what their eyes actually see and their ears actually hear CAN'T be true...God gave us logical minds, and the ability to reason...I doubt he's pleased to see people not using those gifts, ESPECIALLY in his name...

That's the difference between where you and I stand then. I believe what the Bible says about it's writers....that they were inspired by God to write the things that they did. Because of that difference, you see where there can be fault in the Bible and I don't see that fault.

As far as your Cowboys stadium comparison, true...they probably would have a hard time explaining a structure like that....the same way people today can't understand how the Noah built an Ark or the majesty of the Temple. All 3 structures exist or existed, but are hard to explain by those living in different era's of history. People today can't even explain who or what built the Egyptian Pyramids, but we know someone did. A lack of comprehension or explanation still doesn't dismiss anything at all. God did a lot of things for the Israelites back then....gave them the Mosaic Law, gave them instructions on how to build structures like the Temple, gave them direction in settling civil matters, and punished them when needed.

I don't dismiss science entirely. I think if offers plenty of things to society. Where I do dismiss science and have major disagreements with it is when they claim something as fact..all the while calling it a theory, teach it as fact, and call people ignorant or uninformed when they don't buy into it. There is absolutely no proof that humans came from a tadpole, ape, or any other kind of species....but it's taught in schools while the Biblical account of creation is heralded as narrow minded and ignorant. There are scientists who teach and believe that we came from one human ancestor, but you never hear from those scientists and they aren't represented in schools....why...because that is not what the agenda is in this world. We live in a world of "enlightenment" where core values and beliefs are being put down. Even people who aren't religious can see that.

You are right that God gave us a mind to think with and to use and to advance our culture...but what is the consistent theme in all of scripture of what he desires from the people he created.....To acknowledge who He is and what he has done for us, to obey Him, to have a relationship with Him, and for us to love Him...in other words...the simple things of life that anyone can do if they choose to.

xfl2001fan
12-09-2009, 04:37 PM
That's the difference between where you and I stand then. I believe what the Bible says about it's writers....that they were inspired by God to write the things that they did. Because of that difference, you see where there can be fault in the Bible and I don't see that fault..

I know this particular post was directed at Revs, but....

You still didn't answer my question.

I was kind enough to respond...please explain to me how these God Inspired writers can get the verbage of Jesus correct (in your estimation) but can't give us the actual date of his birth (a momentous occasion) or his death and resurrection (an even more momentous occasion)...and why his resurrection isn't celebrated on the same date each year?

BlastFurnace
12-09-2009, 05:23 PM
I know this particular post was directed at Revs, but....



I was kind enough to respond...please explain to me how these God Inspired writers can get the verbage of Jesus correct (in your estimation) but can't give us the actual date of his birth (a momentous occasion) or his death and resurrection (an even more momentous occasion)...and why his resurrection isn't celebrated on the same date each year?

I can't give you an explanation as to why a specific date was not recorded for his birth, death, and resurrection. That in no way discounts the inspiration of the scriptures. To me, it's a non issue that I don't know any of them. Like I have said, the important thing is that each is recorded as taking place. Without the Resurrection, we have no hope (1 Corinthians 15:12-18)

I have no idea why we celebrate Easter on a different day every year. According to 1 Corinthians 11:26...for the Christian, we celebrate Christ's Death every single Sunday through the observance of the Lord's Supper. We don't observe his Death only one day of the year, but every time we take part in the Lord's Supper. As far as the Resurrection is concerned, it was spoken of daily in the New Testament as you read the book of Acts. Likewise, it is not celebrated one day a year. The Date of his birth is not recorded either, but I don't believe it is December 25th.

I'm not sure what answer you are looking for, but I cannot nail down a date as you are wanting. Living the life of a Christian is a daily walk and celebration. Not a once a year event.

Preacher
12-09-2009, 05:29 PM
What I'm referring to (in regards to Passover) is along these lines. If I die tomorrow, then I will have died on 10 Decmeber 2009. 10 years from now, if my wife is going to put flowers on my grave on the anniversary, it will fall on 10 December 2019. The "celebration" of my moving on won't change dates from year to dear.

When Jesus died...and then arose...you'd think that we'd use the exact same date every year...not base it off of the lunar cycle in conjunction with some pagan holiday.

At least with His birth, it falls on the same date every year...even if we are fairly confident that it isn't actually His true birthdate (and is tied in with a pagan holiday that has His birth associated with the New Year).

And yet...the same texts that can't give us His dates of momentous occasions (birth/death)...can manage to give us His words. And not just one or two great lines...but lengthy conversations. This is why I mention that I question the specifics...but not the generalities.

As for faith in science, yeah, I wanted to use it as a synonym for belief. It didn't feel right when I was typing it up to say faith in religion and belief in science. Faith (IMO) sounds stronger than belief...and I didn't want someone else (anybody else) to try and read too far into my words spinning the discussion a little further away from the point I am trying to make.

No.

If you died tomorrow, your wife would celebrate your death on that date every year. However, if she moved to a place that had a calendar based on the moon instead of the sun, then the celebration of your death would change every year, because the moon cycle and the earth's rotation cycle (sun calendar) are different.

Israel was on a moon calendar. Rome on a Sun Calendar, and easter as it is now understood is a made up holiday that started 4 centuries or so later to replace a pagan holiday. Originally, the resurrection was celebrated every Sunday, which is why Christians worship in Sunday and not Saturday.

tony hipchest
12-09-2009, 05:35 PM
I was kind enough to respond...please explain to me how these God Inspired writers can get the verbage of Jesus correct (in your estimation) but can't give us the actual date of his birth (a momentous occasion) or his death and resurrection (an even more momentous occasion)...and why his resurrection isn't celebrated on the same date each year? a few things....

are you really expecting someone to produce a birth certificate or something? lol

what makes you think joseph and mary had a calendar hanging on their wall?

do you think there was a calendar on the wall of the manger he was born?

do you really think they threw a birthday party for him every year, blew up balloons and baked a cake?

can you even say for certain when plato and socrates were born?

if someone did profess to know the actual date and it was written and documented, wouldnt you find that even MORE fishy, being that birthdays were just any other day in his culture?

why is this discussion even taken place in the diversionary thread instead of the Jesus thread?

i think you are missing a few core principals in his entire philosophy and teachings. Jesus didnt love his mom, dad, brothers, or disciples any more than the vagrants on the street that he healed. Jesus would also not want to be worshiped or remembered on 2 days a year, or sundays only. everyday was the same.

Jesus was persecuted for healing on sundays. :noidea: to put it bluntly, he didnt give a shit about the day of the week or date of the year. he never endorsed an annual day of celebration on his behalf, but as he broke bread and drank wine, he did say "do this in rememberance of me" (notice he didnt say 1 day a year).

Preacher
12-09-2009, 05:37 PM
Raining for 40 days.

No.

You are understanding numbers in a scientific age. In the bible, and for that matter in most pre-scientific worlds, numbers are squishy. They have a wide variety of meanings. Here, 40 means either actually 40, or "A long long time" To tell the difference, you go back to the text and look at the context. It was 40 days. it is a narrative with no defining features other than "40 days" which means it is probably interpreted a long, long time.

The same account happens with Moses. He was 40 years old when he went into the dessert? No. He was OLD when he went into the dessert. He was 80 years old when he came back and led israel? No, he was REALLY OLD. He was 120 when he died? No, he was Really Really Old.

It is a method of narrative that is employed to tell the story of Moses. The text that you and I read has been worked to teach the theology of the historical events, not to relate the historical events themselves. It is a History, not Historiography. Did they happen? Yes. Did they happen in the way the bible says they did? For the most part yes. But like I said, theology has been added to it. So, what do you do with Joshua and Israel attack the city of Ai? Ai means "ruin". If you look at the archeological issues, Israel didn't attack a "City of Ai" They attacked a town that has been labled as "ruin" and instead, Israel was almost "Ruined" because of her sin. Did the attack happen? Yep. But probably not on a "city of Ai".

The historicity of any written material wasn't an issue until the turn of the 19th century or so. It chronological snobbery/arrogance to read a historical document in antiquity and demand that it follow the standards of modern Historiography.

That is exactly what is being done by trying to pick apart the minutiae in the bible. You can't do it with the bible, you can't do it with Josephus, Tertullian, Philo, Tacitus, Herodotus, etc. etc. etc.

GoSlash27
12-09-2009, 05:57 PM
Preach,
The historicity of any written material wasn't an issue until the turn of the 19th century or so. It chronological snobbery/arrogance to read a historical document in antiquity and demand that it follow the standards of modern Historiography.
See, now that makes a whole lot more sense.
Therefore, it would stand to reason that the Bible is not to be literally interpreted in the matter of historicity.
It would also logically follow that the Church *should* have no problem with science proclaiming that the dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago or that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

tony hipchest
12-09-2009, 06:02 PM
It would also logically follow that the Church *should* have no problem with science proclaiming that the dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago or that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

it would also logically follow that science would have no problem with the church proclaiming that the big bang was when God snapped his fingers and said "let there be light".

GoSlash27
12-09-2009, 06:17 PM
it would also logically follow that science would have no problem with the church proclaiming that the big bang was when God snapped his fingers and said "let there be light".
One would think. I've read quite a few cosmologists and astronomers over the years who have postulated that. Many others have offered no opinion one way or the other. I've never seen anyone flatly deny it.
So long as the Church has no problem with a 14 billion year old universe, I'd say there's no contention here.

tony hipchest
12-09-2009, 06:35 PM
So long as the Church has no problem with a 14 billion year old universe, I'd say there's no contention here.i think people get hung on this whole creation in 7 days, thing.

maybe a day in Gods life = 2 billion human years, just like a "dog year" = 7 years.

its all relative.

a day is just a simple unit of measurement that is dependent on our single planet in relation to our single sun.

a day in the void of space lasts forever.

GoSlash27
12-09-2009, 06:58 PM
i think people get hung on this whole creation in 7 days, thing.
I agree. I think more directly that people get hung on the literal interpretation thing in general.
BF and I were discussing a few pages back about what "seen face to face" means in Hebrew, and how literal interpretation doesn't seem to work there either.
I think that if we simply remove the prereqiusite of literal interpretation of a text that was never intended to be read that way, we could do away with a lot of the disagreements.

The one glaring point left being creationism vs macroevolution.

Preacher
12-09-2009, 07:51 PM
Preach,

See, now that makes a whole lot more sense.
Therefore, it would stand to reason that the Bible is not to be literally interpreted in the matter of historicity.
It would also logically follow that the Church *should* have no problem with science proclaiming that the dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago or that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

You're taking a number of unnecessary steps there.

Not reading for historicity and denying the historical event are two different issues completely. The text points to the historical event, but does not proclaim to give a step by step report of it.

tony hipchest
12-09-2009, 08:05 PM
The one glaring point left being creationism vs macroevolution.thats the great thing about the bible. all that stuff about the beginning of the cosmos and life is covered on the first page. literally from the opening sentence (keep in mind the bible is not a science manual nor was it intended to be, and man had not yet lived in Gods image long enough to understand all the complexities)-




1 First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; of course the popular version is "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

same difference for all intents and purposes. does the first sentence in the bible suggest that planet earth was without form and void? what is earth? dirt? dust? atoms? matter?

the answer is yes to all.

so the modern translation in my mind would be "In the beginning God first created empty space (heavens) and then atoms and matter (earth)" i.e. first there was space, and then there was stuff in the space.

3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. the gasses, though not visible, were in fact, matter. this sentence to me describes the first time the gasses compressed in space and formed a star/sun.

And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.

the sun is made of burning gasses. hydrogen is the simplest atom in the universe. basic chemistry and the periodic chart show that as we add protons, neutrons, and electrons to a hydrogen atom, new elements are created. here we see the creation of H20 and then "dry land" (even heavier elements than water).

God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. even though "earth' was created in the first sentence, i contend it was matter. here Earth is capitalized and it is specific to our planet.

11 And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

now man had no idea about cells, or single celled organisms that thrived in the sea millions of years ago. yet they knew that vegetation came first as a form of life (most likely algae and such.

20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens."

how could the writers of the bible possibly know that life actually originated in the ocean? :tap:

." 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." it is widely believed (perhaps falsely) that birds evolved from dinosaurs. the science in this matter is still widely unknown.

23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind.

voila! we finally have mammals and other animals that roam the earth. this would obviously include primates. though it only specifies one of the oldest known domesticated animals (cattle), we can infer that primates preceded humans as man isnt yet mentioned. this is the period in which man was evolving.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." 29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.

here God separates man from the evolutionary chain. no longer is man an evolving animal, but a supreme species with domain over all others. here is where we learn to hunt, and gather (and one must assume to create tools and build fire).

finally in the garden of eden, which is nestled in the tigris/euphrates valley, God creates adam and eve. they are taught farming, cultivation, domestication of animals, etc.

it is absolutely no suprise that this is where civilization dawned. no suprise that written language and the codes of hammurabi etc. stemmed from exactly where God is said to have created man in his image.

how could one single page of the bible (the first page for that matter) sum up the big bang, gasses forming universes, the elements, evolution of life in the sea and plants, man evolving from a hunter/gatherer cave dweller all the way to the dawn of civilization as we know it.

what is summed up on one ancient page from a book several thousands of years old, man has written thousands and thousands of books & manuscripts, created colleges and sciences, to explain.

sure, some things may be lost in translation, but how could it be so close to the mark that science has supposedly established and proven?

some things you just cant make up.

GoSlash27
12-09-2009, 08:15 PM
Preacher,
Not reading for historicity and denying the historical event are two different issues completely. The text points to the historical event, but does not proclaim to give a step by step report of it.
No offense, but I think Tony's closer to the mark on this point. Fact is, the Bible cannot be reconciled with itself (let alone the prevailing evidence) if taken literally.
The examples I provided upstream are but a few that illustrate this point. There are many, many more that reinforce it.

GoSlash27
12-09-2009, 08:22 PM
Tony,
how could one single page of the bible (the first page for that matter) sum up the big bang, gasses forming universes, the elements, evolution of life in the sea and plants, man evolving from a hunter/gatherer cave dweller all the way to the dawn of civilization as we know it.

what is summed up on one ancient page from a book several thousands of years old, man has written thousands and thousands of books & manuscripts, created colleges and sciences, to explain.

sure, some things may be lost in translation, but how could it be so close to the mark that science has supposedly established and proven?

some things you just cant make up.
Keeping in mind that my personal rejection of faith is not intended to attack yours, I would say that the Biblical record of prehistoric progression is no more and no less accurate than the predictions of Miss Cleo and Nostradamus.
People have a tendency to see what they want to see, and reject that which they don't.
Or more accurately, when people set out to confirm a pre-assumed notion, they tend to focus on the things that reinforce it and reject that which contradicts it.
/ but that's just me :noidea:

tony hipchest
12-09-2009, 08:41 PM
Tony,

Keeping in mind that my personal rejection of faith is not intended to attack yours, I would say that the Biblical record of prehistoric progression is no more and no less accurate than the predictions of Miss Cleo and Nostradamus.
dont sweat it. its not my loss. but comparing the accuracy of the bible to miss cleo, shows a deeper issue and roadblocks that may forever prevent you from seeing the reasoning why billions of people have chosen to believe as opposed to a drop in the bucket who think nostradamus is a religion.

(edit- wasnt nostradamus a devout christian himself?)

to me, the proof is in the pudding. as one who i suppose believes in evolution, i would suspect you also believe in instinct, right?

Preacher
12-09-2009, 08:56 PM
Preacher,

No offense, but I think Tony's closer to the mark on this point. Fact is, the Bible cannot be reconciled with itself (let alone the prevailing evidence) if taken literally.
The examples I provided upstream are but a few that illustrate this point. There are many, many more that reinforce it.

But what do you mean by 1. Literally, because what you mean is probably not what most Christians mean and 2. Reconciled with itself? Because so far, the issues I have seen aren't problems of not being able to reconcile with itself, but which reconciliation is most applicable, and its subsequent moves to the theology. I could probably point out to you a dozen more "problems of reconciliation" than you. But like I said, the issue is which reconciliation to you take, not that it can't be reconciled.

Think about it for a second, how many Christians are writing Ph.D. dissertations every year? You have to write something original. Which means, you find something no one else has talked about, or a view no one else has taken, and argue it. I do seriously doubt you can show one place where there is no reconciliation.

I do think, that in the end, you choose not to see the reconciliation because you choose faith in a metanarrative that is not scripture. That is fine. I choose faith in the scriptural metanarrative.

So in my opinion, to say that there are things which are irreconcilable only means that 1. You are concluding from preconceived notions or 2. You haven't yet done the research to conclude such things. Or 3., a combination of 1 and 2.

Please don't take that as a slight. That isn't how I mean it. I just don't know of a better way of expressing it right now. Please forgive me if that came off as offensive or condescending, because I PROMISE, that isn't my intent or goal.

GoSlash27
12-09-2009, 09:44 PM
Tony,
comparing the accuracy of the bible to miss cleo, shows a deeper issue and roadblocks that may forever prevent you from seeing the reasoning why billions of people have chosen to believe as opposed to a drop in the bucket who think nostradamus is a religion.
Certainly. In fact, I would argue that "faith" is completely incompatible with "reason". But just to clarify, it's not my intent to portray Miss Cleo or Nostradamus as religious icons; just saying that people tend to subconsciously focus on the accurate parts and turn a blind eye to the inaccurate parts when they are emotionally compelled to prove dogma true.

Edit
Forgot to answer your question upstream.
i would suspect you also believe in instinct, right?
Depends on what you mean by "believe in". Yeah, I believe it exists, but I don't believe that it should necessarily be followed. I'm more of a fan of reason.

Preacher,
the issues I have seen aren't problems of not being able to reconcile with itself, but which reconciliation is most applicable
Which is to say that one literal interpretation is true and the other is false. That is exactly what I mean by "self-conflicted". In order to accept one statement of fact as true, one must reject the other. In that particular case, the conclusion is that the literal interpretation of Gen 32:30 is false.


I do think, that in the end, you choose not to see the reconciliation because you choose faith in a metanarrative that is not scripture.
Far from it. I do not "choose" to see the conflict, nor would anybody who approaches this subject with an open mind. Samuel 31:4 vs. Samuel 21:12. Either he committed suicide *or* he was killed in battle. Matt 1:16 vs. Luke 3:23. Joseph's father was either Jacob *or* Heli. James 1:13 vs Gen 22:1 God either did *or* did not tempt Abraham.
I do not choose to make these passages conflict with each other, they are simply mutually exclusive. They cannot be reconciled in any way that makes them both true. Proclaiming one true means proclaiming the other false.

Please don't take that as a slight.
None taken. :hug:

tony hipchest
12-09-2009, 10:04 PM
Certainly. In fact, I would argue that "faith" is completely incompatible with "reason". But just to clarify, it's not my intent to portray Miss Cleo or Nostradamus as religious icons; just saying that people tend to subconsciously focus on the accurate parts and turn a blind eye to the inaccurate parts when they are emotionally compelled to prove dogma true.



i would not take the side of that argument. infact i would argue that "faith" is based on "reason".

i would also say that people also point out the obvious with no other purpose than to point out what seems blatantly obvious, (emotion & dogma aside). :hunch:

GoSlash27
12-09-2009, 10:16 PM
Tony,
i would not take the side of that argument. infact i would argue that "faith" is based on "reason".
I'd be interested in hearing your argument supporting that.

i would also say that people also point out the obvious with no other purpose than to point out what seems blatantly obvious, (emotion & dogma aside).
And if you were in a jury box and a witness was providing testimony that was self contradictory, would you argue that people were pointing out the conflict in his testimony for no particular reason? Or are those contradictions being pointed out to illustrate a larger point?

tony hipchest
12-09-2009, 10:27 PM
Tony,

I'd be interested in hearing your argument supporting that.


you already have...

yet you compared it to calling up miss cleo. :tap:

:hunch:

GoSlash27
12-09-2009, 10:34 PM
you already have...
I certainly have not. Perhaps you posted it and I just missed it?

Correct me if you disagree, but I define "faith" as the assumption of a statement of fact to be true without proof. Or put another way, faith is belief that stands on it's own convictions.
If you agree with that definition, then I don't see how it could be compatible with reason whatsoever, let alone based in it.
Reason demands proof, and proof denies faith.

tony hipchest
12-09-2009, 11:18 PM
I certainly have not. Perhaps you posted it and I just missed it?

Correct me if you disagree, but I define "faith" as the assumption of a statement of fact to be true without proof. Or put another way, faith is belief that stands on it's own convictions.
If you agree with that definition, then I don't see how it could be compatible with reason whatsoever, let alone based in it.
Reason demands proof, and proof denies faith.

you certainly have.

i do disagree, and i do not subscribe to your definition of "faith". you use it as a synonym for "belief".

perhaps your definition of "faith" is (and i use your words) "set out to confirm a pre-assumed notion, they tend to focus on the things that reinforce it and reject that which contradicts it".

you are not emotionally compelled to prove your definition of "faith" as the truth, are you?







i interpret is at knowing something w/o the need for proof, based on reason.

your definition of the word is about as relevant as revs definition of who is and is not a "bust" in the nfl. when the rubber meets the road, it is all subjective and opinion.

your contention was that the bible didnt address macroevolution, and i showed you where it was addressed on the first page.

you dismissed that as miss cleo shenannigans. that is fine. all the semantics of what is the definition of 'faith" is, is a mere distraction from what has been written.

sure, could somebody be lucky enough to write that first page of the bible and pretty much nail it, "pre-science" only to have it later verified through science. its possible. but what are the odds of that 1 page of writing or "tales" surviving through centuries?

(see... im using reason, not faith. my faith is based on that reason)

SteelCityMom
12-10-2009, 12:16 AM
thats the great thing about the bible. all that stuff about the beginning of the cosmos and life is covered on the first page. literally from the opening sentence (keep in mind the bible is not a science manual nor was it intended to be, and man had not yet lived in Gods image long enough to understand all the complexities)-

That was a very interesting and informative interpretation of the beginning of Genesis. I'd never really looked at it that way before. Thanks for taking the time to post that.

I still think a lot of things in the Bible are not meant to be taken too literally, but that definitely reaffirms my thinking that, once you take away a lot of the personal feelings people have, science and religion certainly have a lot to learn from each other.

xfl2001fan
12-10-2009, 05:49 AM
a few things....

are you really expecting someone to produce a birth certificate or something? lol

what makes you think joseph and mary had a calendar hanging on their wall?

do you think there was a calendar on the wall of the manger he was born?

do you really think they threw a birthday party for him every year, blew up balloons and baked a cake?

can you even say for certain when plato and socrates were born?

if someone did profess to know the actual date and it was written and documented, wouldnt you find that even MORE fishy, being that birthdays were just any other day in his culture?

why is this discussion even taken place in the diversionary thread instead of the Jesus thread?

i think you are missing a few core principals in his entire philosophy and teachings. Jesus didnt love his mom, dad, brothers, or disciples any more than the vagrants on the street that he healed. Jesus would also not want to be worshiped or remembered on 2 days a year, or sundays only. everyday was the same.

Jesus was persecuted for healing on sundays. :noidea: to put it bluntly, he didnt give a shit about the day of the week or date of the year. he never endorsed an annual day of celebration on his behalf, but as he broke bread and drank wine, he did say "do this in rememberance of me" (notice he didnt say 1 day a year).
A few answers

- No
- I don't believe they did
- You don't find calendar's (easily produced in today's age) in horse barns now...can't imagine it'd be different back then
- Nope
- Nope
- Of course it would be fishy...especially since it's been lost in time anyways...then again, why was it assigned a date that is tied in with a Pagan Holiday?
- Because this thread's conversation moved to this particular subject...you'll have to go back and read through it to find out when/where...but it felt (mostly) like a natural conversion
- I don't think I'm missing any principles. I think I understand my faith better than you might realize...I think you shouldn't ASSume you know anything about my faith...because you look like a jackASS when you do...I think that I ask questions to those who profess to believe the Bible is the pure truth and will discourage other faiths/religions/science out of hand because it argues with the Bible...a document written by man hundreds (and even thousands) of years ago...when book-keeping wasn't exactly at it's best...and when the some of the stories within are absolutely ridiculous (i.e. a 500 year old Moses)
- I'm well aware of the breaking of bread ceremony, I have spent a lot of time in a lot of different denominations of Christianity to include Catholic churches (was in their choir for a short while). I'm also aware that you don't need to go to a Church every Sunday...or Saturday, or Wednesday...or whatever day you choose to Worship with fellow Christians. I'm also aware that we're much more likely to be judged by our actions on the day when we're not in Church (i.e. when we're more likely to be our true selves) than we are on the number of days we spent in a church, pimping our God Clothes and language/actions, etc...


That is exactly what is being done by trying to pick apart the minutiae in the bible. You can't do it with the bible, you can't do it with Josephus, Tertullian, Philo, Tacitus, Herodotus, etc. etc. etc.

Which is why I don't believe the bible in it's word for word literal sense...but I do believe in the basic story-lines. It's why I put more stock in the New Testament than I do in the Old Testament.

I ask those questions to people who tell me that the Bible is "The Truth" as if it can't be questioned...not because I don't believe in any of that stuff. It should be questioned. And those questions should be answered. The most bothersome part is that there are so many "hard cores" who would ostracize someone who has legit questions...

Then again, I know a few of the "hard cores" who would ostracize you for answering in an honest and forthcoming manner.

"The greatest cause of Atheism today is Christians."

GoSlash27
12-10-2009, 06:24 AM
Tony,
i do not subscribe to your definition of "faith". you use it as a synonym for "belief".

i interpret is at knowing something w/o the need for proof, based on reason.

I would say that your definition confuses belief with knowledge. Let's try it this way; we'll use the dictionary's definitions. From the Free online dictionary.


Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Knowledge: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning

Truth: Conformity to fact or actuality
Belief: Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

Which comes back to what I said earlier: Reason demands proof, proof denies faith.

stlrtruck
12-10-2009, 08:12 AM
In fact, I would argue that "faith" is completely incompatible with "reason". But just to clarify, it's not my intent to portray Miss Cleo or Nostradamus as religious icons; just saying that people tend to subconsciously focus on the accurate parts and turn a blind eye to the inaccurate parts when they are emotionally compelled to prove dogma true.


Personally, there are times when faith has no earthly reason. But all the time there is reason for faith. First and foremost, faith is blind. It has no direction, no sense of a physical foundation, but yet it is deep rooted and founded on the promises of God's word! To not believe in something takes just as much faith!

stlrtruck
12-10-2009, 08:16 AM
Which comes back to what I said earlier: Reason demands proof, proof denies faith.

And I would add that FAITH doesn't need proof and denies worldly reason.

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-10-2009, 08:26 AM
Tony,

In fact, I would argue that "faith" is completely incompatible with "reason".

Really...???

I would argue that Issac Newton had all the "faith" in the world that he would not float off the face of the earth...and through that fact he "reasoned" that all things are bound by a law of gravity.

:chuckle:

There are Four basic models of interaction in regards to working out how the authority of faith and reason inter-relate.


1) The conflict model. In which the methods of reason and faith seem to be very much pretty much identical. So when they seem to be saying different things, there is genuine rivalry. Used by religious fundamentalists on the side of faith, and scientific naturalists on the side of reason.

2) The incompatibilist model. The methods of reason and faith are distinct. Reason aims at empirical truth while religion aims at divine truths.

3) The weak compatibilist model. Here it is understood that dialogue is possible between reason and faith, though evaluation. For example, the substance of faith can be seen to involve "miracles" and that of reason to involve the scientific "theory".

4) The strong compatibilist model. Here it is understood that faith and reason have a parity. often called natural theology. Articles of faith can be demonstrated by reason, either deductively from widely shared theological premises or inductively from common experiences. It can begin with justified scientific claims and supplements them with valid theological claims unavailable to science, or it starts with typical claims within a theological tradition and refines them by using scientific thinking.

stlrtruck
12-10-2009, 08:31 AM
- Of course it would be fishy...especially since it's been lost in time anyways...then again, why was it assigned a date that is tied in with a Pagan Holiday?

From what I understand the surrounding events of this, it goes back to the early church attempting to convert the pagans to Christians. Because they celebrated the winter solstice, the church (as was with Easter) wanted to present a Christian view in order to the pagans in the church.

As for the birth of Christ, it has been determined that his birth actually took place during, what would be our summer months (if my memory serves me corretly - sometime in July).


Which is why I don't believe the bible in it's word for word literal sense...but I do believe in the basic story-lines. It's why I put more stock in the New Testament than I do in the Old Testament.

I believe the OT to be a guideline and useful when reading and applying God's word to our life. The Old Testament was also under the old covenant that God made with Israel. When Jesus Christ died on the cross, that old covenant was null and void and the new covenant became that which Christ paid for our sins. And that Christ is the way, the truth, and the light.


I ask those questions to people who tell me that the Bible is "The Truth" as if it can't be questioned...not because I don't believe in any of that stuff. It should be questioned. And those questions should be answered. The most bothersome part is that there are so many "hard cores" who would ostracize someone who has legit questions...

Then again, I know a few of the "hard cores" who would ostracize you for answering in an honest and forthcoming manner.

"The greatest cause of Atheism today is Christians."

The question remains is from whom do you search the answers? You being anyone who asks the questions. I truly believe that the bible can and does answer all our questions we may have. God knows I've spent a few days over my life time yelling and screaming at him, only because I knew He was the only one that would answer my frustration. The next question is, are you ready for the answers you will receive from God? Prime example, when I was 29 years old, living in MD, I told (and yes I mean TOLD) God I wanted to live in Pittsburgh or Tampa. I was not saved, but that I only knew who Jesus was and believe he was the son the God. I wanted to live in Pittsburgh because of my fanaticism with their sports teams. I wanted to live in Tampa because of their adult night life. God sent me to Tampa, and by a series of events with co-workers, within a year I was going to church. Within 3 years I was getting married and my life had completely changed. But to be honest in February 2000, I was a little pissed that I didn't get to move to Pittsburgh (and I let him know it). Point being that I truly believe that God wants us to talk with Him about everything in our life and He wants us to ask questions about what we read in His word. But I also believe He wants us to get the answers from Him and not the world.

I would agree with your last statement. It seems that some Christians have forgotten how Christ loved everyone. The woman at the well, the sick, the non-believers, the tax collectors, the lawyers, the prostitutes, etc. They were all loved by Christ, more so than the religious types of the day. Christ even commands us to love those who are un-loved (or in some cases un-lovable). It's when we stop "being" and start "doing" that the true love of Christ can be shown to others.

BlastFurnace
12-10-2009, 09:36 AM
Which is why I don't believe the bible in it's word for word literal sense...but I do believe in the basic story-lines. It's why I put more stock in the New Testament than I do in the Old Testament.

I ask those questions to people who tell me that the Bible is "The Truth" as if it can't be questioned...not because I don't believe in any of that stuff. It should be questioned. And those questions should be answered. The most bothersome part is that there are so many "hard cores" who would ostracize someone who has legit questions...

Then again, I know a few of the "hard cores" who would ostracize you for answering in an honest and forthcoming manner.

"The greatest cause of Atheism today is Christians."

You are right that people should question their faith, but I will couple that with doing some honest research about it as well. As an example, there are plenty of websites out there with people writing about the contradictions in scripture, but nearly all of these people don't do any kind of research to try to prove their views. They show one verse compared to another and just say "see...I told you so". These differences can be explained and shown to be not contradictions with just a little bit of research, but the bottom line is that people don't want to take the time. For the most part, we live in a microwave society...where if the answer to a question is not immediately available...they don't bother to look further into it. They would just take someone's word on the Internet that what they say is true without doing any kind of research themselves.

Additionally, if Christians are ostrazing anyone due to a lack of agreement, that is wrong. The Bible is full of examples of Paul debating with those who were in disagreement with him. Not all Christians ostracize others who disagree with them. You may have run across people that do, but that doesn't mean that all of us do.

I don't agree that the greatest cause of Atheism today is Christians. We live in a apathetic and angry society. Christian values and traditions are being attacked more and more every year by people and organizations because they view us as ignorant and intollerant because we believe what the Bible says.

The greatest cause for Atheism is the ability for humans to make a choice in the manner they want to live their lives. To blame it on Christians is just an excuse.

Indo
12-10-2009, 10:12 AM
First of all,
I must again commend everyone for keeping this civil and thought-provoking

We are talking about Faith vs Science (basically)
so I want to again ask this question that was answered only by BlastFurnace the first time I asked it (much earlier in this thread)...
here's a version of the same question (which, personally, I think is very difficult to answer)

Suppose a man can along claiming to be Jesus---returning as is stated in the Bible
Blastfurnace made the point that we would know that it is actually Jesus (and not just some crazy schizophrenic claiming to be Jesus) by the fact that the Bible says (in Revelations) that He will come down from the sky...)
So...the man says to you, "I am Jesus and I know what Revelations says, but I decided to come back early---as Man on Earth---to again spread My Word.
As a Test of Your Faith---I want you to jump off of this cliff (building, bridge, whatever).
Your physical body may or may not survive. But your Spiritual Self will Enter the Kingdom of Heaven immediately for showing your Faith.

Now, How do you reconcile or deal with All of the conflicts above?
---Is he really Jesus, or a crazy schizophrenic? How do you determine who he is--or, do you just have Faith

This is the modern version of what Job had to decide.


Has anyone's Faith TRULY been tested? By this I mean---if you are wrong and your Faith is misguided, are you willing to die to put it to the Test?


I have seen this type of Faith
Most of you know my profession as a Surgeon. We, of course, have to frequently treat Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't know if any board members are Jehovah's Witnesses, but most people know that they do not accept blood transfusions.
Now, it becomes VERY clear which J. Witnesses have REAL FAITH, and do not deviate from their beliefs, and which do not.

Examples:
What about patient with kidney failure that need dialysis?
Apparently if blood leaves the body it cannot be returned---that is the same as a"transfusion". But some Witnesses justify it by saying that the blood is contained
within the IV tubing, and therefore never truly left the body. And they go on dialysis.

What about hemophiliacs?
As we all know, they have a bleeding disorder that is very often fatal from loss of blood. They are missing a clotting factor in their blood which makes it impossible for their blood to clot if they get any sort of cut. They are prone to nosebleeds which, without the proper clotting factor, can be fatal. The usual remedy/treatment for this is that they are given transfusions of something known as "Cryoprecipitate". This is essentially a transfusion of filtered and frozen plasma which contains the missing clotting factor. The transfusion is given on an intermittent, but regular (monthly), basis to avoid/prevent serious bleeding complications.
I have treated Witnesses who accept the Cryoprecipitate transfusions---justifying it by stating that "It's not red" (Cryoprecipitate is a yellowish white color)


But...having said all that---seeing those people who don't REALLY adhere to their Faith when their Life is on the line
I have also treated patients who have had significant bleeding problems to the point that their blood counts are dangerously low. Their lives are in danger. And the very simple, Life-Saving answer is to give them a blood transfusion. And yet they adamantly adhere to their Faith---and refuse the transfusion. I have had long talks with them making it VERY clear that they WILL die. And still they refuse. And they die. 100% of the time. It is very frustrating KNOWING that their life could be saved. But it is also very HUMBLING seeing how strong their Faith is.

Sorry so long

Godfather
12-10-2009, 10:56 AM
You are right that people should question their faith, but I will couple that with doing some honest research about it as well. As an example, there are plenty of websites out there with people writing about the contradictions in scripture, but nearly all of these people don't do any kind of research to try to prove their views. They show one verse compared to another and just say "see...I told you so". These differences can be explained and shown to be not contradictions with just a little bit of research, but the bottom line is that people don't want to take the time. For the most part, we live in a microwave society...where if the answer to a question is not immediately available...they don't bother to look further into it. They would just take someone's word on the Internet that what they say is true without doing any kind of research themselves..

Good example: "The Bible says pi=3, derp derp!" Not true...the pool in question was ten cubits across and thirty cubits around, but it had a rim the width of a man's hand. That makes the outside of the rim 31 cubits if you do the math, and that's as close as you're going to get if you don't have a well developed concept of decimals and place value (which the Hebrews didn't).

revefsreleets
12-10-2009, 11:44 AM
1) The conflict model. In which the methods of reason and faith seem to be very much pretty much identical. So when they seem to be saying different things, there is genuine rivalry. Used by religious fundamentalists on the side of faith, and scientific naturalists on the side of reason.

2) The incompatibilist model. The methods of reason and faith are distinct. Reason aims at empirical truth while religion aims at divine truths.

3) The weak compatibilist model. Here it is understood that dialogue is possible between reason and faith, though evaluation. For example, the substance of faith can be seen to involve "miracles" and that of reason to involve the scientific "theory".

4) The strong compatibilist model. Here it is understood that faith and reason have a parity. often called natural theology. Articles of faith can be demonstrated by reason, either deductively from widely shared theological premises or inductively from common experiences. It can begin with justified scientific claims and supplements them with valid theological claims unavailable to science, or it starts with typical claims within a theological tradition and refines them by using scientific thinking.

I think I fall somewhere between 3 and 4.

I wonder how many people on this board are just SURE that I'm going to Hell? Mostly because I don't believe exactly as they do....

stlrtruck
12-10-2009, 11:46 AM
Suppose a man can along claiming to be Jesus---returning as is stated in the Bible
Blastfurnace made the point that we would know that it is actually Jesus (and not just some crazy schizophrenic claiming to be Jesus) by the fact that the Bible says (in Revelations) that He will come down from the sky...)
So...the man says to you, "I am Jesus and I know what Revelations says, but I decided to come back early---as Man on Earth---to again spread My Word.
As a Test of Your Faith---I want you to jump off of this cliff (building, bridge, whatever).
Your physical body may or may not survive. But your Spiritual Self will Enter the Kingdom of Heaven immediately for showing your Faith.

Now, How do you reconcile or deal with All of the conflicts above?
---Is he really Jesus, or a crazy schizophrenic? How do you determine who he is--or, do you just have Faith

This is the modern version of what Job had to decide.


Has anyone's Faith TRULY been tested? By this I mean---if you are wrong and your Faith is misguided, are you willing to die to put it to the Test?


I wish I could give you a definite answer on this but to be honest. No one really knows what will happen when their faith is tested. But I can tell you what I would hope I would do in this situation. NOT JUMP! While there will be some who jump because they believe the this crazy guy, the bible is specific when it states no one will know the date and time of my return. I truly believe, that it will be a Glorious Appearing and there will be no doubt who the True Jesus is when He arrives. I would pray that the Holy Spirit would dwell with in me and give me the discernment to know that this guy wasn't the real Jesus. I also don't believe that Jesus would return and ask us to jump of a cliff.


Quick question though, how do you determine that your question is what Job had to deal with? I did a bible study on Job and do not see the comparison, but that could be because I'm missing what your stating.

And I would say in America that only a few people have had their faith tested. True Faith testing is for the Christians who live in countries where being a Christian will get you killed but yet you continue to live your life according to the Word of God.

And yes, I would be willing to die to put it to the test, but that death will not be because some crazy person asks me to jump off a cliff.

BlastFurnace
12-10-2009, 11:52 AM
First of all,
I must again commend everyone for keeping this civil and thought-provoking

We are talking about Faith vs Science (basically)
so I want to again ask this question that was answered only by BlastFurnace the first time I asked it (much earlier in this thread)...
here's a version of the same question (which, personally, I think is very difficult to answer)

Suppose a man can along claiming to be Jesus---returning as is stated in the Bible
Blastfurnace made the point that we would know that it is actually Jesus (and not just some crazy schizophrenic claiming to be Jesus) by the fact that the Bible says (in Revelations) that He will come down from the sky...)
So...the man says to you, "I am Jesus and I know what Revelations says, but I decided to come back early---as Man on Earth---to again spread My Word.
As a Test of Your Faith---I want you to jump off of this cliff (building, bridge, whatever).
Your physical body may or may not survive. But your Spiritual Self will Enter the Kingdom of Heaven immediately for showing your Faith.

Now, How do you reconcile or deal with All of the conflicts above?
---Is he really Jesus, or a crazy schizophrenic? How do you determine who he is--or, do you just have Faith



This is where knowing what the Bible says about his 2nd coming makes a difference. Based upon your questions, I will answer them below:

So...the man says to you, "I am Jesus and I know what Revelations says, but I decided to come back early---as Man on Earth---to again spread My Word.

The Bible says that every eye will see him return (Acts 1:11, Revelation 1:7). He will also come with Power and with Great Glory (Luke 21:27). People will now that he has come back. They won't' need to be told. While it is true that scripture indicates that no Man knows the time that Christ will come back (Matthew 24:36), what we do know is that God has set his time for this to occur and it will be the right time (Matthew 24:36). Another point is that Jesus is not coming back to spread his word again. The 2nd coming will be to bring salvation to those who are waiting on him (Hebrews 9:28) and to reward those who have followed him (Revelation 22:12).

Additionally, scripture warns us against false Christs. In Matthew 24:23-26, NIV. "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ! or 'There He is! do not believe it. For false Christ's and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time. So if anyone tells you, 'There He is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here He is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it."

As a Test of Your Faith---I want you to jump off of this cliff (building, bridge, whatever).
Your physical body may or may not survive. But your Spiritual Self will Enter the Kingdom of Heaven immediately for showing your Faith.

The only one who ever asked anyone to jump off of anything to show their faith was Satan (Matthew 4). Jesus's response was not to put your Lord your God to the test. That would be precisely my answer as well. Jesus asked Peter to walk on water, but Jesus was also there to save his physical life when Peter began to sink....after walking on water for a time.

Now, How do you reconcile or deal with All of the conflicts above?

The Bible says for Christians to Study the Word (2 Timothy 2:15), to understand the word (Ephesians 3:4), and to understand God's will (Ephesians 5:17). You will know the difference if you spend time with God's word.

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-10-2009, 11:58 AM
I think I fall somewhere between 3 and 4.

I wonder how many people on this board are just SURE that I'm going to Hell? Mostly because I don't believe exactly as they do....

Oh no...I think you are to bad for Hell.

Your going to Cleveland.

revefsreleets
12-10-2009, 12:04 PM
Oh no...I think you are to bad for Hell.

Your going to Cleveland.

You got one part right....I be bad!

http://www.impawards.com/1980/posters/stir_crazy.jpg

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-10-2009, 12:07 PM
You got one part right....I be bad!




:chuckle:...you know I'm kidding.

I wouldnt wish Cleveland on Hitler.

Preacher
12-10-2009, 12:41 PM
Well. . . Like most threads about faith on this forum, two things have happened.

1. IT has been kept mostly civil.

2. It has morphed into about 6 different discussions that make it really hard to discuss or answer one!

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-10-2009, 12:46 PM
Well. . . It has morphed into about 6 different discussions that make it really hard to discuss or answer one!

I hadnt noticed that.

So whats your thoughts on middle eastern socio-economic politics as it pertains to preferring Coke over Pepsi?

revefsreleets
12-10-2009, 01:43 PM
:chuckle:...you know I'm kidding.

I wouldnt wish Cleveland on Hitler.


Are you......Nostradamus? I AM going to Cleveland! For the game tonight. My buddy JUST came through with the tix...35 yard line lower bowl.

17 degrees and 25-35 mph winds...gonna be the opposite of Hell tonight!

Indo
12-10-2009, 01:46 PM
I wish I could give you a definite answer on this but to be honest. No one really knows what will happen when their faith is tested. But I can tell you what I would hope I would do in this situation. NOT JUMP! While there will be some who jump because they believe the this crazy guy, the bible is specific when it states no one will know the date and time of my return. I truly believe, that it will be a Glorious Appearing and there will be no doubt who the True Jesus is when He arrives. I would pray that the Holy Spirit would dwell with in me and give me the discernment to know that this guy wasn't the real Jesus. I also don't believe that Jesus would return and ask us to jump of a cliff.


Quick question though, how do you determine that your question is what Job had to deal with? I did a bible study on Job and do not see the comparison, but that could be because I'm missing what your stating.
And I would say in America that only a few people have had their faith tested. True Faith testing is for the Christians who live in countries where being a Christian will get you killed but yet you continue to live your life according to the Word of God.

And yes, I would be willing to die to put it to the test, but that death will not be because some crazy person asks me to jump off a cliff.



OOPS!
Typing too fast---fingers got ahead of my brain (which, believe me, ain't that difficult!)
Meant to say Abraham---asked to kill his son Isaac by God in order to demonstrate his Faith


I will agree that it is a difficult question to answer---and it is even difficult to ASK. I am trying to come up with a scenario that would be a Test of Faith to see how people would respond to it.

These are good answers (as are BF's)

I think the example of those Jehovah's Witnesses that I have witnessed(!) refusing Life-Saving blood transfusions is the best example that I can come up with...

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-10-2009, 01:51 PM
17 degrees and 25-35 mph winds...gonna be the opposite of Hell tonight!

Hmmmmm...unless Hell froze over. Which means the Browns will win.

revefsreleets
12-10-2009, 02:03 PM
OOPS!
Typing too fast---fingers got ahead of my brain (which, believe me, ain't that difficult!)
Meant to say Abraham---asked to kill his son Isaac by God in order to demonstrate his Faith


I will agree that it is a difficult question to answer---and it is even difficult to ASK. I am trying to come up with a scenario that would be a Test of Faith to see how people would respond to it.

These are good answers (as are BF's)

I think the example of those Jehovah's Witnesses that I have witnessed(!) refusing Life-Saving blood transfusions is the best example that I can come up with...

Back on task....

What kind of God would ask that question in the first place? Ask Abraham to kill Isaac to prove his faith....really?

The God of the OT is such a vengeful and petty God, so at odds with the loving and kind God of the NT....until you get to Revelations, and then he reverts right back. God is certainly very passive/aggressive in the Christian Religion...

BlastFurnace
12-10-2009, 02:08 PM
Hmmmmm...unless Hell froze over. Which means the Browns will win.

I thought Hell froze over last week

BlastFurnace
12-10-2009, 02:25 PM
Back on task....

What kind of God would ask that question in the first place? Ask Abraham to kill Isaac to prove his faith....really?

The God of the OT is such a vengeful and petty God, so at odds with the loving and kind God of the NT....until you get to Revelations, and then he reverts right back. God is certainly very passive/aggressive in the Christian Religion...

You have to remember the faith that Abraham had.

The book of Hebrews states that Abraham's faith was so great that he believed because not only had God given him a newborn son at the age of 100 and his wife at 90, he also believe that God would raise him from the dead...even had God allowed him to complete the sacrifice of Isaac (Hebrews 11:19). Also...remember that Abraham had received God's promises that through his seed that he would be made a great nation (Hebrews 12:2). He believed that Isaac would be raised to fulfill the promise of God in Genesis 12. Abraham was called a Friend of God...which was a phrase that described the kind of great faith that Abraham had. Read Romans 4...it is a great chapter that describes the kind of faith that Abraham had.

God is the same yesterday and today. Throughout the OT and the NT there are examples of patience by God and Discipline by God. An example of discipline by God in the NT is the account of Annias and Sapphira in Acts 5...where a man and wife lost their lives for lying about the sale of property. Ultimately, they were killed by God for lying to the Holy Spirit. While it is true that the Old Law had parts where stoning and animal sacrifices were part of it, that law was taken away by the sacrifice of Christ....the Old Law was in place to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3:24). God still disciplines his children (Hebrews 12:1-13) because he loves them. That was true in the OT and in the NT.

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-10-2009, 02:51 PM
Back on task....

What kind of God would ask that question in the first place? Ask Abraham to kill Isaac to prove his faith....really?

The God of the OT is such a vengeful and petty God, so at odds with the loving and kind God of the NT....until you get to Revelations, and then he reverts right back. God is certainly very passive/aggressive in the Christian Religion...

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. If God knows everything from beginning to end...then God already knew what Abrahams answer would be, knew that he would stay Abrahams hand, and Isaac was never at risk. .

But by making Abraham answer the question...by Putting Abraham in a situation in which he truly had to search his soul, he created in Abraham a person,who KNEW that he could overcome whatever temptations or trials that he would face in becoming the father of Gods chosen people. Abraham proved his faith to himself...not to God

Also dont forget that God didnt ask anything of Abraham that he wasnt willing to do himself.

He and Abraham BOTH allowed their son/Son to climb a mountain while carrying the wood upon their back in which they would be sacrificed. But God in His mercy spared Abrahams son...but not his own.

BlastFurnace
12-10-2009, 03:03 PM
You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. If God knows everything from beginning to end...then God already knew what Abrahams answer would be, knew that he would stay Abrahams hand, and Isaac was never at risk. .

But by making Abraham answer the question...by Putting Abraham in a situation in which he truly had to search his soul, he created in Abraham a person,who KNEW that he could overcome whatever temptations or trials that he would face in becoming the father of Gods chosen people. Abraham proved his faith to himself...not to God

Also dont forget that God didnt ask anything of Abraham that he wasnt willing to do himself.

He and Abraham BOTH allowed their son/Son to climb a mountain while carrying the wood upon their back in which they would be sacrificed. But God in His mercy spared Abrahams son...but not his own.

Excellent Response!

revefsreleets
12-10-2009, 03:11 PM
You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. If God knows everything from beginning to end...then God already knew what Abrahams answer would be, knew that he would stay Abrahams hand, and Isaac was never at risk. .

But by making Abraham answer the question...by Putting Abraham in a situation in which he truly had to search his soul, he created in Abraham a person,who KNEW that he could overcome whatever temptations or trials that he would face in becoming the father of Gods chosen people. Abraham proved his faith to himself...not to God

Also dont forget that God didnt ask anything of Abraham that he wasnt willing to do himself.

He and Abraham BOTH allowed their son/Son to climb a mountain while carrying the wood upon their back in which they would be sacrificed. But God in His mercy spared Abrahams son...but not his own.
But if God already knows everything, why go through the exercise at all? As you said yourself, God created Abraham that way, so the outcome was already a forgone conclusion, so....like....why bother?

The WORST part of being an omnipotent and omnipresent God has GOT to be the interminable boredom. There are no surprises in a predetermined Universe....

xfl2001fan
12-10-2009, 03:19 PM
From what I understand the surrounding events of this, it goes back to the early church attempting to convert the pagans to Christians. Because they celebrated the winter solstice, the church (as was with Easter) wanted to present a Christian view in order to the pagans in the church.
So it's ok for "The Church" to arbitrarily change things up to incorporate another group of people into the fold...to (essentially) boost it's numbers? Would Jesus have done that? I don't think Jesus changed himself, or his standards for anyone...he didn't place himself above anyone...but his standards were the same across the board. Granted, he spent more time fighting corruption within the church...and trying to bring all people into the fold...not just the rich and powerful...but I just can't imagine him saying, this is the date that we're going to celebrate this Holy holiday...because I want to bring in this group of people into the Church.

As for the birth of Christ, it has been determined that his birth actually took place during, what would be our summer months (if my memory serves me corretly - sometime in July).
I don't remember if it's July (specifically) but as I recall, it was a summer month. Seems to me that if you were going to assign his birth to a pagan holiday...you'd want it closer to his actual birth date...not on the the opposite side of the Calendar. I don't know that Jesus would actually want his birth to be treated as a religious holiday...or that it's expected (might just be a self-imposed expectation created by man)...but I can't imagine if it was going to be a religious holiday...that he would want it changed around to fit some pagan holiday schedule just to increase the numbers of followers. It feels unethical to me. Not sure if that's the right word to use...but it's close.


I believe the OT to be a guideline and useful when reading and applying God's word to our life. The Old Testament was also under the old covenant that God made with Israel. When Jesus Christ died on the cross, that old covenant was null and void and the new covenant became that which Christ paid for our sins. And that Christ is the way, the truth, and the light.
I treat the entire bible as a Guideline...I just think that the closer you get to current history, the more likely that the "facts" are truly facts...as opposed to just stories told to be used as guidelines. I have serious reservations as to whether Adam lived to 900+...that seems like something that I say about my Step-Dad when I'm telling my kids "tall tales" or joking about his actual age. The closer events are to current history, the less likely they are to have been "stretched" into mythical proportions.


The question remains is from whom do you search the answers? You being anyone who asks the questions. I truly believe that the bible can and does answer all our questions we may have. God knows I've spent a few days over my life time yelling and screaming at him, only because I knew He was the only one that would answer my frustration. The next question is, are you ready for the answers you will receive from God? Prime example, when I was 29 years old, living in MD, I told (and yes I mean TOLD) God I wanted to live in Pittsburgh or Tampa. I was not saved, but that I only knew who Jesus was and believe he was the son the God. I wanted to live in Pittsburgh because of my fanaticism with their sports teams. I wanted to live in Tampa because of their adult night life. God sent me to Tampa, and by a series of events with co-workers, within a year I was going to church. Within 3 years I was getting married and my life had completely changed. But to be honest in February 2000, I was a little pissed that I didn't get to move to Pittsburgh (and I let him know it). Point being that I truly believe that God wants us to talk with Him about everything in our life and He wants us to ask questions about what we read in His word. But I also believe He wants us to get the answers from Him and not the world.
I trust that God will help me find the answers when I do my research...and that science is a tool towards finding a lot of those answers. Now, like any other tool...it can be used for nefarious purposes (i.e. if you use Wikipedia for "research" you may find someone has put in some misinformation...whether on purpose or on accident...and that you aren't getting the actual truth). Every major religion has a flood story...so there was likely a great flood. Every major religion has their version of the 10 commandments and the "golden rule"...so there's certainly applicability to that. From there, it comes down to where you place your faith. I try to put faith in the intellect/reasoning power that God gave me...and to put faith that some things that can't be explained (the beginning and the end) will be answered when I meet my maker. I trust that God is a forgiving God...and that I have as good a chance as anyone at getting into Heaven based on how I live my life. I could be wrong and openly admit that (which is something a lot of "hard core" believers of any religion can't always do)...but have Faith that I'm stumbling on the right path (I'd love to say it's a walk...but it's rarely been smooth/easy for me, hehe).

I would agree with your last statement. It seems that some Christians have forgotten how Christ loved everyone. The woman at the well, the sick, the non-believers, the tax collectors, the lawyers, the prostitutes, etc. They were all loved by Christ, more so than the religious types of the day. Christ even commands us to love those who are un-loved (or in some cases un-lovable). It's when we stop "being" and start "doing" that the true love of Christ can be shown to others.

Aye, Christ lived by "the greatest commandment" of them all...Do unto others.

stlrtruck
12-10-2009, 03:20 PM
I will agree that it is a difficult question to answer---and it is even difficult to ASK. I am trying to come up with a scenario that would be a Test of Faith to see how people would respond to it.


That's the tricky part. Because every day we are living a life that professes our faith (in one area or another). For one person it doesn't take much to put faith in God. Let's say there is a man who is out of work and his family is struggling to stay afloat. He is appling for a few jobs and one day while he's searching for a good honest job that doesn't corrupt his values, he strikes up a conversation with a man who offers him a job that guarantees a minimum of $150/night in tips. What would you do? Me, I'd have no other option but to turn down the job because of my Faith.

As for people that get sick, it's about having Faith that you'll be healed and at the same time we have to recognize that there are opportunities God presents to us that will be a blessing to us (sometimes in the form of doctors), and at the same time we can be a blessing to them.

stlrtruck
12-10-2009, 03:24 PM
But if God already knows everything, why go through the exercise at all? As you said yourself, God created Abraham that way, so the outcome was already a forgone conclusion, so....like....why bother?

The WORST part of being an omnipotent and omnipresent God has GOT to be the interminable boredom. There are no surprises in a predetermined Universe....

We go through it because God gives us the free will to follow or not to follow his word. While he may know the initial outcome, it is a test for us, a purifying of the person, so that he (the person) may be tested and found pure. I believe it also is a determination of what we can handle. I know many people who have gone through the same trials over and over. Why? Because, imo, they weren't listening to what God was saying to them.

On another note, what kind of God would He be if he just gave us everything that we desired? That's not much of a father if we don't build a relationship with Him and He only gives out everything.

And as was already stated, the test is for us, not for God. So that we may learn what we can handle and areas that we need to pray about in our life.

Borski
12-10-2009, 03:25 PM
But if God already knows everything, why go through the exercise at all? As you said yourself, God created Abraham that way, so the outcome was already a forgone conclusion, so....like....why bother?

The WORST part of being an omnipotent and omnipresent God has GOT to be the interminable boredom. There are no surprises in a predetermined Universe....

To help Abraham realize his faith in God. The trials the God puts us through God knows the answer, but we as individuals do not until we experience the trial for ourselves.

xfl2001fan
12-10-2009, 03:29 PM
We go through it because God gives us the free will to follow or not to follow his word. While he may know the initial outcome, it is a test for us, a purifying of the person, so that he (the person) may be tested and found pure. I believe it also is a determination of what we can handle. I know many people who have gone through the same trials over and over. Why? Because, imo, they weren't listening to what God was saying to them.

On another note, what kind of God would He be if he just gave us everything that we desired? That's not much of a father if we don't build a relationship with Him and He only gives out everything.

And as was already stated, the test is for us, not for God. So that we may learn what we can handle and areas that we need to pray about in our life.

From God's perspective...if you know how they're going to act/react...what's the point in the test? You already know that they're going to pass/fail...that they're going to get into Heaven or they aren't...

If it's pre-determined, then there's no free-will.

Borski
12-10-2009, 03:34 PM
I treat the entire bible as a Guideline...I just think that the closer you get to current history, the more likely that the "facts" are truly facts...as opposed to just stories told to be used as guidelines. I have serious reservations as to whether Adam lived to 900+...that seems like something that I say about my Step-Dad when I'm telling my kids "tall tales" or joking about his actual age. The closer events are to current history, the less likely they are to have been "stretched" into mythical proportions.



Another thought, I could be wrong. But the way they kept track of years back then may have been different. They might have used a completely different scale in which to determine what a "year" was then the 365 days we use now.

Borski
12-10-2009, 03:36 PM
From God's perspective...if you know how they're going to act/react...what's the point in the test? You already know that they're going to pass/fail...that they're going to get into Heaven or they aren't...

If it's pre-determined, then there's no free-will.

There is a difference between knowing what is going to happen and forcing something to happen. Just because he know what is going to happen doesn't mean we don't have free will to chose it for ourself.

stlrtruck
12-10-2009, 03:37 PM
So it's ok for "The Church" to arbitrarily change things up to incorporate another group of people into the fold...to (essentially) boost it's numbers? Would Jesus have done that? I don't think Jesus changed himself, or his standards for anyone...he didn't place himself above anyone...but his standards were the same across the board. Granted, he spent more time fighting corruption within the church...and trying to bring all people into the fold...not just the rich and powerful...but I just can't imagine him saying, this is the date that we're going to celebrate this Holy holiday...because I want to bring in this group of people into the Church.

No, I never said that. Nor do I agree with it. However, I can not change what the early church has done.

You are correct that the standard Jesus set is still there. And we fail miserably trying to reach it. I am thankful day in and day out that I am redeemed by the blood on the cross. And that God loves me, and I will get another chance at it tomorrow to do a better job of being Christ to someone.

Remember, Christ was against the organized religious leaders of his time. He was more about take care of those around you and be something more than a doer of the law.

I don't remember if it's July (specifically) but as I recall, it was a summer month. Seems to me that if you were going to assign his birth to a pagan holiday...you'd want it closer to his actual birth date...not on the the opposite side of the Calendar. I don't know that Jesus would actually want his birth to be treated as a religious holiday...or that it's expected (might just be a self-imposed expectation created by man)...but I can't imagine if it was going to be a religious holiday...that he would want it changed around to fit some pagan holiday schedule just to increase the numbers of followers. It feels unethical to me. Not sure if that's the right word to use...but it's close.

While I understand what the church was attempting to do, I believe they have gone at it the wrong way. Just as some churches today preach against homosexuality but they don't preach against lust. It's wrong and it's now how Christ taught us, nor is it the way the Bible speaks. And while a sin is a sin is a sin, humans get it messed up in the way they approach specific sins - almost categorizing them to make themselves feel better.



I treat the entire bible as a Guideline...I just think that the closer you get to current history, the more likely that the "facts" are truly facts...as opposed to just stories told to be used as guidelines. I have serious reservations as to whether Adam lived to 900+...that seems like something that I say about my Step-Dad when I'm telling my kids "tall tales" or joking about his actual age. The closer events are to current history, the less likely they are to have been "stretched" into mythical proportions.

But what if they were truly that huge, and the only reason we believe now in "mythical proportions" is because of some tale that out of Greece that changed mankind's perception?


I trust that God will help me find the answers when I do my research...and that science is a tool towards finding a lot of those answers. Now, like any other tool...it can be used for nefarious purposes (i.e. if you use Wikipedia for "research" you may find someone has put in some misinformation...whether on purpose or on accident...and that you aren't getting the actual truth). Every major religion has a flood story...so there was likely a great flood. Every major religion has their version of the 10 commandments and the "golden rule"...so there's certainly applicability to that. From there, it comes down to where you place your faith. I try to put faith in the intellect/reasoning power that God gave me...and to put faith that some things that can't be explained (the beginning and the end) will be answered when I meet my maker. I trust that God is a forgiving God...and that I have as good a chance as anyone at getting into Heaven based on how I live my life. I could be wrong and openly admit that (which is something a lot of "hard core" believers of any religion can't always do)...but have Faith that I'm stumbling on the right path (I'd love to say it's a walk...but it's rarely been smooth/easy for me, hehe).

And I too believe that God gave us a natural curiosity to ask questions. To ask the WHYs of the world and to seek out the answers to them. There is the satisfaction of knowing that we have understanding of something we didn't have yesterday. It's easy to believe when it's something tangible. I know an orange is an orange because I see it, touch it, and taste it. But what about the things that aren't tangible.

As for God being a forgiving God, I believe that He is, but there is going to come a day for those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour that he is not forgiven and their names will be stricken from the Lambs Book of Life.

As for your path, I've learned (through my own journeys) that it is our path. And looking back on it, we could have made it easier but He will utilize that time to make us better, and when the time comes that the prodigal sons and daughters return, God will rain down His love on them.



Aye, Christ lived by "the greatest commandment" of them all...Do unto others.

And unfortunately, we as humans fail to do that at the most inopportune time. It's easy to do when it's easy, but when it presents a challenge, I wonder how many will stand and deliver Christ's love to the person in need?

stlrtruck
12-10-2009, 03:38 PM
If it's pre-determined, then there's no free-will.

It's not pre-determined, God just knows the answer!

It's like giving someone a test when you already know the answers to it. Why give them the test? To see what they've learned.

SteelCityMom
12-10-2009, 03:56 PM
It's not pre-determined, God just knows the answer!

It's like giving someone a test when you already know the answers to it. Why give them the test? To see what they've learned.

This is a bit of a different scenario that he's talking about though. He's talking about God already knowing what Abraham's answer would be when asked to kill his son, and since God knew it, God knew he was going to stay Abraham's hand.

Your example of a school test is that the teacher already knows the answers to the questions, but isn't sure if the student does. Hence the test to see if the student knows. The teacher is not omnipotent (like God supposedly is).

If God is omnipotent, then there would be no reason for the test to Abraham. He would already know what Abraham was going to do. He would already know that Abraham had the faith to do whatever God asked. That essentially would take away free will.

If God is real, and the story is true, and humans really do have free will, I can only surmise that God didn't know what Abraham's answer would be. I'm sure he had an idea of what he wanted Abraham's answer to be, but if he knew 100% what the outcome would be...then there would be no reason to test it. If that makes any sense at all.

revefsreleets
12-10-2009, 03:57 PM
There is a difference between knowing what is going to happen and forcing something to happen. Just because he know what is going to happen doesn't mean we don't have free will to chose it for ourself.

We have free will but God already knows what we will choose? So we have free will to choose.....what has already been foreseen that we will choose. OK.

Since HE'S the one sending everyone to Hell, what difference does it really make, then?

Indo
12-10-2009, 04:19 PM
As for God being a forgiving God, I believe that He is, but there is going to come a day for those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour that he is not forgiven and their names will be stricken from the Lambs Book of Life.


Let me ask another difficult question

I brought up the story of Abraham before.
Many people know that he figures VERY prominently in all three of the world's main religions---Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. (Incidently, Bethlehem also figures very prominently in these religions).

What if a person believes in one of the religions that does not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior? According to the above, he/she will be stricken from The Book.


What makes Christianity Right and Judaism or Islam (or Hinduism or any other religion) wrong?

What if a Jew or Muslim lives by all of the teachings of Christ (Do unto others...and love thy neighbor...and all the rest)? Is that person STILL stricken from The Book?

How is striking non-believers from The Book different from Killing the Infidels (non-believers)?

revefsreleets
12-10-2009, 04:25 PM
Let me ask another difficult question

I brought up the story of Abraham before.
Many people know that he figures VERY prominently in all three of the world's main religions---Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. (Incidently, Bethlehem also figures very prominently in these religions).

What if a person believes in one of the religions that does not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior? According to the above, he/she will be stricken from The Book.


What makes Christianity Right and Judaism or Islam (or Hinduism or any other religion) wrong?

What if a Jew or Muslim lives by all of the teachings of Christ (Do unto others...and love thy neighbor...and all the rest)? Is that person STILL stricken from The Book?

How is striking non-believers from The Book different from Killing the Infidels (non-believers)?


And THERE it is! The ultimate point of ALL my posts and threads in re these matters.

The people who are arguing in defense of Christianity just so happened to be born and raised in and around (and some more than others probably completely steeped in it's dogma and indoctrination since birth) Christianity, and are COINCIDENTALLY the "lucky one's" because they were born into the ONE and ONLY RIGHT and correct religion?

Borski
12-10-2009, 06:07 PM
We have free will but God already knows what we will choose? So we have free will to choose.....what has already been foreseen that we will choose. OK.

Since HE'S the one sending everyone to Hell, what difference does it really make, then?

Just because it is to hard for you to comprehend doesn't mean you have ridicule it.

SteelersinCA
12-10-2009, 06:24 PM
You guys have entirely too much time to sit around and try to convince people you are never going to convince to change their minds. You all need a new hobby.

stlrtruck
12-10-2009, 08:18 PM
Let me ask another difficult question

I brought up the story of Abraham before.
Many people know that he figures VERY prominently in all three of the world's main religions---Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. (Incidently, Bethlehem also figures very prominently in these religions).

What if a person believes in one of the religions that does not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior? According to the above, he/she will be stricken from The Book.


What makes Christianity Right and Judaism or Islam (or Hinduism or any other religion) wrong?

What if a Jew or Muslim lives by all of the teachings of Christ (Do unto others...and love thy neighbor...and all the rest)? Is that person STILL stricken from The Book?

How is striking non-believers from The Book different from Killing the Infidels (non-believers)?

According to the Bible, those who are not born again and receive Jesus Christ will be sent to hell.

What makes it right? God's word. This goes back to belief and faith. Truly if one doesn't believe what the bible says or they don't believe that God exists then the point is mute for them.

What's the difference in the striking from the book and the killing? Simply put, one is done by the hand of God, the other by human hand. I've never been told by the Holy Spirit to go and kill a non-believer. I have been instructed to go out and be Jesus to non-believers.

And THERE it is! The ultimate point of ALL my posts and threads in re these matters.

The people who are arguing in defense of Christianity just so happened to be born and raised in and around (and some more than others probably completely steeped in it's dogma and indoctrination since birth) Christianity, and are COINCIDENTALLY the "lucky one's" because they were born into the ONE and ONLY RIGHT and correct religion?

Actually I was born and raised out of the church. Grown up to get whatever I thought was best for me at the time. I didn't begin my relationship with Christ until I had spent over 30 years in the "wilderness"

You guys have entirely too much time to sit around and try to convince people you are never going to convince to change their minds. You all need a new hobby.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I just want to put it out there and let others decide for themselves. But you are right, I have way too much time on my hands. :chuckle:

xfl2001fan
12-10-2009, 09:09 PM
There is a difference between knowing what is going to happen and forcing something to happen. Just because he know what is going to happen doesn't mean we don't have free will to chose it for ourself.

If God knows that we're going to make decisions that are bound to send us to hell, what was the point in letting us live and choose anyways? He already knows who's in and who's out? For those that are out...why not save them the heartache of living and just send their souls straight to hell?

We have a choice...and while God may see all possible outcomes...it is not pre-ordained...otherwise, there really is no free will, we're just walking a straight line towards our destiny.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's pre-ordained (i.e. it's set in stone) or we have Free Will.

xfl2001fan
12-10-2009, 09:13 PM
And THERE it is! The ultimate point of ALL my posts and threads in re these matters.

The people who are arguing in defense of Christianity just so happened to be born and raised in and around (and some more than others probably completely steeped in it's dogma and indoctrination since birth) Christianity, and are COINCIDENTALLY the "lucky one's" because they were born into the ONE and ONLY RIGHT and correct religion?

Here is where you and I agree...

God's word (the bible)...is really man's interpretation...of a collection of stories...that were passed down from one man to another before finally being written down...

Jesus fought against the Saducees and Pharisees...and it's doubtful that their influence went away after Jesus death. In fact, one needs only look at the Spanish Inquisition or the Holy Crusades to see that corruption exists within the Christian community over the years on a very high and potent level...

Faith and Logic need to go hand in hand. Religion and Science need to go hand in hand. Otherwise, one side gains too much power and is corrupted...

Preacher
12-10-2009, 10:46 PM
Let me ask another difficult question

I brought up the story of Abraham before.
Many people know that he figures VERY prominently in all three of the world's main religions---Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. (Incidently, Bethlehem also figures very prominently in these religions).

What if a person believes in one of the religions that does not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior? According to the above, he/she will be stricken from The Book.


What makes Christianity Right and Judaism or Islam (or Hinduism or any other religion) wrong?
Relationship. In every view of relationship between God and man, both Judaism and Islam say it is man's job to work his way to God, to earn a reward in heaven. Christianity (true Christianity) teaches that man cannot work his or her way to heaven. Furthermore, the claims of Jesus are different than any claim of any other "founder".

Historically, Judaism is NOT Yahwism of the Old Testament. There has been two distinct and different changes from the OT to now. The first is Second Temple Judaism whereby it stopped being a covenant relationship (See Jeremiah and Ezekiel, also Joel, Hosea, etc). It became man's work to remain pure. Then, after the fall of Jeruselem in 70 AD, The Pharisaical branch of Judaism evolved into what is now known as Rabbinical judaism. There are two distinct steps from what was in teh OT to what is now, especially relationally.

Islam is, in all reality, a cult of Judaism. It is a syncretism of Judaism, some christianity, and local religions.

Where the real core of the discussion should lie, is in the "founders" as said before. Look at what Jesus said as compared to Muhammed, Budha, Zoroaster, etc.


[QUOTE]What if a Jew or Muslim lives by all of the teachings of Christ (Do unto others...and love thy neighbor...and all the rest)? Is that person STILL stricken from The Book?


Stricken FROM the book? No. Not written IN the book. Why? Because it is all about relationship with God. How do you have a relationship with God? By accepting what He has already done for you. Nothing you can do can breach the gap between you and Him. He has already breached the gap, and it is up to you to accept it.

How is striking non-believers from The Book different from Killing the Infidels (non-believers)?



Do you seriously think there is a moral equivalence between people driving planes into towers killing thousands of people... and people making their own choices to not accept God's extended invitation to relationship with Him?

God doesn't strike people from the book, nor does he send people to hell. People choose NOT to have THEIR names written in the book....and CHOOSE to not spend and eternity with God. How in teh WORLD is that the same as "kill the infidel"?

__________________________________________________ _______________

However, that is just my opinion. There is also something called inclusivist. That is a person who says that someone who seeks not "Allah" but The God of heaven and earth, and desires relationship with the almighty, even though he or she is muslim, will still be in heaven because they are actually worshipping Jesus. If you have read The Chronicles of Narnia, you will be familiar with this position, as it is what C.S. Lewis does with Emmit (I think that is his name, the Calormen in the last book). There are a whole host of other positions as well.

Preacher
12-10-2009, 11:08 PM
And THERE it is! The ultimate point of ALL my posts and threads in re these matters.

The people who are arguing in defense of Christianity just so happened to be born and raised in and around (and some more than others probably completely steeped in it's dogma and indoctrination since birth) Christianity, and are COINCIDENTALLY the "lucky one's" because they were born into the ONE and ONLY RIGHT and correct religion?

Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. I would say that right now, the majority of Christians in the world... True Christians, are first or second generation Christians. Every Christian in Russia is a first or second Christian as it was almost stamped out for 80 years (funny how no generation was every really able to go without hearing about it though). India, Korea, China, are seeing explosions of first generation Christianity.

Just because those who are on this board are not first generation Christians doesn't mean that Christianity is simply passed from father to son. Just the opposite. Usually if it is just pass, the son or daughter walks away from it.

stlrtruck
12-11-2009, 08:00 AM
If God knows that we're going to make decisions that are bound to send us to hell, what was the point in letting us live and choose anyways? He already knows who's in and who's out? For those that are out...why not save them the heartache of living and just send their souls straight to hell?

We have a choice...and while God may see all possible outcomes...it is not pre-ordained...otherwise, there really is no free will, we're just walking a straight line towards our destiny.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's pre-ordained (i.e. it's set in stone) or we have Free Will.

And all this is on Faith that God desires no one to have eternal damnation.

Have you ever continued to go through the same situation over and over and over again? Have you wondered why? Have you thought, that maybe, just maybe God is trying to get your attention to something?

We have free will choice and some days I wonder why he's given me that. And while he knows my heart and my choices, I still have the choice and I'm sorry, but I believe that I can have it both ways. Just like I choose to wake up and love my wife, I choose to either obey God's word or not (FREE WILL), but I do believe that God knows me and what I will do and His grace and mercy are anew everyday, allowing me to correct the things I get wrong on a daily basis. He knows that what will happen to me today before I even wake up. He knew this day before I was born. And I wouldn't call it pre-ordained but more so the consequences of my free will that have gotten me here. For the Lord has shown me how different my life could have been, had I been obedient to His word some time ago.

revefsreleets
12-11-2009, 08:11 AM
Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. I would say that right now, the majority of Christians in the world... True Christians, are first or second generation Christians. Every Christian in Russia is a first or second Christian as it was almost stamped out for 80 years (funny how no generation was every really able to go without hearing about it though). India, Korea, China, are seeing explosions of first generation Christianity.

Just because those who are on this board are not first generation Christians doesn't mean that Christianity is simply passed from father to son. Just the opposite. Usually if it is just pass, the son or daughter walks away from it.


Islam is also exploding, it's the fastest growing religion on the planet...too bad those poor people are all going to fry in the fire and brimstone for eternity...

Am I wrong about that as well?

xfl2001fan
12-11-2009, 08:33 AM
And all this is on Faith that God desires no one to have eternal damnation.

Have you ever continued to go through the same situation over and over and over again? Have you wondered why? Have you thought, that maybe, just maybe God is trying to get your attention to something?

We have free will choice and some days I wonder why he's given me that. And while he knows my heart and my choices, I still have the choice and I'm sorry, but I believe that I can have it both ways. Just like I choose to wake up and love my wife, I choose to either obey God's word or not (FREE WILL), but I do believe that God knows me and what I will do and His grace and mercy are anew everyday, allowing me to correct the things I get wrong on a daily basis. He knows that what will happen to me today before I even wake up. He knew this day before I was born. And I wouldn't call it pre-ordained but more so the consequences of my free will that have gotten me here. For the Lord has shown me how different my life could have been, had I been obedient to His word some time ago.

You're missing the point.

Pre-ordained means that it's going to happen. My brother has made some terrible choices in his life...and if he doesn't change, then he's on a path not towards heaven based on the Bible. God knows whether he's going to straighten out or not...most of us in the family suspect that he won't. That being said, if he doesn't change...and it's because it was pre-ordained that he isn't going to change...then his place on earth and eternity was set in stone before he was born. He was/is destined for hell. God already knows his...so why place him here on this earth? God knows whether I'm getting into heaven or not, so why not just place me there...if everything is pre-ordained?

The answer is simple...nothing is pre-ordained where human's are concerened. We are given free-will to make our choices and to have our failures/successes. We might not surprise an omnipotent God with our choices...but that doesn't mean that our actions are pre-ordained.

If God imposes His will upon us...then he is taking free-choice from us. That's not to say that he can't touch our lives (with miracles or...bad things)...but if he constantly interferes with our choices/lives, he's taking something away from us...he's restricting us. It's one thing to ask for his blessing and to recieve it...but the instant that you start telling me something is part of "his plan"...that lets me know that my choices are being restricted...and if my choices are restricted, my free-will, my freedom is being restricted.

If I'm destined for Heaven, just send me there. If my choices actually determine it...then (and only then) is this life worth actually living. Otherwise, I'm just a robot...or an actor in a movie for His Pleasure...and that doesn't sit well with me.

stlrtruck
12-11-2009, 10:50 AM
The answer is simple...nothing is pre-ordained where human's are concerened. We are given free-will to make our choices and to have our failures/successes. We might not surprise an omnipotent God with our choices...but that doesn't mean that our actions are pre-ordained.

If God imposes His will upon us...then he is taking free-choice from us. That's not to say that he can't touch our lives (with miracles or...bad things)...but if he constantly interferes with our choices/lives, he's taking something away from us...he's restricting us. It's one thing to ask for his blessing and to recieve it...but the instant that you start telling me something is part of "his plan"...that lets me know that my choices are being restricted...and if my choices are restricted, my free-will, my freedom is being restricted.

If I'm destined for Heaven, just send me there. If my choices actually determine it...then (and only then) is this life worth actually living. Otherwise, I'm just a robot...or an actor in a movie for His Pleasure...and that doesn't sit well with me.

But I think that's where you're missing the point. God may know the answers but it's not pre-ordained. To me pre-ordained means pre-determined. And God didn't determine your life, He just knew where you would be at this very moment.

If God imposed His will upon us, then it would be pre-ordained then it would be pre-determined. God gives us the freedom to choose, everyday. And maybe by having this conversation this is God's way of attempting to get your attention, and although He knows what you are going to do with it, it doesn't mean he has taken away your free will.

Your choices do determine where you'll end up. But I believe what you're struggling with (and this is just my opinion based on this conversation we've had) is the possibility (from your viewpoint - it is fact for me) that God knows what you are going to do and when you are going to do it, but He doesn't rescue you (or anyone for that matter) from your self-destructive choices.

As for your brother, there is always hope and prayer for Him. What if at his worst moment, someone finally got to speak to him about the Love of Jesus and he changed his life around? Then God utilized your brother's life events for him to reach other people. You see the earlier free will that separated him from God could then be used to bring others to Christ.

I honestly believe it takes more faith to believe that God knew what I would be doing 10+ years ago when I was doing things I shouldn't be. He also knew that my move to Tampa would be the place where He would get my attention. I believe he knew that in my search for freedom from where I was at in my life, I gained so much more. All of it through my relationship and faith in Christ.

Preacher
12-11-2009, 03:10 PM
Islam is also exploding, it's the fastest growing religion on the planet...too bad those poor people are all going to fry in the fire and brimstone for eternity...

Am I wrong about that as well?

Rev. That wasn't your argument. Your argument was that Christianity is basically passed down from father to son. I was simply showing that isn't true. It is expanding, and has expanded greatly in the last century throughout the far-east.

Preacher
12-11-2009, 03:12 PM
You're missing the point.

Pre-ordained means that it's going to happen. My brother has made some terrible choices in his life...and if he doesn't change, then he's on a path not towards heaven based on the Bible. God knows whether he's going to straighten out or not...most of us in the family suspect that he won't. That being said, if he doesn't change...and it's because it was pre-ordained that he isn't going to change...then his place on earth and eternity was set in stone before he was born. He was/is destined for hell. God already knows his...so why place him here on this earth? God knows whether I'm getting into heaven or not, so why not just place me there...if everything is pre-ordained?

The answer is simple...nothing is pre-ordained where human's are concerened. We are given free-will to make our choices and to have our failures/successes. We might not surprise an omnipotent God with our choices...but that doesn't mean that our actions are pre-ordained.

If God imposes His will upon us...then he is taking free-choice from us. That's not to say that he can't touch our lives (with miracles or...bad things)...but if he constantly interferes with our choices/lives, he's taking something away from us...he's restricting us. It's one thing to ask for his blessing and to recieve it...but the instant that you start telling me something is part of "his plan"...that lets me know that my choices are being restricted...and if my choices are restricted, my free-will, my freedom is being restricted.

If I'm destined for Heaven, just send me there. If my choices actually determine it...then (and only then) is this life worth actually living. Otherwise, I'm just a robot...or an actor in a movie for His Pleasure...and that doesn't sit well with me.

it sounds like you are arguing against a reformed concept of Predestination. I too believe that God fore-ordains. But that does not equate to individual predestination in my mind.

revefsreleets
12-12-2009, 06:24 AM
Rev. That wasn't your argument. Your argument was that Christianity is basically passed down from father to son. I was simply showing that isn't true. It is expanding, and has expanded greatly in the last century throughout the far-east.

My ultimate argument in ANY religious thread will always wind up inn the same place: Ask a Jew, and he'll tell you only Orthodox practicing Jews have a place in paradise, and all the rest will burn. Ask a Muslim, same. Christians, same.

Aren't we lucky here in America, a "Christian Nation", that WE are the "right" religion? I feel sorry for all the Buddhists, and Muslims, and Jews, and Jehovah's Witnesses, and everyone else (myself included, according to what I'm hearing here) who will be smote down by the hand of Jesus in the end times, to forever burn in black fires of pain and torture....

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-12-2009, 08:21 AM
But if God already knows everything, why go through the exercise at all? As you said yourself, God created Abraham that way, so the outcome was already a forgone conclusion, so....like....why bother?



God does know everthing...Abraham did not. God presented a trial for Abraham to build his faith and confidence. After that situation, Abraham must have KNOWN his faith could endure.


The WORST part of being an omnipotent and omnipresent God has GOT to be the interminable boredom. There are no surprises in a predetermined Universe....

I actually know where you are coming from with that thought. First of all I think God is "above" boredom...I have to constantly remind myself that I cant expect God to react to situations and events like I would.

Also keep in ming that "predetermined" is not definded as ....God making every decision and action".

Predetermined simple means that God directs, allows people to express free will, and to His honor or His dishonor...knows what they will do. I think that since the beginning of time, God was saddened by my inability to make good choices on a regular basis. Thats what makes Christ's sacrifice "all-inclusive". God knew the sins of "LLT" before my birth and provided a payeent for them if I accepted the free gift.

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-12-2009, 08:46 AM
You're missing the point.

Pre-ordained means that it's going to happen. My brother has made some terrible choices in his life...and if he doesn't change, then he's on a path not towards heaven based on the Bible. God knows whether he's going to straighten out or not...most of us in the family suspect that he won't. That being said, if he doesn't change...and it's because it was pre-ordained that he isn't going to change...then his place on earth and eternity was set in stone before he was born. He was/is destined for hell. God already knows his...so why place him here on this earth? God knows whether I'm getting into heaven or not, so why not just place me there...if everything is pre-ordained?

The answer is simple...nothing is pre-ordained where human's are concerened. We are given free-will to make our choices and to have our failures/successes. We might not surprise an omnipotent God with our choices...but that doesn't mean that our actions are pre-ordained.

If God imposes His will upon us...then he is taking free-choice from us. That's not to say that he can't touch our lives (with miracles or...bad things)...but if he constantly interferes with our choices/lives, he's taking something away from us...he's restricting us. It's one thing to ask for his blessing and to recieve it...but the instant that you start telling me something is part of "his plan"...that lets me know that my choices are being restricted...and if my choices are restricted, my free-will, my freedom is being restricted.

If I'm destined for Heaven, just send me there. If my choices actually determine it...then (and only then) is this life worth actually living. Otherwise, I'm just a robot...or an actor in a movie for His Pleasure...and that doesn't sit well with me.

Ultra calvinism believs in THAT kind of pre-determination. Most Christians do not.

Here is an example of the type of "pre-determination" that most agree to.

Lets say that I am sitting on my porch. There is a road in front of my house that has sharp curve...on the other side of the curve is a creek with the bridge out.

Now lets say that I even went so far as to put up a sign up the road that says "Bridge Out". As I am sitting there, I see a car completely disregard the signs and is speeding down that road at 60 miles an hour with no intent of slowing down.

From MY vantage point, on my porch...I can see the bad judgement on the part of the driver...I can see the missing bridge just past the curve.

I can pre-determine that the driver, due to his bad judgement, is going to crash.

Even though I know what the result is going to be.... You cant blame the wreck on me....but rather on the driver who ignored the signs.

God is sitting on His throne. He has a vantage point in which He can see everything. He sees our poor judgement and is trying to "warn us" so that we dont have to "crash".

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-12-2009, 09:04 AM
My ultimate argument in ANY religious thread will always wind up inn the same place: Ask a Jew, and he'll tell you only Orthodox practicing Jews have a place in paradise, and all the rest will burn. Ask a Muslim, same. Christians, same.

Aren't we lucky here in America, a "Christian Nation", that WE are the "right" religion? I feel sorry for all the Buddhists, and Muslims, and Jews, and Jehovah's Witnesses, and everyone else (myself included, according to what I'm hearing here) who will be smote down by the hand of Jesus in the end times, to forever burn in black fires of pain and torture....

You bring up a good point...I had that EXACT same question at a point in my life. Now you know me, I LOVE history...and I love research.

Rev...I can HONESTLY say that I have looked into Judaism....I have read the Koran...I have looked into Hinduism...Buddism...etc.

The thing that persuaded me (initially) that Christianity was legit...was the simple fact that the rest of the religions try to persuade the masses that if you wanted to get to heaven..nirvana...etc....then all you had to do was WORK really hard at it.

I know myself...almost every religion says that sin is definded as lying/lusting/stealing/selfishness...etc, and when I had to be honest with myself...the best that this selfish, lustful, lying, person has ever done was DESERVE Hell...by any of their standards.

The difference was that Christianity alone said..."yes, you are a sinner and anyone who says they are not is a liar". And Christianity alone said, "Go ahead...try and stop sinning...you cant? Well, if the price of sin is hell, and you cant stop sinning, then SOMEONE must intervene on your behalf..and that someone would have to be God himself."

GoSlash27
12-12-2009, 09:43 AM
Stlrtruck,
Personally, there are times when faith has no earthly reason. But all the time there is reason for faith. First and foremost, faith is blind. It has no direction, no sense of a physical foundation, but yet it is deep rooted and founded on the promises of God's word!
Agreed.
(snip)
And I would add that FAITH doesn't need proof and denies worldly reason.
Also agreed.
To not believe in something takes just as much faith!
This is where we part ways. Knowledge, reasonable conclusions, and faith are very different concepts. One does not need "faith" to deem a statement of fact true or false. Faith does not apply to any situation where proof and reason have been applied.
In the case of the Bible, it is logically unsound to attempt to use it to prove itself the word of God. That is a circular argument by definition.
It must be verified by independent and external corroborating evidence and sound reason. Of course, this cannot be done either.
The only logically sound statement of fact that can be made about the Bible and independently verified is this:
The Bible was written by people, has been repeatedly translated, edited, and reinterpreted over the course of time, and, in it's current form, contains multiple self conflicted and/ or externally disproved statements of fact.

Skepticism of it's veracity is a reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence, not an act of "faith".

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-12-2009, 10:05 AM
The Bible was written by people, has been repeatedly translated, edited, and reinterpreted over the course of time, and, in it's current form, contains multiple self conflicted and/ or externally disproved statements of fact.

.

I think you are parroting something you were told...please provide these "conflicts" and "disproved" statements of fact.

stlrtruck
12-12-2009, 10:39 AM
This is where we part ways. Knowledge, reasonable conclusions, and faith are very different concepts. One does not need "faith" to deem a statement of fact true or false. Faith does not apply to any situation where proof and reason have been applied.
In the case of the Bible, it is logically unsound to attempt to use it to prove itself the word of God. That is a circular argument by definition.
It must be verified by independent and external corroborating evidence and sound reason. Of course, this cannot be done either.
The only logically sound statement of fact that can be made about the Bible and independently verified is this:
The Bible was written by people, has been repeatedly translated, edited, and reinterpreted over the course of time, and, in it's current form, contains multiple self conflicted and/ or externally disproved statements of fact.

Skepticism of it's veracity is a reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence, not an act of "faith".

I can only guess that you do not believe that God exists (or atleast you question His existence)?

My point to the statement I made was that it takes just as much faith to believe that He does NOT exist as it does for Him TO exist. Logical and worldly thinking provides no evidence of His existence or lack their of, but it takes as much faith in either direction to believe.

I've heard in side conversations elsewhere that it is better to live as if there is a God to die and find out that there isn't one then it is to live as if there is not a God only to die and find out there is one.

My question to you is what do you when there are no facts to support evidence of anything that is presented to you? How do you determine which way to believe?

GoSlash27
12-12-2009, 11:01 AM
LLT,

As I said up-stream, I'm very leery about discussing this topic with you, as your tone has indicated a certain amount of combativeness/ emotional involvement.
If we can both agree to not take any of this personally (or make it personal), I'll be more than happy to discuss it.

GoSlash27
12-12-2009, 11:10 AM
Stlrtruck,
I can only guess that you do not believe that God exists (or atleast you question His existence)?
That's a pretty fair assessment. Of course, I make no proclamation that God does not exist, either. In the absence of proof, the reasonable position is to not "believe" anything in this matter.

My point to the statement I made was that it takes just as much faith to believe that He does NOT exist as it does for Him TO exist. Logical and worldly thinking provides no evidence of His existence or lack their of, but it takes as much faith in either direction to believe.
Agreed.

I've heard in side conversations elsewhere that it is better to live as if there is a God to die and find out that there isn't one then it is to live as if there is not a God only to die and find out there is one.
I would tend to disagree. It is not intellectually honest to accept a statement of fact as true merely because you might benefit from doing so. That is a logical fallacy called an appeal to consequences of belief.

My question to you is what do you when there are no facts to support evidence of anything that is presented to you? How do you determine which way to believe?
In that situation, the reasonable response is to not believe either way.

stlrtruck
12-12-2009, 11:26 AM
Stlrtruck,

That's a pretty fair assessment. Of course, I make no proclamation that God does not exist, either. In the absence of proof, the reasonable position is to not "believe" anything in this matter.

So sort of like a "Doubting Thomas"? If you recall, when Christ revealed himself to the disciples, Thomas did not believe it was Him until he was able to put his fingers in the holes in his hands. So I raise the question, what would it take for you to either believe or not-believe?


I would tend to disagree. It is not intellectually honest to accept a statement of fact as true merely because you might benefit from doing so. That is a logical fallacy called an appeal to consequences of belief./[quote]

Are you saying that you do not do things throughout life merely because you might benefit from them? And I would like to clarify that I do not simply believe because I might benefit but there are times that the benefit has held me in check at times when I was spiritually weak. I have come to believe based on my own life choices and the people God brought in to my life when I was un-saved.

So as I'm reading your statements I'm leaning to believe that you are an intellectual type of person who finds the "proof in the pudding"? If that is the case I ask you to indulge for a minute or two. If you draw a circle that, for the sake of this conversation, contains 100% of the knowledge of the world, then shade in how much knowledge you yourself contain. Is it possible that in the unknown exists God? If so, does curiosity not get to you to find out?

To be honest, I have heard many things about the bible in other forums (and even this one), where as people think the bible contradicts itself. What that did for me was made me do my own bible study to find out for myself if indeed there was a conflict. It brought me a closer relationship with Christ and I was encouraged to not only read the bible more but to dive into the word and continue to dissect it.


[QUOTE=GoSlash27;729140] In that situation, the reasonable response is to not believe either way.

Does neutrality also take an amount of faith?

GoSlash27
12-12-2009, 11:41 AM
So sort of like a "Doubting Thomas"? If you recall, when Christ revealed himself to the disciples, Thomas did not believe it was Him until he was able to put his fingers in the holes in his hands. So I raise the question, what would it take for you to either believe or not-believe?
I don't believe or believe-not. Belief is the assumption of truth without evidence.
At worst, I strive to assume the most reasonable conclusion and reject it if proven false.


Are you saying that you do not do things throughout life merely because you might benefit from them?
No. I'm saying that I do not *think* things are true merely because I might benefit from them being true.

So as I'm reading your statements I'm leaning to believe that you are an intellectual type of person who finds the "proof in the pudding"? If that is the case I ask you to indulge for a minute or two. If you draw a circle that, for the sake of this conversation, contains 100% of the knowledge of the world, then shade in how much knowledge you yourself contain. Is it possible that in the unknown exists God?
Absolutely, it's possible.
If so, does curiosity not get to you to find out?
Of course, but there's no reliable factual basis to find out from. In this case, as in many others, I have to accept the fact that there are some things that I don't and almost certainly will never know. :noidea:


Does neutrality also take an amount of faith?
No, I don't think so.

revefsreleets
12-12-2009, 02:41 PM
You bring up a good point...I had that EXACT same question at a point in my life. Now you know me, I LOVE history...and I love research.

Rev...I can HONESTLY say that I have looked into Judaism....I have read the Koran...I have looked into Hinduism...Buddism...etc.

The thing that persuaded me (initially) that Christianity was legit...was the simple fact that the rest of the religions try to persuade the masses that if you wanted to get to heaven..nirvana...etc....then all you had to do was WORK really hard at it.

I know myself...almost every religion says that sin is definded as lying/lusting/stealing/selfishness...etc, and when I had to be honest with myself...the best that this selfish, lustful, lying, person has ever done was DESERVE Hell...by any of their standards.

The difference was that Christianity alone said..."yes, you are a sinner and anyone who says they are not is a liar". And Christianity alone said, "Go ahead...try and stop sinning...you cant? Well, if the price of sin is hell, and you cant stop sinning, then SOMEONE must intervene on your behalf..and that someone would have to be God himself."


Yes, Christianity has some things that are different.

So does Judaism.
So does Mormonism.
So does every religion.

YOUR religion dictates to you the importance of what you are pointing out as being............the most important aspect of religion.

Anyway, if this board was based, in....oh, say, Turkey, we'd be talking primarily soccer, but if Religion came up, we'd have probably almost the SAME EXACT arguments, debates, proofs offered and/or denied, etc, etc......except it would be Islam at the core of the matter.

stlrtruck
12-12-2009, 05:00 PM
I don't believe or believe-not. Belief is the assumption of truth without evidence.
At worst, I strive to assume the most reasonable conclusion and reject it if proven false.



No. I'm saying that I do not *think* things are true merely because I might benefit from them being true.


Absolutely, it's possible.

Of course, but there's no reliable factual basis to find out from. In this case, as in many others, I have to accept the fact that there are some things that I don't and almost certainly will never know. :noidea:



No, I don't think so.


One last question, does the unknown concern you? The "What if" portion of it all?

Here's an example. We have history books. Some of which depict the life of Christ. Some depict the wars that have existed since Kain slayed Abel. I'm going to guess here that you believe that wars listed throughout history are factual and true? But you were not there during the war and the only thing you have is the history books. So why is it easier to believe the wars happened, even though the only proof we have is a history book? But yet having another history book tell us that Christ was real and so were these other events listed in the bible is harder to trust and believe? Is it because some of those events are seem physically impossible of happening? Or is it because they seem like tall tales coming from camp fires.

So if you don't think being neutral takes the same faith, then how would you describe it? I'm just curious.

Preacher
12-12-2009, 05:13 PM
Yes, Christianity has some things that are different.

So does Judaism.
So does Mormonism.
So does every religion.

YOUR religion dictates to you the importance of what you are pointing out as being............the most important aspect of religion.

Anyway, if this board was based, in....oh, say, Turkey, we'd be talking primarily soccer, but if Religion came up, we'd have probably almost the SAME EXACT arguments, debates, proofs offered and/or denied, etc, etc......except it would be Islam at the core of the matter.
But are there any religions that are AS DIFFERENT as Christianity in the core makeup of the system of belief? I can't find any. There are two or three core essentials which are SO different from EVERY other religion, and no other system of belief has those differences.

As to Mormonism and JW's, they are breakaways from Christianity, and claim to proclaim Christ. So that is a subargument within Christianity.

How many muslims have you spoken with? When I was in Turkey, they discussions were quite different. To be honest, I was pretty surprised at their awareness of Christian doctrine such as the Trinity. But for the most part, their arguments were very much culture. Even more so, most of the people I spoke to said that their greatest enemy was Iran, not Israel (off the topic, but that it was quite interesting). So no, I don't think we WOULD be having the same arguments.

GoSlash27
12-12-2009, 05:33 PM
One last question, does the unknown concern you? The "What if" portion of it all?

Here's an example. We have history books. Some of which depict the life of Christ. Some depict the wars that have existed since Kain slayed Abel. I'm going to guess here that you believe that wars listed throughout history are factual and true? But you were not there during the war and the only thing you have is the history books. So why is it easier to believe the wars happened, even though the only proof we have is a history book? But yet having another history book tell us that Christ was real and so were these other events listed in the bible is harder to trust and believe? Is it because some of those events are seem physically impossible of happening? Or is it because they seem like tall tales coming from camp fires.
Well, setting aside the physical impossibility/ tall tale thing, there are two matters that I have already touched upon upstream; self conflict and externally disproven points of fact. But even setting those aside, the main difference is that the history books represent thousands of different sources, while the Bible represents just one.
As with any other historical account, I would not deem any one history book as accurate and all others as inaccurate wherever they disagree.

So if you don't think being neutral takes the same faith, then how would you describe it? I'm just curious.
Well... being neutral merely requires suspending judgement rather than making judgement in the absence of proof.
If a position is decided on reason and proof, then it is by definition not faith.

GoSlash27
12-12-2009, 05:37 PM
Preacher,
But are there any religions that are AS DIFFERENT as Christianity in the core makeup of the system of belief? I can't find any.

The two that come to mind for me are Buddhism and Hinduism.

Preacher
12-12-2009, 05:40 PM
Preacher,


The two that come to mind for me are Buddhism and Hinduism.

Not at all. Both Buddhism and Hinduism are focused on human works to achieve desired ends... as is Islam and Judiasm.

The are all anthropocentric systems of belief, and exactly opposite of christianity which is theocentric.

GoSlash27
12-12-2009, 05:49 PM
The are all anthropocentric systems of belief, and exactly opposite of christianity which is theocentric.
Not sure I'm following.
If I understand your point, every one of those beliefs, with the exception of Buddhism, are theocentric. In fact, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all derive from the same scripture and tradition!
I mentioned Buddhism specifically because it's 1) anthropocentric, and 2) because it is centrally not a system of belief at it's core.
I picked Hinduism because it is rooted in polytheism, and because it's tradition shares no roots whatsoever with the Western religions.

Both of these systems of belief (such as they are) are much more dissimilar to to the Jewish/ Muslim/ Christian faiths (which are all identical at the core).

Preacher
12-12-2009, 05:55 PM
Not sure I'm following.
If I understand your point, every one of those beliefs, with the exception of Buddhism, are theocentric. In fact, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all derive from the same scripture and tradition!
I mentioned Buddhism specifically because it's 1) anthropocentric, and 2) because it is centrally not a system of belief at it's core.
I picked Hinduism because it is rooted in polytheism.

Both of these systems of belief (such as they are) are much more dissimilar to to the Jewish/ Muslim/ Christian faiths (which are all identical at the core).

Let me be clearer... I apologize if I wasn't before.

Everyone of those beleif systems, in order to achieve the ultimate place of existence with its God, demands the human being to perform works throughout life to get to that place.

Christianity is the only one, which says humans cannot and will not be able to, thus, God made a way. Put faith in Jesus and He did what you could not.

Therefore, the primary step in Christianity was taken by God. In every other religion, it is taken by man. It is that primary step which brings about salvation or its equivalent in every religion.

GoSlash27
12-12-2009, 06:09 PM
Preacher,
Ah. I gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

In that case I don't think that Christianity is the most novel approach mentioned.
Judaism does not really have a dogmatic stance on any afterlife whatsoever, and Buddhism asserts that the afterlife in and of itself really isn't the point. And of course the Hindu faith asserts reincarnation rather than an afterlife in the traditional sense.

Preacher
12-12-2009, 07:26 PM
Preacher,
Ah. I gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

In that case I don't think that Christianity is the most novel approach mentioned.
Judaism does not really have a dogmatic stance on any afterlife whatsoever, and Buddhism asserts that the afterlife in and of itself really isn't the point. And of course the Hindu faith asserts reincarnation rather than an afterlife in the traditional sense.

Rabbinical judiasm is a fascinating discussion in and of itself. But what I am getting at, is how does each system of faith teach the person what to do in order to get to that ultimate state within their own system. For every one except Christianity, it is works. In Hindhuism, it is works over a series of lifetimes as a person continues up the caste system. In Buddhism, it is working to be at peace with the emptiness inside.

I gotta go to a christmas party now... but would really like to continue this discussion later....

GoSlash27
12-12-2009, 07:38 PM
Preacher,
But what I am getting at, is how does each system of faith teach the person what to do in order to get to that ultimate state within their own system. For every one except Christianity, it is works.
Yeah, I gotcha. I'm just responding to your question upstream about "religions that are AS DIFFERENT as Christianity in the core makeup of the system of belief". My answer is yes, there are many belief systems out there that are much more different from Judaism and Islam than is Christianity.
Not saying that they are any more true or accurate; proclaiming one faith to be true based on the fact that it is different would be a logical fallacy; appeal to novelty.

Have a great time at the party and stay safe! :thumbsup:

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-13-2009, 04:03 AM
LLT,

As I said up-stream, I'm very leery about discussing this topic with you, as your tone has indicated a certain amount of combativeness/ emotional involvement.
If we can both agree to not take any of this personally (or make it personal), I'll be more than happy to discuss it.

Well...actually...You have been much more combative then I have.
Please...dont by a hypocrit. If you want to describe Christians as "having soft spots in their skulls that havent fused together"...then you give up the right to act like a victim.

Perhaps you apologized for that statement and I missed it?

I have no problem with calling you out on the carpet if you are rude...but if you can refrain from any further comments (such as the one above), then I wil be happy to continue the discussion.

So, with the underdstanding that we are going to be civil...What are the "proofs" and "contradictions" you were talking about from the Bible?

GoSlash27
12-13-2009, 07:54 AM
LLT,
If you want to describe Christians as "having soft spots in their skulls that havent fused together"...then you give up the right to act like a victim.
Point #1 That's not what I said.

Perhaps you apologized for that statement and I missed it?
Point #2, Yes I did.
Here's my take:

Imagine that nobody had ever heard of the Bible. You stumbled across it in the back of a used book store. Would you read through it and then say "Hey, this explains everything! The giant fish, the parting of the Red Sea, God and Satan making a parlor bet over Job...It all makes sense!" ?
Of course you wouldn't. Without an emotional compulsion to accept it as true from the outset, you'd just chuck it in the wastebasket.
The only reason people believe this stuff is because grown-ups shoved into that soft spot they had when they were little and their skulls hadn't fused yet.

Sorry, but that's how I see it.

I have no problem with calling you out on the carpet if you are rude...but if you can refrain from any further comments (such as the one above), then I wil be happy to continue the discussion.
Thanks, but no thanks. :coffee:
I've already got civil people to discuss this with.

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-13-2009, 08:45 AM
LLT,

Point #1 That's not what I said.
.

then let me be more precise...you said:


The only reason people believe this stuff is because grown-ups shoved into that soft spot they had when they were little and their skulls hadn't fused yet.

...yet you start whining about people being combative towards you.....really? Not to be mean but this makes you a hypocrite and a liar....sorry, but there is no way around that.

Point #2, Yes I did.

Actually...no.

You said:

Sorry, but that's how I see it.

Which is not an apology but rather a statement that means..."too bad if you dont like my opinion"


I've already got civil people to discuss this with.

1) Too bad those you discuss things with cannot say the same thing.
2) I am not surprised...your M.O. has been to throw out pseudo intellectual shallow half-facts then play "diversion" when asked to go into detail.

I called Rev out on his rude post and he responded maturely and we continued the discussion. I didnt expect that from you...so I am not dissapointed.
:coffee:

SteelCityMom
12-13-2009, 11:09 AM
I think you are parroting something you were told...please provide these "conflicts" and "disproved" statements of fact.

I cannot possibly type out all the conflicts found within the Bible. Some I noticed on my own when I was younger...most I have found just by doing reading on the internet though, so what I'm listing is not 100% fact either, just noted inconsistencies that are found in the Bible. Some are rather weak, some are not...I suppose it all depends on how literally you wish to take every single word in the Bible.

A few examples:

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

GE 17:1, 35:11, 1CH 29:11-12, LK 1:37 God is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible with (or for) God.
JG 1:19 Although God was with Judah, together they could not defeat the plainsmen because the latter had iron chariots.

GE 17:8 God promises Abraham the land of Canaan as an "everlasting possession."
GE 25:8, AC 7:2-5, HE 11:13 Abraham died with the promise unfulfilled.

GE 22:1-12, DT 8:2 God tempts (tests) Abraham and Moses.
JG 2:22 God himself says that he does test (tempt).
1CO 10:13 Paul says that God controls the extent of our temptations.
JA 1:13 God tests (tempts) no one.

EX 3:20-22, DT 20:13-17 God instructs the Israelites to despoil the Egyptians, to plunder their enemies.
EX 20:15, 17, LE 19:13 God prohibits stealing, defrauding, or robbing a neighbor.

I will stop there, as I don't want to fill up a whole page. It is an interesting site though. Like I said, some examples are weak, and some are glaringly obvious...feel free to check it out though.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

GoSlash27
12-13-2009, 11:20 AM
GE 17:1, 35:11, 1CH 29:11-12, LK 1:37 God is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible with (or for) God.
JG 1:19 Although God was with Judah, together they could not defeat the plainsmen because the latter had iron chariots.
That one has been one of my all-time biggest head scratchers.

Leviticus 24:19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.
This is directly refuted by Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. In fact... pretty much all of Leviticus is completely incompatible with Christianity/ the New Testament.

HometownGal
12-13-2009, 11:48 AM
I would ask that a couple of you please refrain from the snarky little comments and flame-baiting in this thread. There is a good discussion going here - please keep it going without cyber-ripping each other's hair out by the roots.

Our mantra around here for those who haven't heard this broken record before . . . .

Attack the post, NOT THE POSTER.

Amen.

SteelCityMom
12-13-2009, 11:53 AM
That one has been one of my all-time biggest head scratchers.

Leviticus 24:19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.
This is directly refuted by Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. In fact... pretty much all of Leviticus is completely incompatible with Christianity/ the New Testament.

Well, to be fair, a lot of the old laws (NT laws) are supposed to be struck down because of Jesus' sacrifices. However, I find this to be flawed because many (not all) Christians and Catholic will cite the NT in matters concerning homosexuality, the death penalty, etc. etc. Some they choose to keep, some (like stoning insolent children to death, stoning your wife for infidelity or animal sacrifice) are swept under the rug. Maybe there's a larger explanation that I'm missing, but I find it a little bit hypocritical.

GoSlash27
12-13-2009, 12:05 PM
Well, to be fair, a lot of the old laws (NT laws) are supposed to be struck down because of Jesus' sacrifices. However, I find this to be flawed because many (not all) Christians and Catholic will cite the NT in matters concerning homosexuality, the death penalty, etc. etc. Some they choose to keep, some (like stoning insolent children to death, stoning your wife for infidelity or animal sacrifice) are swept under the rug. Maybe there's a larger explanation that I'm missing, but I find it a little bit hypocritical.
There's that, but the point I'm getting at is that they are both contained within the same Bible. One cannot reconcile the NT with the OT without rejecting scripture. One cannot reject scripture without acknowledging the fact that the conflict exists.
The fact that the conflict exists proves conclusively that the Bible is not 100% true or accurate, and thus cannot truly be the divinely inspired word of God unless one takes the position that God is fallible (another concept that is both simultaneously supported and rejected by the Bible).

Apologies for the long-windedness... :blush:

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-13-2009, 12:54 PM
A few examples:

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Thank you...actual percieved conflicts are much easier to discuss then vague references to conflicts.

I will make an attempt to show you what I believe...please forgive me if I so a poor job of it.

For the sake of brevity I am going to start with the creation "conflicts"

Chapter 1 should be looked at as chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, Chapter 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment.

There is clear evidence that Chapter 2 was never meant to be an independent creation account. There are too many crucial elements missing for that to have been the case..... there is no mention of the creation of the Earth.....there is no reference to the oceans or fish....there is no mention to the Sun, Moon, and stars.....etc.

These are complementary versions of creation..given in two literary styles.

Read with that fact in mind... I would challenge you to sit down and read the two chapters and see if you come to the same conclusion .


GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.

The nam Jehovah means “I Am who I Am”..it is specific as to something "immediate"..... Jehovah is present, accessible, near to those who call on Him for deliverance

If put into context ...The patriarchs knew His name, but they did not know Him in this manner by that which this name signifies. God was telling the Hebrew nation..." TODAY you will know me as deliverer."



GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

In regards to the percieved conflict with Adam and his eating the forbidden fruit. Even a casual glance at the two verses shows no conflict...for on the "day" that Adam ate the fruit, he lost his immortality and began to die.



You are making me earn my money today...thanks for the questions!!! (I am sure Preacher could answer these better than I could!!!)

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-13-2009, 01:07 PM
Well, to be fair, a lot of the old laws (NT laws) are supposed to be struck down because of Jesus' sacrifices. However, I find this to be flawed because many (not all) Christians and Catholic will cite the NT in matters concerning homosexuality, the death penalty, etc. etc. Some they choose to keep, some (like stoning insolent children to death, stoning your wife for infidelity or animal sacrifice) are swept under the rug. Maybe there's a larger explanation that I'm missing, but I find it a little bit hypocritical.

You are touching on the correct interpretation. Alot of people have some confusion with Mosaic law.

I think alot of Christians have trouble with knowing what place the Mosaic law plays in the New Testament believer’s life.

Paul specifically emphasisis in the New testemant that a Christian is no longer under the rule of the Mosaic law. This is stated in no uncertain terms in Rom. 6:14; 7:1-14; Gal. 3:10-13, 24-25; 4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18


The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that the believer in Christ is not any longer under the Mosaic law in its entirety… Indeed after having been delivered from the law, to deliberately place ourselves once again under its [control] is said to be “falling from grace.”

But that doesnt mean we should behave in a manner just opposite to what the Mosaic law commands—that we should kill, steal, bear false witness,.... etc.
Long before the law was given through Moses, it was utterly wrong to do such evil things. . .and are a continuam of Gods character.

MasterOfPuppets
12-13-2009, 02:34 PM
wasn't noah supposed to be 600 yrs old when this event took place ? :noidea:

Preacher
12-13-2009, 02:43 PM
There's that, but the point I'm getting at is that they are both contained within the same Bible. One cannot reconcile the NT with the OT without rejecting scripture. One cannot reject scripture without acknowledging the fact that the conflict exists.
The fact that the conflict exists proves conclusively that the Bible is not 100% true or accurate, and thus cannot truly be the divinely inspired word of God unless one takes the position that God is fallible (another concept that is both simultaneously supported and rejected by the Bible).

Apologies for the long-windedness... :blush:

Reconcile the OT with the NT? Really? That very reconciliation is the core of Christian Faith.

Please share with me why you believe this. I can either answer you here, or if, as I suspect, the answer has to do with a perceived change in how God works, you can give me your email address, and i will email you a paper I just wrote and presented in a seminary which is pretty much on this topic.

SteelCityMom
12-13-2009, 02:46 PM
Thank you...actual percieved conflicts are much easier to discuss then vague references to conflicts.

I will make an attempt to show you what I believe...please forgive me if I so a poor job of it.

For the sake of brevity I am going to start with the creation "conflicts"

Chapter 1 should be looked at as chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, Chapter 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment.

There is clear evidence that Chapter 2 was never meant to be an independent creation account. There are too many crucial elements missing for that to have been the case..... there is no mention of the creation of the Earth.....there is no reference to the oceans or fish....there is no mention to the Sun, Moon, and stars.....etc.

These are complementary versions of creation..given in two literary styles.

Read with that fact in mind... I would challenge you to sit down and read the two chapters and see if you come to the same conclusion .

I can see where you're coming from here, but to me, it makes a lot of difference for those who want to take the Bible in a word for word literal sense.





In regards to the percieved conflict with Adam and his eating the forbidden fruit. Even a casual glance at the two verses shows no conflict...for on the "day" that Adam ate the fruit, he lost his immortality and began to die.

Haha...There are so many who would consider 930 years old pretty darn close to immortality! I understand what you mean though...it's a symbolic meaning of death.



You are making me earn my money today...thanks for the questions!!! (I am sure Preacher could answer these better than I could!!!)

And thank you for the answers. I don't expect every single one from that site to be answered, it was just a good reference point for what some think to be conflicts within the Bible.

As I've said before, I've never thought the Bible should be taken as a complete literal source. I do appreciate it's moral and literary value though. I just thought some of these examples shed some light on why a literal interpretation of the Bible would be close to impossible.

SteelCityMom
12-13-2009, 02:49 PM
wasn't noah supposed to be 600 yrs old when this event took place ? :noidea:


Haven't you heard? 600 is the new 30. :chuckle:

GoSlash27
12-13-2009, 03:53 PM
SCM,
Haven't you heard? 600 is the new 30.
That might explain why I feel so much older than I am... :oops:

Preacher,
Reconcile the OT with the NT? Really? That very reconciliation is the core of Christian Faith.

Please share with me why you believe this. I can either answer you here, or if, as I suspect, the answer has to do with a perceived change in how God works, you can give me your email address, and i will email you a paper I just wrote and presented in a seminary which is pretty much on this topic.
When I say they can't be reconciled, I mean they make mutually exclusive claims. Either the OT is divinely inspired and represents the will of God (deeds, eye for an eye, vengeful God) or the NT is divinely inspired and represents the will of God (faith, forgiveness, loving God). To accept one as true is to reject the other as false (or at the very least no longer applicable), but the important part is that either way one is *forced* to reject Holy scripture. That is a tacit admission that the KJV Bible cannot possibly be a 100% literally accurate portrayal of history or God's will.

Nevertheless, I'll give your paper a fair shake if you want to share it.
/ Hope the party went well for you!

Preacher
12-13-2009, 05:08 PM
SCM,

That might explain why I feel so much older than I am... :oops:

Preacher,

When I say they can't be reconciled, I mean they make mutually exclusive claims. Either the OT is divinely inspired and represents the will of God (deeds, eye for an eye, vengeful God) or the NT is divinely inspired and represents the will of God (faith, forgiveness, loving God). To accept one as true is to reject the other as false (or at the very least no longer applicable), but the important part is that either way one is *forced* to reject Holy scripture. That is a tacit admission that the KJV Bible cannot possibly be a 100% literally accurate portrayal of history or God's will.

Nevertheless, I'll give your paper a fair shake if you want to share it.
/ Hope the party went well for you!

Thanks and yeah, that is right up the alley of what I wrote about.

PM your email address and i will send it to you. Understand one thing though... I was writing theology, so there is some philosphy involved (yuck). But the heart of the paper speaks to what you are discussing.

BlastFurnace
12-13-2009, 08:43 PM
Thanks and yeah, that is right up the alley of what I wrote about.

PM your email address and i will send it to you. Understand one thing though... I was writing theology, so there is some philosphy involved (yuck). But the heart of the paper speaks to what you are discussing.

Preacher...if you're offering a copy of that...I'd love to get a copy. Would you mind sending it to me?

Preacher
12-13-2009, 09:32 PM
Preacher...if you're offering a copy of that...I'd love to get a copy. Would you mind sending it to me?

:chuckle:

Sure, the paper itself is about God and relationship. Its a theology paper. But yeah, I'll send it to you.

Same thing I told GoSlash...

Just need to make sure that if you let others see it, you let them see the entire thing, with the coverpage. I don't want part of it to get out someplace, and then be presented as somebody else's work. (Like that'll ever happen. BUt just in case).

If you agree, PM me your email addy and I will send it to you and whoever else wants it.

Warning: It is a boring theology paper concerning being, otherness, and relationship via covenant.

MasterOfPuppets
12-13-2009, 11:21 PM
Haven't you heard? 600 is the new 30. :chuckle:
no doubt... but wouldn't you think after 600 years you'd have more than 8 family members ? i mean if people lived that long, wouldn't ya think there'd be a lot of those oops moments and you'd end up with like 50 kids and a couple hundred grand children and a couple thousand great grand children, and a couple ten thousand great, great grand children, and a ..... you get the picture....:noidea:

Preacher
12-13-2009, 11:26 PM
no doubt... but wouldn't you think after 600 years you'd have more than 8 family members ? i mean if people lived that long, wouldn't ya think there'd be a lot of those oops moments and you'd end up with like 50 kids and a couple hundred grand children and a couple thousand great grand children, and a couple ten thousand great, great grand children, and a ..... you get the picture....:noidea:

Yes and no.

Remember, the bible is only interested in telling the central story, not in relating history verbatim.

So what is important to the narrative is the three children. Did he have 50 who turned away from God? Maybe. The author/text doesn't care about that.

lamberts-lost-tooth
12-14-2009, 03:25 AM
Yes and no.

Remember, the bible is only interested in telling the central story, not in relating history verbatim.

So what is important to the narrative is the three children. Did he have 50 who turned away from God? Maybe. The author/text doesn't care about that.

I have always wondered the same thing about Adams children...just because the story of three of the children are told, dowsnt necesarily mean that he only had three children.

Preacher
12-14-2009, 03:58 AM
I have always wondered the same thing about Adams children...just because the story of three of the children are told, dowsnt necesarily mean that he only had three children.

Yep.

The other issue there, is that Adam is Hebrew for mankind, and a shortened form of Adamah, which means dirt. So the hebrew is having this great alliterative word play between man and dirt there--and all the while, the question remains whether Adam was one man or a class of being, just like all the other animals.

stlrtruck
12-14-2009, 08:30 AM
There's that, but the point I'm getting at is that they are both contained within the same Bible. One cannot reconcile the NT with the OT without rejecting scripture. One cannot reject scripture without acknowledging the fact that the conflict exists.
The fact that the conflict exists proves conclusively that the Bible is not 100% true or accurate, and thus cannot truly be the divinely inspired word of God unless one takes the position that God is fallible (another concept that is both simultaneously supported and rejected by the Bible).

Apologies for the long-windedness... :blush:

The OT was established set of guidelines, rules, etc, whatever you want to call them for God's people to live. It offered specific measures for dealing with things that would come up. It is the old covenant that God made with His people. When Jesus Christ was hung on the cross, the OT covenant became null and void and Jesus became the new way to know the Father. Christ tore the vail that was in the temple and there was now a new way to understand God - and that was through relationship.

And from a top level review, it may seem that the conflict exists in God's word. What it requires is for one to seek wisdom from within those Words. In layman's terms - you've got to drill down and read God's word, recognizing the writing styles of the times that the word was written.

stlrtruck
12-14-2009, 08:31 AM
You are touching on the correct interpretation. Alot of people have some confusion with Mosaic law.

I think alot of Christians have trouble with knowing what place the Mosaic law plays in the New Testament believer’s life.

Paul specifically emphasisis in the New testemant that a Christian is no longer under the rule of the Mosaic law. This is stated in no uncertain terms in Rom. 6:14; 7:1-14; Gal. 3:10-13, 24-25; 4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18


The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that the believer in Christ is not any longer under the Mosaic law in its entirety… Indeed after having been delivered from the law, to deliberately place ourselves once again under its [control] is said to be “falling from grace.”

But that doesnt mean we should behave in a manner just opposite to what the Mosaic law commands—that we should kill, steal, bear false witness,.... etc.
Long before the law was given through Moses, it was utterly wrong to do such evil things. . .and are a continuam of Gods character.

Besides not being under the mosaic law, doesn't Christ's two commandments direct us to live not similarly to the mosaic law commands but better!

stlrtruck
12-14-2009, 08:42 AM
I can see where you're coming from here, but to me, it makes a lot of difference for those who want to take the Bible in a word for word literal sense.

One of the mistakes that I've made in reading the bible is sometimes forgetting when the bible was written and the writing styles of that day. In that one must go back to understand how things were written and some words that are used in modern text versions are not the same words that were intended in the original text.


When I say they can't be reconciled, I mean they make mutually exclusive claims. Either the OT is divinely inspired and represents the will of God (deeds, eye for an eye, vengeful God) or the NT is divinely inspired and represents the will of God (faith, forgiveness, loving God). To accept one as true is to reject the other as false (or at the very least no longer applicable), but the important part is that either way one is *forced* to reject Holy scripture. That is a tacit admission that the KJV Bible cannot possibly be a 100% literally accurate portrayal of history or God's will.


Why is it not possible for both to be inspired from God? God had a claim in the people of Israel and in that He gave them, what we now know as, the Old Testament. Through their own lack of obedience, they destroyed that original covenant. In turn the birth and subsequent life of Jesus Christ was the new covenant and through His life and death, a new covenant was founded.

In simplier terms, it is no different than being a father and giving guidelines to our children. There is at times a lack of obedience, understanding, and even action according to the guidelines we as parents give our children. Thusly our children find themselves in a position that is apart from us. Consider this the OT. But then in a move of compassion and love I reconcile my child without them having to do a thing. This is the NT.

It is possible, and certainly in my belief it is true, that both the OT and NT represent the Will of God. Not proving fallacy between them but complimenting each other on the love, grace, mercy, peace, and comfort that can be found in the arms of the Almighty Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

revefsreleets
12-14-2009, 12:07 PM
Interesting turn since I've been away.

Christianity is better because it's different. And I'm going to Hell because I believe in God, but DO NOT believe I have to lay claim to the super exclusionary clause that the ONLY path to salvation is through Jesus Christ.

I know how this will go from here...when I bring up all the people who existed BEFORE Jesus ever did, there will be yet another fairly rational sounding explanation of what is actually a far-fetched and fantastical idea concocted over all the years by the Church about how even those people can also be scooped up by Christianity at some point in the future.

But the bottom line is, I was born and raised a Christian. I was SUPER indoctrinated with NOTHING but Christian dogma from the Methodist, Baptist, and, later in life, Catholic Church, pretty much from birth. I read more and more and more about it after my initial skepticism set in. I find the exclusionary nature of Christianity to be completely at odds with the God I have read and studied about IN ALL RELIGIONS, Christianity included.

What's more, I find this new approach of attempting to fight fire with fire (e.g. Creating a new pseudo-science around creationism) repulsive. Christians were better off just saying "It is what it is" than attempting to randomly select some principles of science (while rejecting others that "don't fit") in order to attempt to intellectualize their beliefs.

When I watch Mythbusters, one of my favorite shows, I have a fairly good idea ahead of time how each myth will actually turn out. When the myths are completely dis-proven, that is pretty much it. I'd be more comfortable at the end of the show if they just said "Well, that myth LOOKS busted, but God could have had influence originally, and THAT created the myth, so it's plausible" rather then data being ignored or manipulated, or open to interpretation, or all the other little junk science tricks of the trade that the new fundamentalist Christians are attempting to do in order to legitimize their beliefs to a wider audience.

Think about it. The Mythbusters could attempt to duplicate the fishes and the loaves, and there is absolutely no way in which they could EVER duplicate the results. Is the myth busted? Sure. But they could certainly add the caveat that a miracle could have occurred. OK, I buy that to a certain degree. But what is NOW happening is the fundies (read:literal interpreters of the bible) are now trying to make some kind of scientific case for how the laws of nature COULD have been manipulated so that the miracle could occur in purely scientific terms.

I just wish they'd stop and go back to the old way. It was a miracle. Noah's Ark was a miracle. Creation was a miracle. That's all....you either believe it or you don't.