[_ Old Earth _] The earth is a sphere.

[Guest]

±

±

 

[jwu]

Where do you get that 1½ number from? Frame of reference, unit?

 

[Guest]

±

±

 

[John]

Post 499

 

[John]

Post 500 YAY :

 

[freeway]

wow 500 posts :onfire: . so does this mean your really into blogging, or to much time on your hands :-D :-D :-D

someday maybe I'll be at 500 :

 

[John]

wow 500 posts :onfire: . so does this mean your really into blogging, or to much time on your hands :-D :-D :-D

someday maybe I'll be at 500 :

I have some free time right now, and i enjoy debate.

Considering i joined Wed Mar 12, 2008 and you Joined Tue Aug 15, 2006 you could have had way more then me :P

 

[freeway]

never really got into online debates here before now..like I've said on one site this debate stuff usually just goes on and on. enjoying it tho. :D what little time I can it in. pretty busy.
nuff say don't what to hijack thread.

 

[freeway]

Bible

Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously

this is another point thats not really pointed out, but yet by understanding it now Jesus would have to have known the earth was round to make this statement... :wink:

 

[Deep Thought]

I find it interesting that John (who claims to believe the literal word of the bible) has admitted that the bible is open to interpretation and not everything in it is literal.

It's this type of cherry picking that most Christians use that make them lose any credibility.

What rules do you apply to when to take the bible literally and when to take it metaphorically?

 

[John]

I find it interesting that John (who claims to believe the literal word of the bible) has admitted that the bible is open to interpretation and not everything in it is literal.

It's this type of cherry picking that most Christians use that make them lose any credibility.

What rules do you apply to when to take the bible literally and when to take it metaphorically?

I said the Bible needs to be taken literally first then figuratively.

The rules are simple. logic, the earth is not flat, the "four corners of the earth" was a stab at creationists and fellow Christians to make us look dumb, because we take it literary, while any one can see the earth is sphere so when you analaize the scriptures use your head.

 

[Deep Thought]

Not good enough John.

It's very easy from a modern perspective and understanding to know the earth is not flat, but back when the bible was written, most people did think the earth was flat.

You can't just conveniently say any biblical inaccuracies or contradictions must be interpreted non-literally.

You are either a bible literalist or not. In your case John, you are *not* a bible literalist. You either have to accept the *entire* word of the bible as the literal word, or you have to leave *everything* else option to interpretation.

 

[John]

It's very easy from a modern perspective and understanding to know the earth is not flat, but back when the bible was written, most people did think the earth was flat.

did you ask the people what they thought about the earth ?

You can't just conveniently say any biblical inaccuracies or contradictions must be interpreted non-literally.

why not, if it not logical its got to be either figuritve or a metaphor

You are either a bible literalist or not. In your case John, you are *not* a bible literalist. You either have to accept the *entire* word of the bible as the literal word, or you have to leave *everything* else option to interpretation.

who makes that rule ?

 

[Deep Thought]

It's very easy from a modern perspective and understanding to know the earth is not flat, but back when the bible was written, most people did think the earth was flat.

did you ask the people what they thought about the earth ?

You're just being silly and a little desperate with that response. The concept of a flat earth is was well documented a believed for many centuries. There's even the Flat Earth Society in existence today.

[quote:54e50]You can't just conveniently say any biblical inaccuracies or contradictions must be interpreted non-literally.

why not, if it not logical its got to be either figuritve or a metaphor

How do you make a decision if something is logical or not? The bible is supposed to be the infallible, inerrant word of God. It can *not* be wrong or illogical if you literally interpret it.

You are either a bible literalist or not. In your case John, you are *not* a bible literalist. You either have to accept the *entire* word of the bible as the literal word, or you have to leave *everything* else option to interpretation.

who makes that rule ?[/quote:54e50]

It's not a rule, it's just plain common-sense. Here's a dictionary definition to jolt your mind.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
lit·er·al Audio Help /ˈlɪtərəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lit-er-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.
2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.
3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city.

So I'll say it again. John, you do NOT believe in the literal word of the bible.

 

[John]

I love how you can tell me what i believe or don't ,

in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.

"Primary"..not ONLY

you can cite web definitions all day, i do not adhere to your twisted logic.

 

[Free]

Wow! If any of the evolutionists in here put the study into Scripture, or even into proper biblical hermeneutics, that you put into evolution, you would see the silliness of this argument. It's quite mind-boggling actually, and quite disappointing.

 

[Deep Thought]

I love how you can tell me what i believe or don't ,

in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.

"Primary"..not ONLY

you can cite web definitions all day, i do not adhere to your twisted logic.

Sorry John, I'm not going to let you off on this point. What is the primary meaning of the words that insects have four legs? You can't seriously tell me that the primary meaning of "four" is "six".

 

[John]

I love how you can tell me what i believe or don't ,

in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.

"Primary"..not ONLY

you can cite web definitions all day, i do not adhere to your twisted logic.

Sorry John, I'm not going to let you off on this point. What is the primary meaning of the words that insects have four legs? You can't seriously tell me that the primary meaning of "four" is "six".

thats simple, the metaphor or scientific reasoning or whatever has not been discovered yet.

 

[Deep Thought]

Sorry John, I'm not going to let you off on this point. What is the primary meaning of the words that insects have four legs? You can't seriously tell me that the primary meaning of "four" is "six".

thats simple, the metaphor or scientific reasoning or whatever has not been discovered yet.

:crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: :crazyeyes:

That's the best you can do??? I seriously hope you think about this deeply and see what you are actually admitting.

It's funny that you state you are a Creationist who believes in the literal word of the bible and over the last few days we've found that you are a evolutionist (granted you don't fully accept all of evolution) and a non-literalist.

Next thing you'll be telling us is that that concept of god is a man made myth.

 

[John]

That's the best you can do??? I seriously hope you think about this deeply and see what you are actually admitting.

Perfect you walked right into it.
have evolutionists not been preaching that same claim for years?
"its just waiting to be discovered"

simply put, you can't define what i believe for me, i don't run in your circles.