[_ Old Earth _] To all those who don't take the bible literally

[Late_Cretaceous]

I got news for you. I am a christian.

Huh, a christian who accepts evolution?????!!!! :o :o


What I want are direct answers to my questions.

Does the bible say that the earth is immobile, and that it rests on pillars. Yes or no.

Do YOU accept that particular passage of scriputre as literal. Yes or no.

If you do not accept that as literal, then why not - especially since you seem to insist that the entire bible it to be taken literally.

Are there any christians today who regard these particular passages as literal. Yes or no.

Would christians of the seventh century have regarded these particular passages as literal. Yes or no.

It should be simple to answer these questions. I consider it dishonest to address these questions by citing unrelated biblical passages and ignoring them.

I know you won't submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ so I am not "scared" at all.

Are these arrogant words the kind of thing that Jesus taught? Sometimes I get the impression that some people think that if they talk about Jesus a lot then they don't have to bother trying to act like Him and that if they go around repeating what He said, then they don't have to bother actually listening to what He said. It is behaviour such as in this example that make me think this way.

 

[Solo]

I got news for you. I am a christian.

Huh, a christian who accepts evolution?????!!!! :o :o

Then I suggest that you start walking the talk and give scripture for your positions on life, instead of the lies of the devil.

What I want are direct answers to my questions.

Does the bible say that the earth is immobile, and that it rests on pillars. Yes or no.

Do YOU accept that particular passage of scriputre as literal. Yes or no.

If you do not accept that as literal, then why not - especially since you seem to insist that the entire bible it to be taken literally.

Are there any christians today who regard these particular passages as literal. Yes or no.

Would christians of the seventh century have regarded these particular passages as literal. Yes or no.

It should be simple to answer these questions. I consider it dishonest to address these questions by citing unrelated biblical passages and ignoring them.

If you read the Psalms and Song of Solomon as completely literal you would be foolish, just as if you read parable of Jesus as having no meaning (which he interprets to the disciples every time), and you would be just as foolish to take the history that God reveals the literal creation of matter and space and time and life as non-literal.

If you can not separate the portions of scripture that are literal and non-literal, your problem is not believing in evolution, it is not hearing the Holy Spirit.

I know you won't submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ so I am not "scared" at all.

Are these arrogant words the kind of thing that Jesus taught? Sometimes I get the impression that some people think that if they talk about Jesus a lot then they don't have to bother trying to act like Him and that if they go around repeating what He said, then they don't have to bother actually listening to what He said. It is behaviour such as in this example that make me think this way.

Jesus called those that were not saved but taught man's doctrines hypocrites, vipers, and whited sepulcres. He was not arogant by calling a spade a spade. He was using God's Word as his authority. I only say that you are wrong in your understanding of creation, and Christians have the Word of God to follow, not an atheistic philosophy. Keep in mind that Jesus also taught by using the Word of God. He continually said, "It is written.......".

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

You still did not address the questions directly.

 

[Solo]

You still did not address the questions directly.

This is my answer to your questions.

If you read the Psalms and Song of Solomon as completely literal you would be foolish, just as if you read parable of Jesus as having no meaning (which he interprets to the disciples every time), and you would be just as foolish to take the history that God reveals the literal creation of matter and space and time and life as non-literal.

If you provide the scripture references to all of your questions, I will look them up and give you an answer to each one.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

delete double post

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Here is what you asked for.

Ten bucks says that you either question my faith for questioning the bible, or pridefully rant on about how much better a christian you are then me. Go ahead criticize my faith if you like (I don't answer to you in the end afterall), just as long as you actually answer the very simple little questions that you will find immediatly before the question marks.


Stationary Earth. Literal or not? Psalm 93:1 "[T]he world also is established, that it cannot be moved." (Don't bother telling me that the Earth "can't be moved from it's orbit", because gravitational pertubations such a passing by star could actually eject one or more planets from thier oribts and even from solar ssytem)

The Earth has 4 corners. Literal or not? Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."


Earth has 4 corners. Literal or not? Revelation 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."

The sky is solid. Literal or not? Genesis 1:17 "And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,"


The sky is solid - and real hard. Literal or not? Job 37:18 " can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?"

Windows in the sky (and fountains in the deep). Literal or not? Genesis 7:11 "7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."


The Earth rests on pillars. Literal or not? I Samuel 2:8 "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, He lifteth up the needy from the dunghill, To make them sit with princes, And inherit the throne of glory: For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah's, And he hath set the world upon them."


The Earth rests on pillars, and earthquakes are caused by shaking them. Literal or not? Psalm 75:3 "
The earth and all its inhabitants quake. I firmly hold its pillars"


The Earth rests on pillars, and earthquakes are caused by shaking them. Literal or not? Job 9:6 " Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."

 

[bibleberean]

For heavens sakes... :

If someone says a person is a "pillar of the community" do we take it literally?

Yes...

We know what is meant by the expression.

The person is someone who upholds the community like a pillar.

Those arguments are poor for not taking the bible for what it says.

The earth cannot be moved unless God moves it. He will shake the earth.

The earth is in the exact place God wants it to be. If it was any further from the Sun it would be too cold. If it was any closer it would be too hot.

Keep your 10 bucks. :

God holds the pillars and the foundations of the earth.

The fountains of the deep in Genesis were broken up and the earth was flooded with waters coming up from the ground and the sky poured down the water from above the firmament (sky). I take that literally.

The four corners of the earth are North, South, East and West.

Psalms 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

God dosen't use the term as far as the North is from the South because you can only go so far north and south but you can keep traveling from East and go in circles forever without going west.


I cannot believe how shallow those questions are...

I believe what the bible says.

Here maybe this will help...

The Bible refers to "the four corners of the earth." How can a spherical earth have corners?


http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c017.html

It is translated "borders" in Numbers 15:38. In Ezekiel 7:2 it is translated "four corners" and again in Isaiah 11:12 "four corners." Job 37:3 and 38:13 as "ends."

The Greek equivalent in Revelation 7:1 is gonia. The Greek meaning is perhaps more closely related to our modern divisions known as quadrants. Gonia literally means angles, or divisions. It is customary to divide a map into quadrants as shown by the four directions.

Some have tried to ridicule the Bible to say that it teaches that the earth is square. The Scripture makes it quite clear that the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22).

Some have tried to say there are four knobs, or peaks on a round earth. Regardless of the various ways kanaph is translated, it makes reference to Extremities.

Using arguments like this as an excuse to ignore clear biblical teaching is not going to convince a bible believer that evolution is true...

 

[pfilmtech]

Ah I see so its open to interpretation when you deem it neccessary and never any other time.

I see now.

 

[bibleberean]

You think you see it anyway. :D

 

[cubedbee]

Ah I see so its open to interpretation when you deem it neccessary and never any other time.

I see now.

Edited for violating Rule 2 of the Terms of Service.

Rule 2 - No Flaming:
You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself.
*Amended to include* .... Any person(s) who comes to these forums to attack Christianity or Christians personally will be banned based on the discretion of the Admins & Mods.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The bible is literal. Every word of it. Except for those parts that aren't.

Christians in the 7th century would have interpreted those particular passages as literal. Yet christians today (even so called biblical literalists) see them as metaphorical. Funny how things change.

 

[pfilmtech]

The bible is literal. Every word of it. Except for those parts that aren't.

Christians in the 7th century would have interpreted those particular passages as literal. Yet christians today (even so called biblical literalists) see them as metaphorical. Funny how things change.

So much is lost in translation and word's fdefinitions changing. Like the chapter in Timothy(6:20 I think) that everyone uses to disprove evolution "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called"

"science" in greek comes from the word gnosis roughly meaning esoteic knowledge. It hardly means the same as the modern word science.

 

[cubedbee]

The bible is literal. Every word of it. Except for those parts that aren't.

Christians in the 7th century would have interpreted those particular passages as literal. Yet christians today (even so called biblical literalists) see them as metaphorical. Funny how things change.

So much is lost in translation and word's fdefinitions changing. Like the chapter in Timothy(6:20 I think) that everyone uses to disprove evolution "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called"

"science" in greek comes from the word gnosis roughly meaning esoteic knowledge. It hardly means the same as the modern word science.

Oh, come on, Paul was obviously writing about our modern day science, over a thousand years before the scientific method was first developed.

 

[Heidi]

The bible is literal. Every word of it. Except for those parts that aren't.

Christians in the 7th century would have interpreted those particular passages as literal. Yet christians today (even so called biblical literalists) see them as metaphorical. Funny how things change.

So much is lost in translation and word's fdefinitions changing. Like the chapter in Timothy(6:20 I think) that everyone uses to disprove evolution "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called"

"science" in greek comes from the word gnosis roughly meaning esoteic knowledge. It hardly means the same as the modern word science.

The word "science" isn't used in any bible that I know of. That word was coined thousands of years after the bible was written.

But many people like to change the words around in the bible to fit their beliefs instead of changing their beliefs to fit the words in the bible. That is rewriting it. I predict that the bibles of the future will have little to do with the bible of the past. Men simply like to play God themselves.

 

[Frost Giant]

Edited for breaking Rule 8 of the Terms of Service.

Rule 8 - No Promotion of Other Religions:
You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than mainstream Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Debates of these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted. This is a Christian Forums as the name suggest. If you cannot abide with this, please do not use our site.

John 14: 6. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

 

[cubedbee]

The word "science" isn't used in any bible that I know of.

You know of the King James Version, right? Well, 1 Timothy 6:20 says "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Ti/1Ti006.html

That word was coined thousands of years after the bible was written.

Precisely. Which really shows the difficulty of translating an ancient language into our modern English.

But many people like to change the words around in the bible to fit their beliefs instead of changing their beliefs to fit the words in the bible. That is rewriting it. I predict that the bibles of the future will have little to do with the bible of the past. Men simply like to play God themselves.

So, Heidi, which words of the Bible do you choose to follow? You are a scholar in Greek and Hebrew, and read the originals, correct? Because, I'm pretty sure I remeber you saying you use the NIV, and the NIV isn't the perfect Word of God any more than the KJV that you just rejected is--it is a flawed and imperfected translation of God's Word.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I thing the bible of today is vastly different then the bible of the past. Even so, the modern person's interpretation of the exact same passage would be vasty different then someone living in the 14th century.

In the early days of christianity there were few bibles, and really no consensus on the contents of such bibles. Scriptures were translated from one language to another (Coptic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew) by individuals who may have not been totally fluent. Especially in light of the fact that the scribe may be familiar with a slightly different dialect of coptic or greek, or that the passage he is transcribing was written 100 years before he was born and the language he knows had changed. Even lettering changed over the years. Hebrew writing went from rounded letters to more square looking letters over the generations of the first century BC.

Stangely too, scribes did not use punctuation or spacing. Imagine reading an entire book without the benefit of spaces between the words or paragraph structure, and on top of that, transcribing it onto another parchement with a primitive pen in poor lighting.

This is what the proceeding paragraph might look like...

StangelytooscribesdidnotusepunctuationorspacingImaginereadinganentire bookwithoutthebenefitofspacesbetweenthewordsorparagraphstructureandon topofthattranscribingitontoanotherparchementwithaprimitivepeninpoor lighting.


There is one famous case where a scribe accidently transcribed 30 lines of scriptural text twice - and apparently didn't notice it. Not only that, but there were more then 30 discrepancies in that 30 lines of double transcribed text.

In other cases clear evidence of editing and tampering can be found. One scribe even chastised another on the very parchement he was copying from for changing the text form it's original.


Yet througout it all, through all the mistakes and translation errors, through all the deliberate editing, the message comes through clearly. It's hardly worthy to argue over which one is more correct. Is it not the message that is more important.

Does it reallymatter if Jesus really said "it is easier to pass a rope (specifially a heavy rope used in ship rigging) through the eye of a needle" or "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle" Both camel and rope (used for ship riggings) are "Gamla" in Aramaic. Whover translated that passage was obviously more familiar with Gamla=camel then gamla=rope. Not suprising since camels would be more common then ropes used specifially for ship rigging. Nevertheless, the message of it being hard for a rich man to get into heaven is the same.

 

[Heidi]

I thing the bible of today is vastly different then the bible of the past. Even so, the modern person's interpretation of the exact same passage would be vasty different then someone living in the 14th century.

In the early days of christianity there were few bibles, and really no consensus on the contents of such bibles. Scriptures were translated from one language to another (Coptic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew) by individuals who may have not been totally fluent. Especially in light of the fact that the scribe may be familiar with a slightly different dialect of coptic or greek, or that the passage he is transcribing was written 100 years before he was born and the language he knows had changed. Even lettering changed over the years. Hebrew writing went from rounded letters to more square looking letters over the generations of the first century BC.

Stangely too, scribes did not use punctuation or spacing. Imagine reading an entire book without the benefit of spaces between the words or paragraph structure, and on top of that, transcribing it onto another parchement with a primitive pen in poor lighting.

This is what the proceeding paragraph might look like...

StangelytooscribesdidnotusepunctuationorspacingImaginereadinganentire bookwithoutthebenefitofspacesbetweenthewordsorparagraphstructureandon topofthattranscribingitontoanotherparchementwithaprimitivepeninpoor lighting.


There is one famous case where a scribe accidently transcribed 30 lines of scriptural text twice - and apparently didn't notice it. Not only that, but there were more then 30 discrepancies in that 30 lines of double transcribed text.

In other cases clear evidence of editing and tampering can be found. One scribe even chastised another on the very parchement he was copying from for changing the text form it's original.


Yet througout it all, through all the mistakes and translation errors, through all the deliberate editing, the message comes through clearly. It's hardly worthy to argue over which one is more correct. Is it not the message that is more important.

Does it reallymatter if Jesus really said "it is easier to pass a rope (specifially a heavy rope used in ship rigging) through the eye of a needle" or "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle" Both camel and rope (used for ship riggings) are "Gamla" in Aramaic. Whover translated that passage was obviously more familiar with Gamla=camel then gamla=rope. Not suprising since camels would be more common then ropes used specifially for ship rigging. Nevertheless, the message of it being hard for a rich man to get into heaven is the same.

But you forget that the bible as we know it today is not much different at all from the earliest bibles. But people's imaginations and interpretations can twist the bible into anything they want to, including justifying homosexuality even though the words in the bible say it's a sin and they always have. So sorry, people's imaginations change every season, but the bible remains the same.

 

[Heidi]

I also want to add that the bible was the most scrupulously copied book in existence, yet it is also the most criticized because it convicts man. I don't mind arguing the bible with unbelievers, but with supposed believers, there's no excuse not to defend the Word of God.

 

[pfilmtech]

Did you read a single word of Late's post?