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

[Heidi]

Of course, which is why I said that people criticize the bible but not any other history book, which is precisely why Late posted an incident where there were mistakes. Do people know of the mistakes that other history writers make? Of course not. Only the bible is criticized because it convicts man. No one critizies the writings the authenticity of Buddha or Krishna's writings yet most people haven;t a clue who wrote them!

So since so many people claim the bible isn't true, then let's make up our own history! Let's say the Jews began life around, ah, 1,000 B.C....wait a minute, Christ didn't live either according to those who say they're in the know, so let's say around 3,000 years ago, the Jews were born. Then let's make up a man who was the father of the jews and call him..., let's see...how about Benjamin. That sounds good. Then let's say he had sons and daughters and they worshiped a god called...ah...hebrones...yeah, that sounds good too. I'd love to continue this new history that replaces the bible since this is what so many people today do who claim they know better what happened thousands of years ago than those who lived then, but I have to be somewhere now and will continue it later. :wink:

 

[Frost Giant]

So called "eyewitness accounts" that state things that are impossible, and are conveniently uncorroborated. If there were say, a worldwide flood, or even a local flood, why don't we find evidence of it?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

SO, according to our resident biblical literalitsts - passages in the bible refering to the Earth having corners and resting on pillars, and the sky being solid with doors in it are NOT literal. These special passages are obviously metaphorical (in spite of the fact that for centuries Christians did regard them as being literal).

Not only that, but just by asking if the passages are literal or not is "denying the bible" and is worthy of belittling and rebuke!

I see now that being a literalist makes one a "better" christian, but gotta say, the mental gymnastics and contortions it reqires to take the bible literally could put those girls in the beijing circus to shame

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I guess I just take that particular passage more literally.

Does it really matter at all?

 

[Vic C.]

I guess I just take that particular passage more literally.

Does it really matter at all?

LOL, you are too quick on the submit button. I deleted my post as you were posting to do more research on the verse. :wink:

 

[bibleberean]

FALSE SCIENCE

John Hinton, Ph.D.

http://www.kjv-asia.com/authorized_vers ... cience.htm


1 Tim 6:20: O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:


The reference to science has been removed from almost every modern version that. Let's look at what has been done with this verse.


RV: O Timothy, guard that which is committed unto thee, turning away from the profane babblings and oppositions of the knowledge which is falsely so called;...


ASV: O Timothy, guard that which is committed unto thee, turning away from the profane babblings and oppositions of the knowledge which is falsely so called;
RSV: O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:


NIV: Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,


NKJV: O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge--


The NASV, NLT, Living Bible, ESV, Amplified, NAB, and many others have also used knowledge. Every version that I found perverted the left out the word 'science' as well.


The word in question is gnosis, which does mean knowledge, but then so does science. The difference is that the word chosen by the KJV translators had a prophetic significance, which would not have been recognized in 1611, but later would have great significance. In the early 17th century belief in God and the Bible was taken for granted; in later times, establishment science became hostile toward Christianity, and even theism itself. False knowledge is virtually the same thing as false science, but translations that use knowledge completely fail to capture the full significance of this verse, and they do so intentionally.


What does science mean in English? Science is derived from the Latin scientia. Scientia is defined by Scheller and Luenemann's A New and Copious Lexicon of the Latin Language as meaning knowledge, science, skill, and expertness. The Oxford Universal Dictionary (English) defines science as meaning: "1. The state of fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied; also, knowledge (more or less extensive) as a personal attribute. Now Theol., and occas. Philos. 2. Knowledge acquired by study; acquaintance with or mastery of any department of learning . late ME. b. Trained skill. Now esp. (somewhat joc.) with ref. to pugilism 1785. 3. A particular branch of knowledge or study; a recognized department of learning; often opp. to art... ME. b. A craft, trade, or occupation requiring trained skill -1660. 4. A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain 125. 5. The kind of knowledge or intellectual activity of which the 'sciences' are examples. In early use, with ref. to sense 3: What is taught in the Schools, or may be learned by study. In mod. use chiefly: The sciences (in sense 4) as dist. from other departments of learning; scientific doctrine or investigation, late ME. b. In mod. use often = 'Natural and Physical Science'..."


Scott Jones has passed it on to me that Demosthenes 18.224 used the word gnosis in the context of inquiry and investigation - "tas twn dikasthriwn gnosis" and again in 21.92 "thn kata tou diaithtou gnosis" and that numerous other ancient Greek authors did so as well. So, to quote him verbatim, as he told me I could do, "anyone who says that "science" is inaccurate is an ignoramus."


Other Bibles that do have science, include: Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, Geneva, the Italian Diodati, the Fench Ostervald, Martin and Louis Segonde, the Spanish Reina Valera, and many other older Bibles, as well as a number of modern ones. Interestingly, Luther's Bible has Kunst, which means art, but in a broader sense than it has in English. Its meaning is different from the modern concept of Wissenschaft (science), but was probably less so at the end of the 16th century. I'll have to leave it to a German specialist to settle the issue, but its meaning is clearly much closer to the KJV than it is to the modern versions. It is not difficult to understand why the modern versions have removed science from this verse. The translators of modern versions are overwhelmingly influenced by evolutionary theory, either in its straight form, or in the form of so called divinely guided evolutionary theory, or gap theory, and they are almost entirely made up of men and women who lack the discernment to see through the fallacies presented
in virtually every branch of science today. Their god is not the God of the Bible, but an entirely different god, and modern establishment science is an integral part of that god. It should be noted that these versions changed the verse to read "knowledge" about the same time that Darwin, Wellhausen, and atheist-centered science, archaeology, textual criticism and even theology were becoming fashionable. These apostate translators knew that science and knowledge meant basically the same thing, but they also knew that science had taken on a more specific meaning, which made it even more relevant than it has been in 1611. Why would Christian men want to protect wicked and anti-Christian science by altering this important verse? The answer is easy; they wouldn't. Christian men had nothing to do with these translations, except perhaps for a few who repented later after they realized the evil that they had done.


I actually had a young earth creation scientist demand that I edit an article in which I called modern establishment scientists, false scientists. Amazing! He did not even recognize a Bible reference when he saw one. Or perhaps the fact that it was derived from the KJV is what riled him up. This is the most important quote in the entire Bible in regard to false science and false scientists and a creation science publisher either failed to recognize it, or knew that is it is from the Bible and objected to it! Yes, we are truly living in a day of absurdity and simplemindedness. The explanation for this is that the average creation scientists is little more than a babe that has been fed on artificial mother's milk. They have seen beyond some of the lies of modern day science, but due to spiritual malnutrition they have not seen beyond the myriad of other layers of lies that Satanic forces have presented to the world. This is why most of them are grossly ignorant of lies based on textual and theological issues, as well as lies in regard to the political system under which they live, its monetary system, medical system, and so forth. They prefer the acclaim of man over truth and know that if they were to take a stand against Bibles created by Darwinists, they would lose the following of the apostate church. The apostate church, of course, dwarfs the remnant church of Christ many times over. Such men will always choose quantity over quality, and popularity over estrangement. Their intellectual weakness and cowardice not only helps promote false science by covering its biblical condemnation, but it places them among the ranks of false scientists. According to the historical meaning and use of the word science, the word encompasses more than just what is defined as science today. It includes all branches of knowledge, and that includes theology, archaeology, linguistics, and other fields that are relevant to understanding the Bible. The majority of creation scientists do exactly what Paul is warning Timothy against doing when they derive their views of scripture from atheist Bible-scoffing critics; they are taking part in vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called. In the end they are not Bible defenders at all, but theistic Bible critics who work for government corporations (501(c)3) and only promote the apostate harlot church that has neither standards nor commitment. They do the cause of Christ a great disservice while they claim to be furthering it.

 

[bibleberean]

Genesis 2:21-23 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

These verses dispel any nonsense about man evolving from lower forms of life into a man or woman.

Number one the account states the there was one orignial pair from which all mankind sprang.

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Before man was created from the dust of the earth man and man "kind" did not exist.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Here's a question

Did the story of Genesis exist prior to it's being written down. Many literalists claim that Moses personally wrote the first five books of the bible himself upon heavenly inspiration. Well, if that is the case, then the story of Genesis should not pre-date Moses. If indeed, the story of Genesis is the inspiriation of God given to one man- then it should be original and novel.

Or does Genesis, in fact, pre date Moses (assuming Moses himself is not mythological). Was Genesis passed down as oral tradition - possibly in various forms, over a period of generations before Hebrew became a written language?

 

[bibleberean]

Here's a question

Did the story of Genesis exist prior to it's being written down. Many literalists claim that Moses personally wrote the first five books of the bible himself upon heavenly inspiration. Well, if that is the case, then the story of Genesis should not pre-date Moses. If indeed, the story of Genesis is the inspiriation of God given to one man- then it should be original and novel.

Or does Genesis, in fact, pre date Moses (assuming Moses himself is not mythological). Was Genesis passed down as oral tradition - possibly in various forms, over a period of generations before Hebrew became a written language?

Legitimate question.

Genesis predates Moses. Moses wrote the first books of the bible under the guidance of God Himself.

The books of Moses as were the other books of the bible were written under the inspiration of God.

In other words the details of creation (Genesis) to the last days (Revelation) are written as man were supernaturally inspired by God.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Acts 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Windozer]

Aside from spouting scripture, you did not address my post whatsoever. What are you scared of?

Some people are really good at directing the conversation away from the issue at hand. It is one big smoke screen.

 

[Heidi]

Here's a question

Did the story of Genesis exist prior to it's being written down. Many literalists claim that Moses personally wrote the first five books of the bible himself upon heavenly inspiration. Well, if that is the case, then the story of Genesis should not pre-date Moses. If indeed, the story of Genesis is the inspiriation of God given to one man- then it should be original and novel.

Or does Genesis, in fact, pre date Moses (assuming Moses himself is not mythological). Was Genesis passed down as oral tradition - possibly in various forms, over a period of generations before Hebrew became a written language?

Jesus himself said that the scripture was written by Moses. You either believe your Lord or you don't.

 

[Guest]

These verses dispel any nonsense about man evolving from lower forms of life into a man or woman.

NO

NO THEY DO NOT

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

EXCEPT HEY LOOK ADAM WASN'T BORN FROM EVE, AND NEITHER WAS EVERY OTHER LIVING THING ON THE PLANET, SO THE BIBLE IS WRONG. OH SNAP DO YOU SEE WHAT I DID THERE.

Edited by Mod to include...

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

Rule 6 - No Trolling:
You will not post anything that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. Don't make inflammatory remarks just to get a response. This will also include posts that put down Christianity in general or any posts considered as blasphemy by staff (this is a CHRISTIAN FORUMS site).
You won't be labeled as a troll if your post has substance.

Rule 13 - Posting Etiquette:
Please keep the posts down to a respectable length. You stand a better chance of getting your point across. People may not want to read them if they are too long. No using all CAPTIAL LETTERS in your responses. That is considered an aggressive action.

 

[Heidi]

What that passage means is that Eve bore the first children. Both she and Adam were created by God, but from Eve will come humans born of a woman. You shouldn't be so quick to think you understand the bible, friend. You need spiritual understanding, not human understanding which is always fallible.

 

[WillyGilligan]

Spiritu, you should calm down. Nothing is served by losing your temper. I know it's frustrating, but giving in to anger weakens your position.

Heidi, how is spiritual understanding different from human understanding, in a real sense?

 

[Vic C.]

Spiritu, you should calm down. Nothing is served by losing your temper. I know it's frustrating, but giving in to anger weakens your position.

Heidi, how is spiritual understanding different from human understanding, in a real sense?

I agree and am editing the post.

One more outburst from you Spiritu Sancti and you're outta here. :-?

 

[Heidi]

Spiritu, you should calm down. Nothing is served by losing your temper. I know it's frustrating, but giving in to anger weakens your position.

Heidi, how is spiritual understanding different from human understanding, in a real sense?

Spiritual understanding comes from the Holy Spirit instead of our narrow perceptions based on our own limited experience. It allows us to open our minds to things we haven't seen for ourselves or experienced personally. It's much like believing and understanding someone who has had different experiences than we have. Most of us only believe what we understand and nothing more. Therefore, the Spirit opens up a whole new world to us and allows us to be more open-minded and objective about the world, the universe, and people than our own limited experiences allow us.

It also allows us to admit how much we don't know and that the unseen is far most vast than the seen as evidenced by the fact that humans and life itself exists but we still don't understand the enormous complexities involved in its workings or creation. The Sprit therefore, humbles us instead of leading us to believe we know it all. That leads to an open mind, not a closed one. Genuine truth seekers are willing to look at all sides of an issues rather than only one side. And those of us who have received the Holy Spirit at one time lived without it so we have experienced both sides. whereas those who have not received it have only seen the world without it. The Spirit therefore is limitless in the ability to learn and grow. We therefore are more capable of seeing the world through the mind of God than only what our limited experiences and personalities reveal to us.

 

[reznwerks]

trusting

Spiritu, you should calm down. Nothing is served by losing your temper. I know it's frustrating, but giving in to anger weakens your position.

Heidi, how is spiritual understanding different from human understanding, in a real sense?

Spiritual understanding comes from the Holy Spirit instead of our narrow perceptions based on our own limited experience. It allows us to open our minds to things we haven't seen for ourselves or experienced personally.
If you say you can't trust your feelings in the first part how can you trust your feelings on the second part where you refer to the "Holy Spirit". There is no way you can tell the difference between the two if the same person (you) is judging what is authentic or what is not.


It's much like believing and understanding someone who has had different experiences than we have.
No one can experience anothers emotions or experiences just no one could witness the visions of Paul.


Most of us only believe what we understand and nothing more. Therefore, the Spirit opens up a whole new world to us and allows us to be more open-minded and objective about the world, the universe, and people than our own limited experiences allow us.
Again, how do you know what is real and what is not if (you) are the sole judge and cannot offer evidence to anyone else? At best it is your imagination and wanting to experience something more. It is quite common.

It also allows us to admit how much we don't know and that the unseen is far most vast than the seen as evidenced by the fact that humans and life itself exists but we still don't understand the enormous complexities involved in its workings or creation.
That is what gives science it's motivation for existing.

The Sprit therefore, humbles us instead of leading us to believe we know it all. That leads to an open mind, not a closed one.
Science encourages openmindedness also.


Genuine truth seekers are willing to look at all sides of an issues rather than only one side.
I only wish you believed those words.

And those of us who have received the Holy Spirit at one time lived without it so we have experienced both sides. whereas those who have not received it have only seen the world without it. The Spirit therefore is limitless in the ability to learn and grow.
It does appear to have it's limits as to evidence.


We therefore are more capable of seeing the world through the mind of God than only what our limited experiences and personalities reveal to us.
Science has allowed us to see more of the real world than we would otherwise have seen and not only that we can show others the beauty of the world.

 

[Heidi]

Re: trusting

Spiritu, you should calm down. Nothing is served by losing your temper. I know it's frustrating, but giving in to anger weakens your position.

Heidi, how is spiritual understanding different from human understanding, in a real sense?

Spiritual understanding comes from the Holy Spirit instead of our narrow perceptions based on our own limited experience. It allows us to open our minds to things we haven't seen for ourselves or experienced personally.
If you say you can't trust your feelings in the first part how can you trust your feelings on the second part where you refer to the "Holy Spirit". There is no way you can tell the difference between the two if the same person (you) is judging what is authentic or what is not.


It's much like believing and understanding someone who has had different experiences than we have.
No one can experience anothers emotions or experiences just no one could witness the visions of Paul.


Most of us only believe what we understand and nothing more. Therefore, the Spirit opens up a whole new world to us and allows us to be more open-minded and objective about the world, the universe, and people than our own limited experiences allow us.
Again, how do you know what is real and what is not if (you) are the sole judge and cannot offer evidence to anyone else? At best it is your imagination and wanting to experience something more. It is quite common.

It also allows us to admit how much we don't know and that the unseen is far most vast than the seen as evidenced by the fact that humans and life itself exists but we still don't understand the enormous complexities involved in its workings or creation.
That is what gives science it's motivation for existing.

The Sprit therefore, humbles us instead of leading us to believe we know it all. That leads to an open mind, not a closed one.
Science encourages openmindedness also.


Genuine truth seekers are willing to look at all sides of an issues rather than only one side.
I only wish you believed those words.

And those of us who have received the Holy Spirit at one time lived without it so we have experienced both sides. whereas those who have not received it have only seen the world without it. The Spirit therefore is limitless in the ability to learn and grow.
It does appear to have it's limits as to evidence.


We therefore are more capable of seeing the world through the mind of God than only what our limited experiences and personalities reveal to us.
Science has allowed us to see more of the real world than we would otherwise have seen and not only that we can show others the beauty of the world.

Because the Holy Spirit is not human feelings. It is the Spirit of God which dwells inside all those who ask for it. All you have to do is read Christ's words in the gospel of John chapters 14-17. But I don't expect you to understand it because as Paul says; "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from God for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned." That describes you perfectly so it is a truthful statement. Jesus also says in John about the Holy Spirit: "The world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor know him. But you know him for he lives in you and will be with you." That also describes the world perfectly so it is also a true statement. In addition, I had wanted to believe the bible for years but could not. But a minute after I received the Holy Spirit, I suddenly was capable of understanding the bible. So that did not come from anything I had previously possessed because before then I could not understand the bible by my "own feelings" or intelligence.

Once again, you speak just like anyone without the Holy Spirit; which is a complete inability to understand or believe the bible, or understand anything ourside your own limited experiences. Your thinking thus comes from a narrow perspective of the world which all believers had before we received the Holy Spirit. Thus we undertand your thinking but you cannot understand ours. We've been there done that.

Your statements are extremely predictable, my friend. There's nothing new in your words that I did not at one time, also believe. Unbelievers are therefore much like teen-agers who don't believe that their parents haven't been through what they're going through so they think their parents don't understand them. But it isn't until they become parents themselves that they understand that their parents knew all along what it was like to be a teen-ager. And so do we believers know what it's like to be an unbeliever. You won't understand that until you receive the Holy Spirit also. :wink:

 

[Frost Giant]

No, sorry. The burden of proof lies on God, not us.

 

[AHIMSA]

Rather Heidi,

It is your statements that are rather predictable, as they flow from a script that we all have seen:a near sighted fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Been there done that? What of those who were believers like me, and then stopped? Have I not "been there done that" now?

Like teeenagers who can not accept the wisdom of their parents?

I wonder if you have examined yourself Heidi, and what you might compare too.

Like a child incapable of making any decision without looking to her parents, the fundamentalist has willingly shut down his mind and surrendered it to his faith. He can look only to the Bible for answers, for it is the solution that his pysche most desires: an over simplification of the world. The fundamentalist can not deal with uncertainity, amibuity, metaphor or paradox. Such complexities, that are the reality of existence, are too intricate for them to bear so they seek a vision of the world that reduces everything into two camps, black and white, good and evil, sinner and saved.

This psychological technique is called splitting, used by a person to avoid self-introspection. Everything they hate becomes projected unto the world so that they can hate what lies within without acknowleding it is within, while at the same time, identify themselves soley with what is good (God).

The fundamentalist is immature insofar as he has not moved on into a stage of life where he understands that there is not someone telling him everything he has to do, governing his every choice, not someone holding his hand across the street.

For more on the psychology of a fundamentalist, you can refer to my lengthy post in General Topics.