Total Posts:201|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Bible & billions of years and macro-evolution

Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 3:50:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
How do you reconcile the three? I personally do not see how you can. This is not a debate or discussion about contradictions in the Bible, this is about macro-evolution & billions of years(both go together and need each other). I am interested thanks.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 5:19:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, the best way to start this off, is to post that which you believe disallows you to reconcile your beliefs with the currently accepted model of the universe.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 5:26:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 5:19:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Well, the best way to start this off, is to post that which you believe disallows you to reconcile your beliefs with the currently accepted model of the universe.

Well you must not take the Bible as straight forward to believe in these things so I am interested how Christians who do believe these things reconcile them with the Bible. Of course I will respond why I feel differently. I just figured what reasons were for someone who supposedly believes in God and the Bible can reconcile such things.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 5:33:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 5:26:01 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:19:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Well, the best way to start this off, is to post that which you believe disallows you to reconcile your beliefs with the currently accepted model of the universe.

Well you must not take the Bible as straight forward to believe in these things so I am interested how Christians who do believe these things reconcile them with the Bible. Of course I will respond why I feel differently. I just figured what reasons were for someone who supposedly believes in God and the Bible can reconcile such things.

Because they aren't biblical literalists. I'v never understood why people like you choose to take the bible 100% literally.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 5:36:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 5:33:43 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:26:01 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:19:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Well, the best way to start this off, is to post that which you believe disallows you to reconcile your beliefs with the currently accepted model of the universe.

Well you must not take the Bible as straight forward to believe in these things so I am interested how Christians who do believe these things reconcile them with the Bible. Of course I will respond why I feel differently. I just figured what reasons were for someone who supposedly believes in God and the Bible can reconcile such things.

Because they aren't biblical literalists. I'v never understood why people like you choose to take the bible 100% literally.

Offer something or do not post. This is completely off the OP, your not Christian.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 5:38:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 5:36:00 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:33:43 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:26:01 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:19:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Well, the best way to start this off, is to post that which you believe disallows you to reconcile your beliefs with the currently accepted model of the universe.

Well you must not take the Bible as straight forward to believe in these things so I am interested how Christians who do believe these things reconcile them with the Bible. Of course I will respond why I feel differently. I just figured what reasons were for someone who supposedly believes in God and the Bible can reconcile such things.

Because they aren't biblical literalists. I'v never understood why people like you choose to take the bible 100% literally.

Offer something or do not post. This is completely off the OP, your not Christian.

I did offer something; a reason why other christians can reconcile modern scientific belief with the bible. I was christian, for many years, I went to church every Sunday, as I'm sure many other atheists on this site did.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 5:49:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 5:38:22 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:36:00 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:33:43 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:26:01 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:19:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Well, the best way to start this off, is to post that which you believe disallows you to reconcile your beliefs with the currently accepted model of the universe.

Well you must not take the Bible as straight forward to believe in these things so I am interested how Christians who do believe these things reconcile them with the Bible. Of course I will respond why I feel differently. I just figured what reasons were for someone who supposedly believes in God and the Bible can reconcile such things.

Because they aren't biblical literalists. I'v never understood why people like you choose to take the bible 100% literally.

Offer something or do not post. This is completely off the OP, your not Christian.

I did offer something; a reason why other christians can reconcile modern scientific belief with the bible. I was christian, for many years, I went to church every Sunday, as I'm sure many other atheists on this site did.

Ahh..I thought you was Muslim. I was not trying to be rude, sorry.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 5:52:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 5:33:43 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:26:01 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:19:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Well, the best way to start this off, is to post that which you believe disallows you to reconcile your beliefs with the currently accepted model of the universe.

Well you must not take the Bible as straight forward to believe in these things so I am interested how Christians who do believe these things reconcile them with the Bible. Of course I will respond why I feel differently. I just figured what reasons were for someone who supposedly believes in God and the Bible can reconcile such things.

Because they aren't biblical literalists. I'v never understood why people like you choose to take the bible 100% literally.

See I feel the opposite. I do not understand why we should not take it seriously. Even by taking it seriously there is tons that is not quite possible to fully understand. If we should not take it seriously that then plays into why should we take any thing in it seriously and then why believe it all. I think by not taking it literal lends to not believing what God has told us.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 5:59:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 5:52:36 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:33:43 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:26:01 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:19:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Well, the best way to start this off, is to post that which you believe disallows you to reconcile your beliefs with the currently accepted model of the universe.

Well you must not take the Bible as straight forward to believe in these things so I am interested how Christians who do believe these things reconcile them with the Bible. Of course I will respond why I feel differently. I just figured what reasons were for someone who supposedly believes in God and the Bible can reconcile such things.

Because they aren't biblical literalists. I'v never understood why people like you choose to take the bible 100% literally.

See I feel the opposite. I do not understand why we should not take it seriously. Even by taking it seriously there is tons that is not quite possible to fully understand. If we should not take it seriously that then plays into why should we take any thing in it seriously and then why believe it all. I think by not taking it literal lends to not believing what God has told us.

We can take everything in there seriously, just like take the fiction I read seriously. I learn lessons from it, I gain experience from it, and it furthers my maturity and understanding of life. When I was a christian, my interpretation of stories like Noah's ark, and Adam and Eve, were that they were not meant to be taken literally, but figuratively, as allegorical tales, meant to teach one a life lesson. Even now, as an atheist, some of the tales in the Bible I feel have taught me decent lessons. What makes you think that you shouldn't take them as allegories?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 6:00:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 5:49:30 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:38:22 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:36:00 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:33:43 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:26:01 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:19:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Well, the best way to start this off, is to post that which you believe disallows you to reconcile your beliefs with the currently accepted model of the universe.

Well you must not take the Bible as straight forward to believe in these things so I am interested how Christians who do believe these things reconcile them with the Bible. Of course I will respond why I feel differently. I just figured what reasons were for someone who supposedly believes in God and the Bible can reconcile such things.

Because they aren't biblical literalists. I'v never understood why people like you choose to take the bible 100% literally.

Offer something or do not post. This is completely off the OP, your not Christian.

I did offer something; a reason why other christians can reconcile modern scientific belief with the bible. I was christian, for many years, I went to church every Sunday, as I'm sure many other atheists on this site did.

Ahh..I thought you was Muslim. I was not trying to be rude, sorry.

No problem. Though I am curious as to why you thought I was a Muslim, and why that would matter.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 6:02:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 6:00:17 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:49:30 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:38:22 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:36:00 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:33:43 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:26:01 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:19:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Well, the best way to start this off, is to post that which you believe disallows you to reconcile your beliefs with the currently accepted model of the universe.

Well you must not take the Bible as straight forward to believe in these things so I am interested how Christians who do believe these things reconcile them with the Bible. Of course I will respond why I feel differently. I just figured what reasons were for someone who supposedly believes in God and the Bible can reconcile such things.

Because they aren't biblical literalists. I'v never understood why people like you choose to take the bible 100% literally.

Offer something or do not post. This is completely off the OP, your not Christian.

I did offer something; a reason why other christians can reconcile modern scientific belief with the bible. I was christian, for many years, I went to church every Sunday, as I'm sure many other atheists on this site did.

Ahh..I thought you was Muslim. I was not trying to be rude, sorry.

No problem. Though I am curious as to why you thought I was a Muslim, and why that would matter.

It doesn't matter but your profile says Islamic for religion.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 6:04:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 6:02:01 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 6:00:17 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:49:30 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:38:22 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:36:00 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:33:43 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:26:01 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:19:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Well, the best way to start this off, is to post that which you believe disallows you to reconcile your beliefs with the currently accepted model of the universe.

Well you must not take the Bible as straight forward to believe in these things so I am interested how Christians who do believe these things reconcile them with the Bible. Of course I will respond why I feel differently. I just figured what reasons were for someone who supposedly believes in God and the Bible can reconcile such things.

Because they aren't biblical literalists. I'v never understood why people like you choose to take the bible 100% literally.

Offer something or do not post. This is completely off the OP, your not Christian.

I did offer something; a reason why other christians can reconcile modern scientific belief with the bible. I was christian, for many years, I went to church every Sunday, as I'm sure many other atheists on this site did.

Ahh..I thought you was Muslim. I was not trying to be rude, sorry.

No problem. Though I am curious as to why you thought I was a Muslim, and why that would matter.

It doesn't matter but your profile says Islamic for religion.

Oh snap, so it does. Sorry bout that, I can see how you were mislead.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 6:07:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 5:59:19 AM, muzebreak wrote:

See I feel the opposite. I do not understand why we should not take it seriously. Even by taking it seriously there is tons that is not quite possible to fully understand. If we should not take it seriously that then plays into why should we take any thing in it seriously and then why believe it all. I think by not taking it literal lends to not believing what God has told us.

We can take everything in there seriously, just like take the fiction I read seriously. I learn lessons from it, I gain experience from it, and it furthers my maturity and understanding of life. When I was a christian, my interpretation of stories like Noah's ark, and Adam and Eve, were that they were not meant to be taken literally, but figuratively, as allegorical tales, meant to teach one a life lesson. Even now, as an atheist, some of the tales in the Bible I feel have taught me decent lessons. What makes you think that you shouldn't take them as allegories?

Well when one reads the remarks of Christ in His message, He mentions Noah and the Ark, Genesis and creation as literal and to take seriously. I agree that one can learn from just stories but they do not believe them in all seriousness. I do not think you can say that Jesus' message ever had intention when discussing them as just stories and allegorical. This is my point here in the OP, how can you link the Words of Christ as just allegorical when He refers to Genesis and Noahs Ark. He didn't, He used them with all seriousness to believed as factual events. Like: In the beginning they were male and female. Well billions of years of evolution then man comes around, is not the beginning. Even if you talk about it is beginning with man here and not before, well then it was not the beginning and then that makes one not take Christ serious. I feel that if Christ was not literal I have serious problem believing any of it at all.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 6:09:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 6:04:19 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 6:02:01 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 6:00:17 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:49:30 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:38:22 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:36:00 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:33:43 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:26:01 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:19:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Well, the best way to start this off, is to post that which you believe disallows you to reconcile your beliefs with the currently accepted model of the universe.

Well you must not take the Bible as straight forward to believe in these things so I am interested how Christians who do believe these things reconcile them with the Bible. Of course I will respond why I feel differently. I just figured what reasons were for someone who supposedly believes in God and the Bible can reconcile such things.

Because they aren't biblical literalists. I'v never understood why people like you choose to take the bible 100% literally.

Offer something or do not post. This is completely off the OP, your not Christian.

I did offer something; a reason why other christians can reconcile modern scientific belief with the bible. I was christian, for many years, I went to church every Sunday, as I'm sure many other atheists on this site did.

Ahh..I thought you was Muslim. I was not trying to be rude, sorry.

No problem. Though I am curious as to why you thought I was a Muslim, and why that would matter.

It doesn't matter but your profile says Islamic for religion.

Oh snap, so it does. Sorry bout that, I can see how you were mislead.

No problem. I was intending how Christians reply to this but I did not make that clear so it is open game for everyone.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 6:19:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 6:07:58 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:59:19 AM, muzebreak wrote:

See I feel the opposite. I do not understand why we should not take it seriously. Even by taking it seriously there is tons that is not quite possible to fully understand. If we should not take it seriously that then plays into why should we take any thing in it seriously and then why believe it all. I think by not taking it literal lends to not believing what God has told us.

We can take everything in there seriously, just like take the fiction I read seriously. I learn lessons from it, I gain experience from it, and it furthers my maturity and understanding of life. When I was a christian, my interpretation of stories like Noah's ark, and Adam and Eve, were that they were not meant to be taken literally, but figuratively, as allegorical tales, meant to teach one a life lesson. Even now, as an atheist, some of the tales in the Bible I feel have taught me decent lessons. What makes you think that you shouldn't take them as allegories?

Well when one reads the remarks of Christ in His message, He mentions Noah and the Ark, Genesis and creation as literal and to take seriously.

I'v challenged other christians, as I challenge you now, to provide the passage in which Jesus says those stories should be taken literally. The best I ever get, are Jesus referencing those passages. For instance, when asked about divorce, Jesus refers to Genesis, specifically the Adam and Eve story. But he does not say for one to take it literally, he simply refers to the story.

I agree that one can learn from just stories but they do not believe them in all seriousness.

I disagree, I take the Harry Potter stories very serious, and they have taught me some harsh lessons in life.

I do not think you can say that Jesus' message ever had intention when discussing them as just stories and allegorical.

Well, that depends on which message of Jesus' you're talking about.

This is my point here in the OP, how can you link the Words of Christ as just allegorical when He refers to Genesis and Noahs Ark. He didn't, He used them with all seriousness to believed as factual events.

I disagree, and I see no reason to believe the contrary.

Like: In the beginning they were male and female. Well billions of years of evolution then man comes around, is not the beginning.

It is the beginning of humans. But still, he could be simply referring to the story of Adam and Eve, and showing you another lesson taught there in.

Even if you talk about it is beginning with man here and not before, well then it was not the beginning and then that makes one not take Christ serious. I feel that if Christ was not literal I have serious problem believing any of it at all.

The bolded does not appear coherent to me, would you mind clarifying. Are you saying that you take everything christ said, literally? What about "I come not to bring peace, but a sword". Do you believe he literally brought a sword? Or that it is a metaphor? As a christian, you believe that god guides you, yes? Well then, the question you have to ask yourself, is whether you believe if god guides you in interpreting the bible. Maybe god wishes for you to take the bible literally, as that is the best path for you. Or maybe, he caused you to make this thread, so that I could then convince you to no longer take it literally, because that part of your path in life is over.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 6:35:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 6:19:40 AM, muzebreak wrote:

I'v challenged other christians, as I challenge you now, to provide the passage in which Jesus says those stories should be taken literally.

No, the point is to show why we should not. Not that I must prove to take the words for what they say. See anyone reading the Bible for the first time without knowing it or billions of years would never say well it is talking billions of years. This makes the Bible even more confusing, hence, leads to not believing it for its own Word.

The best I ever get, are Jesus referencing those passages. For instance, when asked about divorce, Jesus refers to Genesis, specifically the Adam and Eve story. But he does not say for one to take it literally, he simply refers to the story.

Show Jesus would reference stories that are not real? It does not make since at all unless He was a fraud.

Matthew 24:37
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

This does not sound like a mere story, It says WERE, meaning literal.

Luke 17:27
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Again, this appears literal.

Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Again appears literal.

I agree that one can learn from just stories but they do not believe them in all seriousness.

I disagree, I take the Harry Potter stories very serious, and they have taught me some harsh lessons in life.

Yeah sure you do. I guess there is hogg warts and witches flying around in some other place than here? No you do not take it serious at all or you do not know what serious means.

I do not think you can say that Jesus' message ever had intention when discussing them as just stories and allegorical.

Well, that depends on which message of Jesus' you're talking about.

All of them.

This is my point here in the OP, how can you link the Words of Christ as just allegorical when He refers to Genesis and Noahs Ark. He didn't, He used them with all seriousness to believed as factual events.

I disagree, and I see no reason to believe the contrary.

That is because you do not believe the Bible as facts.

Like: In the beginning they were male and female. Well billions of years of evolution then man comes around, is not the beginning.

It is the beginning of humans. But still, he could be simply referring to the story of Adam and Eve, and showing you another lesson taught there in.

It does say the beginning of humans. Show me where it says, a bunch of time and then humans.

Even if you talk about it is beginning with man here and not before, well then it was not the beginning and then that makes one not take Christ serious. I feel that if Christ was not literal I have serious problem believing any of it at all.

The bolded does not appear coherent to me, would you mind clarifying.

The beginning is the start of everything not a bunch of time then here is the beginning. The beginning is right from the start.

Are you saying that you take everything christ said, literally?

Absolutely.

What about "I come not to bring peace, but a sword". Do you believe he literally brought a sword?

Yes, the Word, gospel is the sword. His Word is a sword that pierces lies with the truth.

Or that it is a metaphor?

No, it is literal in a spiritual sense. See you must look at thing in just a physical sense when there is a spiritual sense as well as physical. The spirit is literal not some story.

As a christian, you believe that god guides you, yes?

Correct, through the Holy Ghost.

Well then, the question you have to ask yourself, is whether you believe if god guides you in interpreting the bible. Maybe god wishes for you to take the bible literally, as that is the best path for you.

For me and everyone else.

Or maybe, he caused you to make this thread, so that I could then convince you to no longer take it literally, because that part of your path in life is over.

No, not even close. I made the thread so maybe people will see they either take the Bible for what it is, TRUTH and LITERAL or mite as well not believe in any of it.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 6:44:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 5:26:01 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:19:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Well, the best way to start this off, is to post that which you believe disallows you to reconcile your beliefs with the currently accepted model of the universe.

Well you must not take the Bible as straight forward to believe in these things so I am interested how Christians who do believe these things reconcile them with the Bible. Of course I will respond why I feel differently. I just figured what reasons were for someone who supposedly believes in God and the Bible can reconcile such things.

There's two ways I can do it, one is a "non-literal" translation of seven days historically, the other one is a "literal" translation of seven days in terms of physics.

First, the problem comes down to the "counting" system, with the whole creation happening in seven days, but that view just doesn't hold up to historic scrutiny. It is very clear to me that nobody ever intended it to be read and understood that way...let me explain.

The Creation narrative had its source in a Pre-Judaic, more ancient people that counted in base six. In a base six numbering system there is no number seven, yet these ancient people, probably pre-Babylonian, did have the number seven, it was considered to be God's number, numerically representing wholeness and totality, this number seven was outside of and transcended the counting system. There were two counting systems throughout the world at the time and gradually the base ten system was adopted universally, and in the process mankind forgot about the number seven's transcendence, although it seems to have remained God's number in a lot of respects.

Within context, to say the universe came into existence in seven days is to say that in the totality of time this is what happened. The rest is just putting things in the proper order, and again, this Creation story nailed it perfectly. If you can get past the number seven thing and then reread Genesis you will see a recounting of the story of evolution in absolutely no uncertain terms, and possibly you will find it as prophetic as I do...maybe not, few do.

The second approach, a "literal" interpretation of seven days can be reconciled with physics and the currently accepted cosmological theory of time, which is derived from the General Theory of Relativity....let me explain that now.

According to the General Theory of Relativity space and time are not absolute and uniform; they are relative to a frame of reference. Generally accepted cosmological theory tells us that the time/space continuum has been expanding since the creation of the universe in what we call the "Big Bang". What this means is that the temporal frame of reference of "the beginning" is dramatically different from our temporal frame of reference. From the beginning frame of reference, time has expanded exponentially since the beginning; this relationship would be inverted from our frame of reference.

The General Theory provides a mathematical framework that allows us to quantify the expansion of the space/time continuum relative to our frame of reference; it tells us that each time the universe doubled in time and space, the perception of time is halved from our frame of reference.

Therefore, current scientific theory states that the initial moment when the relationship we refer to with the word time began, would have occurred when the dynamics of heat and expansion caused matter to form, that moment is commonly referred to as "quark confinement". The General Theory calculates the initial ratio of time between our frame of reference and the frame of reference of the beginning, to be equal to the ratio between the temperature of quark confinement (10.9 times 10 to the twelfth power Kelvin) to the temperature of the universe today (2.73 degrees Kelvin). Remember that since the beginning, time is expanding exponentially from the beginning frame of reference, and as time proceeds it is contracting exponentially from our frame of reference. Utilizing the algorithmic time calculations of the General Theory we can calculate that a single twenty four hour day, from the frame of reference of the beginning, would have expanded in such a way that it would be measured as roughly eight billion years from today"s frame of reference. A second twenty four hour day would be measured as roughly four billion years, a third as two billion years, a fourth as one billion, a fifth as a half billion, and a sixth as a quarter billion years.

So, from the frame of reference of the beginning, six twenty four hour days, would have expanded in such a way that, from our frame of reference, it would be measured as fifteen and three quarter billion years, roughly the age of the universe as estimated by current Big Bang scientific theory.

So there you go, it works both ways, either literally or non-literally.

I"m no creationist by any stretch, and while the Bible is not a science textbook, there is indeed a remarkable correspondence between what modern science tells us and what the Bible tells us about the creation of physical reality as it pertains to the question of six days versus fifteen plus billion years. All I can say is that it is very hard to see this remarkable correspondence between modern science and the Genesis creation narrative as coincidence only.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 6:54:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 6:44:36 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:26:01 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:19:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Well, the best way to start this off, is to post that which you believe disallows you to reconcile your beliefs with the currently accepted model of the universe.

Well you must not take the Bible as straight forward to believe in these things so I am interested how Christians who do believe these things reconcile them with the Bible. Of course I will respond why I feel differently. I just figured what reasons were for someone who supposedly believes in God and the Bible can reconcile such things.

There's two ways I can do it, one is a "non-literal" translation of seven days historically, the other one is a "literal" translation of seven days in terms of physics.

First, the problem comes down to the "counting" system, with the whole creation happening in seven days, but that view just doesn't hold up to historic scrutiny.

In fact who makes that scrutiny? Men! Therefore, you are putting your trust in men and not the Word God has given. Read my Sig. I can careless about the knowledge gathered by men and I look to the knowledge given by God.

It is very clear to me that nobody ever intended it to be read and understood that way...let me explain.

The authors sure seemed to and so did Christ.

The Creation narrative had its source in a Pre-Judaic, more ancient people that counted in base six. In a base six numbering system there is no number seven, yet these ancient people, probably pre-Babylonian, did have the number seven, it was considered to be God's number, numerically representing wholeness and totality, this number seven was outside of and transcended the counting system. There were two counting systems throughout the world at the time and gradually the base ten system was adopted universally, and in the process mankind forgot about the number seven's transcendence, although it seems to have remained God's number in a lot of respects.

Well, the whole 7 number things hurts you as well. Mans number is six and perfection is seven. Man has six thousand years for rule on this earth and the seventh is rest and a reign with Christ in perfection.


Within context, to say the universe came into existence in seven days is to say that in the totality of time this is what happened. The rest is just putting things in the proper order, and again, this Creation story nailed it perfectly. If you can get past the number seven thing and then reread Genesis you will see a recounting of the story of evolution in absolutely no uncertain terms, and possibly you will find it as prophetic as I do...maybe not, few do.

You are right I do not. When Jesus said IN THE BEGINNING THEY WERE MALE AND FEMALE, says in the beginning from the start they were male and female. Not microbe organism then male and female.

The second approach, a "literal" interpretation of seven days can be reconciled with physics and the currently accepted cosmological theory of time, which is derived from the General Theory of Relativity....let me explain that now.

According to the General Theory of Relativity space and time are not absolute and uniform; they are relative to a frame of reference. Generally accepted cosmological theory tells us that the time/space continuum has been expanding since the creation of the universe in what we call the "Big Bang". What this means is that the temporal frame of reference of "the beginning" is dramatically different from our temporal frame of reference. From the beginning frame of reference, time has expanded exponentially since the beginning; this relationship would be inverted from our frame of reference.

The General Theory provides a mathematical framework that allows us to quantify the expansion of the space/time continuum relative to our frame of reference; it tells us that each time the universe doubled in time and space, the perception of time is halved from our frame of reference.

Therefore, current scientific theory states that the initial moment when the relationship we refer to with the word time began, would have occurred when the dynamics of heat and expansion caused matter to form, that moment is commonly referred to as "quark confinement". The General Theory calculates the initial ratio of time between our frame of reference and the frame of reference of the beginning, to be equal to the ratio between the temperature of quark confinement (10.9 times 10 to the twelfth power Kelvin) to the temperature of the universe today (2.73 degrees Kelvin). Remember that since the beginning, time is expanding exponentially from the beginning frame of reference, and as time proceeds it is contracting exponentially from our frame of reference. Utilizing the algorithmic time calculations of the General Theory we can calculate that a single twenty four hour day, from the frame of reference of the beginning, would have expanded in such a way that it would be measured as roughly eight billion years from today"s frame of reference. A second twenty four hour day would be measured as roughly four billion years, a third as two billion years, a fourth as one billion, a fifth as a half billion, and a sixth as a quarter billion years.

So, from the frame of reference of the beginning, six twenty four hour days, would have expanded in such a way that, from our frame of reference, it would be measured as fifteen and three quarter billion years, roughly the age of the universe as estimated by current Big Bang scientific theory.

So there you go, it works both ways, either literally or non-literally.

I"m no creationist by any stretch, and while the Bible is not a science textbook, there is indeed a remarkable correspondence between what modern science tells us and what the Bible tells us about the creation of physical reality as it pertains to the question of six days versus fifteen plus billion years. All I can say is that it is very hard to see this remarkable correspondence between modern science and the Genesis creation narrative as coincidence only.

Good post thanks.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 7:22:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 6:54:20 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 6:44:36 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:26:01 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:19:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Well, the best way to start this off, is to post that which you believe disallows you to reconcile your beliefs with the currently accepted model of the universe.

Well you must not take the Bible as straight forward to believe in these things so I am interested how Christians who do believe these things reconcile them with the Bible. Of course I will respond why I feel differently. I just figured what reasons were for someone who supposedly believes in God and the Bible can reconcile such things.

There's two ways I can do it, one is a "non-literal" translation of seven days historically, the other one is a "literal" translation of seven days in terms of physics.

First, the problem comes down to the "counting" system, with the whole creation happening in seven days, but that view just doesn't hold up to historic scrutiny.

In fact who makes that scrutiny? Men! Therefore, you are putting your trust in men and not the Word God has given. Read my Sig. I can careless about the knowledge gathered by men and I look to the knowledge given by God.

You are a man, in making that scrutiny you are putting your trust in your own judgment, the judgment of a man.

It is very clear to me that nobody ever intended it to be read and understood that way...let me explain.

The authors sure seemed to and so did Christ.

The authors were men, everything you know about Christ you learned from a book written by men.

The Creation narrative had its source in a Pre-Judaic, more ancient people that counted in base six. In a base six numbering system there is no number seven, yet these ancient people, probably pre-Babylonian, did have the number seven, it was considered to be God's number, numerically representing wholeness and totality, this number seven was outside of and transcended the counting system. There were two counting systems throughout the world at the time and gradually the base ten system was adopted universally, and in the process mankind forgot about the number seven's transcendence, although it seems to have remained God's number in a lot of respects.

Well, the whole 7 number things hurts you as well. Mans number is six and perfection is seven. Man has six thousand years for rule on this earth and the seventh is rest and a reign with Christ in perfection.

You got this idea from men, it's probably derived from Cyrus Scofield, a man and a charlatan.

Within context, to say the universe came into existence in seven days is to say that in the totality of time this is what happened. The rest is just putting things in the proper order, and again, this Creation story nailed it perfectly. If you can get past the number seven thing and then reread Genesis you will see a recounting of the story of evolution in absolutely no uncertain terms, and possibly you will find it as prophetic as I do...maybe not, few do.

You are right I do not. When Jesus said IN THE BEGINNING THEY WERE MALE AND FEMALE, says in the beginning from the start they were male and female. Not microbe organism then male and female.

Genesis also says that in the beginning was Adam, and after the beginning Eve came forth from Adam's rib.

If you want to take it literally, then you introduce a contradiction from the start. I simply cannot accept any approach that yields a contradictory or deceptive God.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 7:35:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 6:35:50 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/11/2013 6:19:40 AM, muzebreak wrote:

I'v challenged other christians, as I challenge you now, to provide the passage in which Jesus says those stories should be taken literally.

No, the point is to show why we should not. Not that I must prove to take the words for what they say. See anyone reading the Bible for the first time without knowing it or billions of years would never say well it is talking billions of years. This makes the Bible even more confusing, hence, leads to not believing it for its own Word.

The best I ever get, are Jesus referencing those passages. For instance, when asked about divorce, Jesus refers to Genesis, specifically the Adam and Eve story. But he does not say for one to take it literally, he simply refers to the story.

Show Jesus would reference stories that are not real? It does not make since at all unless He was a fraud.

Or unless he was simply trying to teach a lesson. Why would it make him a fraud, that makes no sense.


Matthew 24:37
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

This does not sound like a mere story, It says WERE, meaning literal.

Most translations show it as "As it was, in the days of Noah". Not "But as the days of Noah were".


Luke 17:27
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Again, this appears literal.

No, it appears to be making a reference to the story of Noah. What about it makes you believe it should be interpreted literally?


Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Again appears literal.

No, it appears to be making a reference to the story of Noah. What about it makes you believe it should be interpreted literally?


I agree that one can learn from just stories but they do not believe them in all seriousness.

I disagree, I take the Harry Potter stories very serious, and they have taught me some harsh lessons in life.

Yeah sure you do. I guess there is hogg warts and witches flying around in some other place than here? No you do not take it serious at all or you do not know what serious means.

You're equating serious with true. I have never believed wizards are real, just like I have never believed Noah real sailed an ark with all animals on it. It still teaches me things.


I do not think you can say that Jesus' message ever had intention when discussing them as just stories and allegorical.

Well, that depends on which message of Jesus' you're talking about.

All of them.

That's makes no sense.


This is my point here in the OP, how can you link the Words of Christ as just allegorical when He refers to Genesis and Noahs Ark. He didn't, He used them with all seriousness to believed as factual events.

I disagree, and I see no reason to believe the contrary.

That is because you do not believe the Bible as facts.

That's not true. I believe there are several facts in the bible, and there was a time when I believed the whole bible. Even when I was a Christian, I didn't believe that the stories in question were literally true.


Like: In the beginning they were male and female. Well billions of years of evolution then man comes around, is not the beginning.

It is the beginning of humans. But still, he could be simply referring to the story of Adam and Eve, and showing you another lesson taught there in.

It does say the beginning of humans. Show me where it says, a bunch of time and then humans.

I don't have to, science says that.

And I have to ask, do you understand the concept of a parable, or an allegory?


Even if you talk about it is beginning with man here and not before, well then it was not the beginning and then that makes one not take Christ serious. I feel that if Christ was not literal I have serious problem believing any of it at all.

The bolded does not appear coherent to me, would you mind clarifying.

The beginning is the start of everything not a bunch of time then here is the beginning. The beginning is right from the start.

Actually, that's essentially what it says. Humans aren't created until the 6 day. How do you know that by 6 days, god didn't mean billions of years?


Are you saying that you take everything christ said, literally?

Absolutely.

What about "I come not to bring peace, but a sword". Do you believe he literally brought a sword?

Yes, the Word, gospel is the sword. His Word is a sword that pierces lies with the truth.

You don't know what metaphor and literally mean, do you?


Or that it is a metaphor?

No, it is literal in a spiritual sense. See you must look at thing in just a physical sense when there is a spiritual sense as well as physical. The spirit is literal not some story.

That, is ridiculous. There is only one literal sense. Something is either metaphorical, or literal.


As a christian, you believe that god guides you, yes?

Correct, through the Holy Ghost.

Well then, the question you have to ask yourself, is whether you believe if god guides you in interpreting the bible. Maybe god wishes for you to take the bible literally, as that is the best path for you.

For me and everyone else.

Or maybe, he caused you to make this thread, so that I could then convince you to no longer take it literally, because that part of your path in life is over.

No, not even close. I made the thread so maybe people will see they either take the Bible for what it is, TRUTH and LITERAL or mite as well not believe in any of it.

How do you know gods will is what you believe it to be, and not what I say it might be?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 7:44:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 3:50:47 AM, Harbinger wrote:
How do you reconcile the three? I personally do not see how you can. This is not a debate or discussion about contradictions in the Bible, this is about macro-evolution & billions of years(both go together and need each other). I am interested thanks.

I've got a bit of a middling position here. I read Genesis 1 as having a gap in verse 1, where the six day creation is separated from the original "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth" by an unknown period of time. So I have no problem with a 14 billion year old big bang, if that's what the measurements show.

But on the other hand, from a purely technical viewpoint, as an engineer, I think some of the ages of things are wildly inflated. There's been this intense pressure to find time for evolution to have worked, and this has caused scientists to ignore the destructive elements of time. Scientists throw around billions of years without any sense of how much goes wrong in just one bad day. Life, especially - there's no way it's millions of years old, just from a technical perspective. Life is remarkable for being so adaptable, and yet so fragile. It is fragile, it has not been trucking along for millions of years. Thousands or 10s of thousands is much more reasonable, actually.

When we think of the ecosystem, we probably should have an attitude something more like the attitude we have towards our own personal life - what an incredible miracle, but oh so short, so fleeting. Our ecosystem is more likely just a day in the life of the cosmos; something planted only yesterday, and not to last much longer.
This space for rent.
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 7:45:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 7:44:12 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/11/2013 3:50:47 AM, Harbinger wrote:
How do you reconcile the three? I personally do not see how you can. This is not a debate or discussion about contradictions in the Bible, this is about macro-evolution & billions of years(both go together and need each other). I am interested thanks.

I've got a bit of a middling position here. I read Genesis 1 as having a gap in verse 1, where the six day creation is separated from the original "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth" by an unknown period of time. So I have no problem with a 14 billion year old big bang, if that's what the measurements show.

But on the other hand, from a purely technical viewpoint, as an engineer, I think some of the ages of things are wildly inflated. There's been this intense pressure to find time for evolution to have worked, and this has caused scientists to ignore the destructive elements of time. Scientists throw around billions of years without any sense of how much goes wrong in just one bad day. Life, especially - there's no way it's millions of years old, just from a technical perspective. Life is remarkable for being so adaptable, and yet so fragile. It is fragile, it has not been trucking along for millions of years. Thousands or 10s of thousands is much more reasonable, actually.

When we think of the ecosystem, we probably should have an attitude something more like the attitude we have towards our own personal life - what an incredible miracle, but oh so short, so fleeting. Our ecosystem is more likely just a day in the life of the cosmos; something planted only yesterday, and not to last much longer.

Indeed sir. I agree.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
v3nesl
Posts: 4,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 7:51:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
And the flood, can I offer another possibility here? (What fun to be in the position of not really making anybody happy :-) Anyway, how about the flood is real, but not global? A major flood, kills all known life in a particular area, but is it really necessary for it to be a GLOBAL flood? I'm thinking it's a living parable - literally true, but a demonstration by God. Jesus didn't have to circle the globe on the oceans, just walk across the sea of Galilee. So yeah, a guy built a giant boat and saved a whole bunch of animals, at God's direction. Is that really so outrageous?
This space for rent.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 7:53:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 7:51:40 AM, v3nesl wrote:
And the flood, can I offer another possibility here? (What fun to be in the position of not really making anybody happy :-) Anyway, how about the flood is real, but not global? A major flood, kills all known life in a particular area, but is it really necessary for it to be a GLOBAL flood? I'm thinking it's a living parable - literally true, but a demonstration by God. Jesus didn't have to circle the globe on the oceans, just walk across the sea of Galilee. So yeah, a guy built a giant boat and saved a whole bunch of animals, at God's direction. Is that really so outrageous?

That depends on how much of the earth is flooded, and how many animals Noah would have to have on the boat.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 7:58:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 7:51:40 AM, v3nesl wrote:
And the flood, can I offer another possibility here? (What fun to be in the position of not really making anybody happy :-) Anyway, how about the flood is real, but not global? A major flood, kills all known life in a particular area, but is it really necessary for it to be a GLOBAL flood? I'm thinking it's a living parable - literally true, but a demonstration by God. Jesus didn't have to circle the globe on the oceans, just walk across the sea of Galilee. So yeah, a guy built a giant boat and saved a whole bunch of animals, at God's direction. Is that really so outrageous?

No, neither is the other story either. You do realize there is evidence that our earths center has large amounts of water in it?
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
v3nesl
Posts: 4,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 8:02:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 7:35:59 AM, muzebreak wrote:
...

That, is ridiculous. There is only one literal sense. Something is either metaphorical, or literal.


Well, no, I don't think so. One might literally roll out the red carpet, for instance. The carpet is a sort of metaphor, an expression of royalty, but also a real carpet. So I think there can be metaphors that are acted out literally, if you could put it that way. And I think God does this kind of thing all the time - our mortal lives are very real, but are also just lessons to prepare us for the real thing.

I think sometimes we fight about the wrong things (both sides). For us believers, the argument about Genesis really isn't about literal or figurative, but about the fact that God is real. We're fighting against the elimination of God, not for a particular interpretation of a text. But I point out, from our perspective, once you believe God is real, creation and floods and all that - they're no big deal for God. The cross, forgiving our sins - now that was a big deal.
This space for rent.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 8:19:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 7:51:40 AM, v3nesl wrote:
And the flood, can I offer another possibility here? (What fun to be in the position of not really making anybody happy :-) Anyway, how about the flood is real, but not global? A major flood, kills all known life in a particular area, but is it really necessary for it to be a GLOBAL flood? I'm thinking it's a living parable - literally true, but a demonstration by God. Jesus didn't have to circle the globe on the oceans, just walk across the sea of Galilee. So yeah, a guy built a giant boat and saved a whole bunch of animals, at God's direction. Is that really so outrageous?

Oh, you mean the account - as written - is false? No that's not outrageous at all.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 8:21:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 8:02:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/11/2013 7:35:59 AM, muzebreak wrote:
...

That, is ridiculous. There is only one literal sense. Something is either metaphorical, or literal.


Well, no, I don't think so. One might literally roll out the red carpet, for instance. The carpet is a sort of metaphor, an expression of royalty, but also a real carpet. So I think there can be metaphors that are acted out literally, if you could put it that way. And I think God does this kind of thing all the time - our mortal lives are very real, but are also just lessons to prepare us for the real thing.

I don't think you know what a metaphor is. A red carpet is not a metaphor for royalty, it simply has an connotation of royalty.


I think sometimes we fight about the wrong things (both sides). For us believers, the argument about Genesis really isn't about literal or figurative, but about the fact that God is real. We're fighting against the elimination of God, not for a particular interpretation of a text. But I point out, from our perspective, once you believe God is real, creation and floods and all that - they're no big deal for God. The cross, forgiving our sins - now that was a big deal.

I don't disbelieve the biblical interpretation, simply because I disbelieve in god. I do so because there is evidence to the contrary, which makes me believe they are simply stories.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 8:21:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 8:02:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/11/2013 7:35:59 AM, muzebreak wrote:
...

That, is ridiculous. There is only one literal sense. Something is either metaphorical, or literal.


Well, no, I don't think so. One might literally roll out the red carpet, for instance. The carpet is a sort of metaphor, an expression of royalty, but also a real carpet. So I think there can be metaphors that are acted out literally, if you could put it that way. And I think God does this kind of thing all the time - our mortal lives are very real, but are also just lessons to prepare us for the real thing.

I think sometimes we fight about the wrong things (both sides). For us believers, the argument about Genesis really isn't about literal or figurative, but about the fact that God is real. We're fighting against the elimination of God, not for a particular interpretation of a text. But I point out, from our perspective, once you believe God is real, creation and floods and all that - they're no big deal for God. The cross, forgiving our sins - now that was a big deal.

We think alike.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."