52 replies to this topic

[arunma]

In other words, God did nothing on the seventh day. Thats what I said before-he rested-meaning he did nothing on the 7th day. You're just repeating what I said.

Now, what I'm saying is, did God do nothing for millions of years?

No, I'm saying that he hasn't created things for millions of years (actually, billions).

Windmill]How do you explain adam and eve?

If they are a literal couple, they would have lived about 270,000 years ago.

And, to answer your post above me, that law was done away with at the cross.... remember?

Woah now, the Law wasn't done away with. Only it's curse in Deuteronomy 27:26.

"Literal" as in, god made the world in a week, Moses raised his hands and smote the Amalawhatsits, and so on.

It's the Amalekites. Dude, you're the Jew, you're supposed to know your own people's history! Now do you see why I always have to force-feed Judaism to you?

The New Testament is also written as pure historical narrative or essay (depending on the book). It lacks the allegory and other literary devices of the Old Testament.

That's quite a convenient thing to for God to do, huh? Boring, literal Scriptures are always the easiest to read.

Then again, the Gospels are anything but boring, so we win both ways!

[SteveT]

Well, there's actually real evidence for a massive flood in the Middle East toward the dawn of civilization.

[Coltxdoom]

There is evidence of a flood but none of God causing it. Some sort of higher being could have caused it,..this is true..or it could have been just bad weather..

But adam and eve, there is no evidence to a garden that was as God speaks of. But I won't deny the fact that we were created by someone, some higher being.

[arunma]

Well, uh, thats what I meant sorry.

So, you guys don't believe in the flood right?

I do. I just don't think the flood covered the entire world. But rest assured: I do take the Bible literally.

[Alakhriveion]

Well, there's actually real evidence for a massive flood in the Middle East toward the dawn of civilization.

Yes indeedy.

 It's the Amalekites. Dude, you're the Jew, you're supposed to know your own people's history! Now do you see why I always have to force-feed Judaism to you?

TRUST me, I have plenty of people taking care of THAT.

 If they are a literal couple, they would have lived about 270,000 years ago.

Or sooner, depending on how you define it.

[Jasi]

Windmill, what do you think of the idea that the days corresponded to millions of years?
All I'm saying is that the interpretation of time in God's mind is not the same as what we think it is. It says that in the Bible.

[GraniteJJ]

Arunma, just because we don't understand how galaxies are formed right now doesn't automatically prove God exists. Granted, it doesn't automatically prove he doesn't exist.

My point is that, years ago we didn't know what caused gravity. Galileo proposed the idea of impotence (don't laugh), in which an object gained impotence that made it fly and when it ran out of it, it hit the ground. Newton proved this wrong, showing parabolic motion and all sorts of other such things. We didn't know why things fell, but it was eventually figured out.

I'm saying, basically, that just because we didn't know then, doesn't mean we wont know in the future. Not knowing something doesn't prove Gods existence.

As for the flood, I've said it before, and so did someone else earlier. There may have been a flood. In fact, it is highly likely. But that doesn't mean it was caused by divine methods.

[arunma]

Arunma, just because we don't understand how galaxies are formed right now doesn't automatically prove God exists. Granted, it doesn't automatically prove he doesn't exist.

We're getting into a little science here, so if we continue this, it should be in the other thread. But I'll just say something real quick.

This is actually quite different than simply "not knowing" how galaxies form. We know how they form, and we according to all known laws of physics, we can predict that galaxies should be in the elliptical conformation. Unlike Galileo (actually, I think it was Copernicus, but I'm not sure), we're not coming up with a new theory. We're using one that already exists.

Now, does this mean we may never find out how galaxies are created in the spiral conformation? Of course not, we may very well figure that out one day. But unlike earlier scientists, we aren't operating in a vacuum, we've found something that directly contradicts known science.

[Coltxdoom]

*Shrugs* yes, the evidence that it was caused by a greater-being is the bible

YEs but for those of us that it doesn't become a main source of accuracy--that isn't good enough.

[arunma]

Tanaka, do you think the New Testament is all literal?

[GraniteJJ]

I think that they work together very nicely. God-guided evolution makes creation an ongoing process, like a blossoming flower. Very beautiful, if you ask me.

And yes, the Old Testament isn't all literal, though a great deal of it certainly is.

How is it that only some of it is literal, and some is contextual?

You can't pick and choose what is fact and what is metaphor. It could all be metaphors. It could all be fact. Who are we to decide which is which?

[Alakhriveion]

Critics? It's a book.

[arunma]

How is it that only some of it is literal, and some is contextual?

You can't pick and choose what is fact and what is metaphor. It could all be metaphors. It could all be fact. Who are we to decide which is which?

The problem with interpreting the Bible only for its literal meaning is that it often loses its more important meaning. Even Paul, who believedd in the literal truth of the Old Testament, said that the story of Sarah and Hagar should also be interpreted as an allegory (that is, in addition to literal truth).

Anyway, the parts of the Old Testament that should only be interpreted figuratively are usually obvious from context (or from New Testament commentary). Genesis 3:15 and most of Isaiah 53 are good examples.

[Coltxdoom]

Ever think we're not supposed to translate the entire bible by little tiny pieces and just live our lives as God wants us to?

But if you must know, personally I think the Old Testament was supposed to be more literal while the New Testament is more figuratively speaking.

[arunma]

Ever think we're not supposed to translate the entire bible by little tiny pieces and just live our lives as God wants us to?

But if you must know, personally I think the Old Testament was supposed to be more literal while the New Testament is more figuratively speaking.

Are you saying that Moses definitely existed, but Jesus didn't? Actually Colt, historical data goes the other way. We have no extrabiblical information about Moses, but we do about Jesus and his apostles.

[arunma]

Aside from Revelation, yes. I suppose some things, such as the Magi, could have been symbolic, but I'm not counting on it.

Why would the Magi be symbolic?