YE-creation: science , pompous dogma or faith message?

Well said TB. I'd like to include myself in that -- I do NOT believe you need to believe in creation or any other doctrine to be a Christian. Christ is number one, and anything else is secondary.I respect everyone, but that does not mean I respect what I see as butchering of the Bible's meaning, or the authority of the Bible David

--Why not worship the God of the bible rather than worship the bible as God?--Good question.John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..."David

--Nowhere does John's text indicate that one should worship the bible as God. You are interpreting it that way.--The Bible is the Word of God and can be trusted to be accurate, truthful, and an authority. No Where is there any hint that Genesis is not written history. It written as history, qouted as history, Jesus believed it was history...I would be saying the same thing if you tried to qoute Parables as history. They are clearly not history, they are stories.If you can give me one biblical reason to believe Genesis is just meant to be a poem, I'm listening. Then, I'll start asking you about verses like II Peter 3:5 where Peter says (paraphrased)"Don't doubt the coming judgement of Christ. People forget that the world was already judged by the flood. It will happen again."David

--My bolds.I raise the question:Since "the beginning", how much of "the Word" has been preserved?What has been added, deleted, or altered, through the processing of man, to arrive at the modern Bible?Moose --Our modern Bible is translated from a very old Bible. This isn't something I'm worried about, personally -- and I haven't studied it hardly at all. Right now, my knowledge on this ends that there are two old copies of the Bible, and one is slightly different.The one that is different, and considered altered has a few books where it's slightly shorter than than it should be. (Clarifications are removed.) It doesn't add up to much.I can't really debate this, sorry. I just wanted to say something so you didn't think I was ignoring your question.David

--Most modern bibles are translations of the KJB, which was a translation of the Duoai which was a translation of the Vulgate, which was a translation into Latin of a bible commissioned by the emporer Constantine. Prior to this time THE Bible did not exist. What did exist was hundreds or thousands of individual texts. Eusebius, compiled, translated and editted these into a book. Viola, a Holy and infallible document, just as the Emporer had requested.--John, can you show me evidence that the KJV version of the Bible is different from the original texts?I'm starting not to know what I can trust from you. On the matters I know a little about, you're misrepresenting the facts. The Bible was not just pulled out of thin air, it was based on what all the differnet churches had already accepted as inspired.David

--There is also historical evidence that the Flood as depicted in Genesis pre-dates the Pentateuch.--Flood
Babel
Spread of Flood Stories
Moses writes TorahGene90 writes about historical evidence that the flood pre-dates the account in Genesis.--(1) Who are you to put words in the mouth of Jesus?
(2) The way it is written and quoted is no different from the parables of Jesus--Jesus comparing his judgement and the flood:
Matthew 24:36-39; Luke 17:26-27Parable: Matthew 24:32, Matthew 25A clear difference.--You noted that you have not studied Biblical history deeply. I seriously encourage you to do so. I think you have a right to know certain things about the Bible, and about mainline Christianity.Do you believe that the Second Coming may be soon?--Eventually I will study it. Right now, I'm content with just listening to experts in the field. We can't have knowledge in all areas... but yes, I will eventually study it.I don't know if the second coming is soon. I see a lot of correlations between the Bible and present-day. But a lot of generations have felt that way.David[This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-17-2002]

--John's account of 'in the beginning' contrasts with GenesisGen 1 does not mention the 'word' being there in the beginning.CheersJoe Meert--The Word is Jesus. Jesus is God. God was in the beginning.David

quote:

---

"Scholars have traced the roots of many of the Old Testament stories to the ancient, pagan myths of the ancient Mesopotamian cultures."

---

I wonder how it is "scholars" determined this. In any case, this is meaningless because Genesis wasn't written til several hundred years after the events occured. I see no reason why the following timeline isn't possible:Creation
Flood
Babel
Three Accounts become Myths and Legends
Moses Leads Hebrews from Captivity
Moses writes Torah

quote:

---

He commands Abraham to sacrifice his first born son, an act which is not at all surprising given the nature of the pagan religions of the time.

---

And what did God tell Abraham to do before he carried it out? Was the moral of this story completely missed? (By the way John, this is also the moral of the passage in the NT you brought up, where Jesus says to hate your children.)

quote:

---

But it was not enough. He predicted that Babylon would conquer Palestine and the occupants of that land would spend 70 years in captivity by the rivers of Babylon. Well, the captivity happened, but it didn't last 70 years.

---

Jeremiah did NOT say captivity, and he did NOT say Palestine. He said these NATIONS will SERVE the king of Babylon for 70 years. From the beginning of the attacks, until the end of captivity, was 70 years. Jermiah ALSO said that God would punish Babylon after the 70 years. What happened? Cyrus conquers Babylon...

quote:

---

Then his wife died, and Ezekiel was forbidden to mourn. Instead, he had to lie down on one side for 390 days and then on the other for 40.

---

The Author makes it sound like the 390/40 has to do with the wife, when it has to do with the length of years in Israel's punishment. By the way, I believe the fulfillment of that punishment is Israel's re-birth in May of 1948.Well, three strikes, and out. If he dishonestly represents the Bible, something I know, how can I trust him on things I do not?

quote:

---

I am going to quickly tire of having my integrity questioned because I happen to disagree with you. The only thing I can think of which we have discussed has been the meaning of a few verses in the Bible, so I must assume that you refer to this. Essentially, then, I misrepresent facts because I find meaning in the Bible which you do not. Basically, I disagree therefore I lie. Can you see the megolomania in this attitude?

---

Yeah, it wasn't called for here. I apologize...DavidThird time's a charm...er a blessing[This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-17-2002][This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-17-2002][This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-17-2002]

quote:

---

Parable #1:

​

"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.

​

Parable #2:

​

"37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;"

​

Same thing. A parable, nothing more.

---

How do you get parable from the second one? I think it's really weird that we look at both, and see different things. The first starts off as an anlogy. The second as referring to "the days of Noah." What were the days of Noah? If Noah wasn't real, why is there a geneology in Luke tracing him to Christ?

quote:

---

Fair enough. But you did realize that there must be an apostasy first, correct?

​

Next line of questioning: I'm sure you probably give to churches and religious organizations. Where are the Levites to accept the offerings?

---

No, I don't know anything hardly about the end times.(Edit: What I mean is, I don't know anything about how people have compared it to the present) Christ said no man knows the hour. I'm not really worried about it, and honestly, the hype sickens me.Can you explain the Levites thing? I'm presuming you're saying that the Bible says somewhere only Levites can accept them? A passage or something would be helpful.David[This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-17-2002]

quote:

---

Do you believe that this helps your case? Witnesses can't keep stories straight a few months after the fact, why point out that hundreds of years passed before someone wrote it down?

---

God dictates to Moses. I trust God to be a good eye witness

quote:

---

ummmm.... what moral is that? Blind obedience? This, I remember from church.

---

Yes, blind obedience to God. Trusting him. Putting your faith in him.

quote:

---

He? Would that be me? If so, I never misrepresent anything intentionally, being mistaken is another matter. That happens from time to time.

---

No, not you. The quotes I listed were from the link offered. The first three times he mentioned Bible verses, he misrepresented them.David

quote:

---

The point I was trying to make is that for the end to be near, Christianity must have fallen into apostasy: therefore, the Bible must be wrong. Dare I mention apostasies that have occured between now and the beginning?

---

I'm not sure I know what you mean. Wouldn't that mean all Christians have given it up? By the way, where are you getting this from the Bible? And -- why would it necessarily mean our Bible is wrong?Because if it's wrong now... it was wrong 1800 - 200 years ago, right?

quote:

---

As for the Levites, they are, time and again, mentioned in the OT as the priesthood that deals with offerings.

---

http://www.agape.com/tithe.htm#TITHING%20IN%20THE%20GOSPELSThe website confirmed what I thought my response would be. Titheing was part of the law, which we would no longer be under. When we give now -- it's not 10% -- it's just to give! I would assume, a Levite being required, was abandoned with the rest of the law.

quote:

---

Another problem is the authority to baptise. Christ journeyed into the wilderness and endured hardships to come upon John the Baptist for his baptism from the only person with the authority to perform the ordinance. His authority came directly from God, from birth. From whence does modern day priesthood "authority" come from, Bible colleges? We live sinful lives and Christ did not. How much more important for our redemptions is the ordinance of baptism by immersion? The way I see it, mainline Christians have two pressing concerns that need to be settled immediately: *how* to baptise and *who* can baptise.

---

John the Baptist was fulfilling a prophecy. Just because he was to baptise Christ, doesn't mean some sort of special authority is required to baptise the rest of us. And besides, baptisement is just a recognition that you are born again and repentant. I get every indication from the Bible that God is concerned with your heart. A sprinkle or an immersion isn't going to send us to hell.David

quote:

---

JM: No, not a slight shift. It requires a complete abandonment of science, observation and logic and a requires a reliance on supernatural dogmatic superstition.

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

I like how you avoid slanted language. I think you forgot Intolerant Radical Right-Wing Christian Fundamentalist witch-burner though.I can't take evolutionists any more seriously than you take creationists. Science, to you, by definition must always exclude God regardless of what the truth is. Science, to me, by definition must not contradict God's teaching. After all - he was the only person that was actually there to witness the beginning. Not you or I.All Scientists (Creationists and Evolutionists) are human -- all have biases. This image of objective men seeking the truth and trying to prove themselves wrong is a complete joke.David

quote:

---

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

---

Uh huh... so I guess Jonah was in the belly of a fish for 3,000 years And Christ hasn't risen from the dead yet, since it's only been two "God Days."David

quote:

---

The reference to "all things continue as they were" in context appears to be a reference to the apparent absence of the things to occur before the Second Coming, (the return of Elijah, the apostasy, etc)

---

Second Coming = Christ, is what I get by reading the whole passage.I never got Evolution from it... but I do get people denying the Flood ever happened.David

quote:

---

Science, by any correct definition of the word, deals only with the phenomena and mechanisms acting in or upon nature. Because God is "supernatural", God has no role in the way science works because God is outside the limits of natural phenomena. Science can never deny nor promote the concept of God.

---

I think a correct definition of Science should deal with what we can observe and test.We don't know how life first formed on the planet, do we? But Scientists will still try to show how abiogenesis is possible, slap he Science label on it, and push it as fact to the public.And the only reason it will be pushed as fact, is because we MUST explain things without God? I think that rule originally only applied to what we can observe... it was always thought that God was the creator and upholder of these natural laws.Then somewhere along the line it became God can't even be responsible for these unchanging natural laws that we depend on for Science -- so we must explain how natural laws came about without God. Doesn't matter what the truth is, we just need a natural explanation. Let the "ignorant" public think God is still responsible. Ridiculous!David