Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 46 of 321 (473941)
07-03-2008 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by autumnman
07-03-2008 3:09 PM


Re: Questions
autumnman writes:
Do you literally accept that the earth brought forth grass, herbs, and trees prior to there being a sun and a moon? If you do take Gen. 1:11 & 12 literally even though the sun and the moon did not yet exist,
I got no problem with that.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
In the evening there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Light and darkness was divided.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Lo and behold we had day and night.
So what's the problem?
autumnman writes:
If your interpretation of the Revelation Text is in fact correct, what we are discussing really amounts to naught, nothing, zip. When Jesus finally returns I will surely go into the lake of fire, and you will be able to enjoy life with your God without the likes of me to clutter up a perfect world.
It doesn't have to be that way.
The God you are studying about and trying to find must be some kind of 90 lb weakling of a God.
autumnman writes:
That is like asking me, “Where is God’s abode?”
I know where that is God abides at my house.
autumnman writes:
there is no way I can reply to your questions regarding Gen. 1:9.
My questions were, was the land all in one place and the water all in one place at one time as stated in Gen. 1:9.
Science says it was, we just don't agree on the time frame.
You can find information Here
Works with mouse
My Favorite animation
In Genesis 1:10 the dry land God called 'erets.
In Genesis 10:25 the 'erets was divided in Peleg's days.
The author would have used 'adamah' had he intended to refer to a plot of land, or territory.
But you read it any way you desire.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by autumnman, posted 07-03-2008 3:09 PM autumnman has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 47 of 321 (473955)
07-03-2008 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by autumnman
07-03-2008 7:27 PM


Re: Questions
ICANT writes: So since the man was put in Eden to keep the trees and plants and grasses and etc. He was not on the planet earth.
So are you saying Eden was on some other planet?
AM writes:
Some other realm is more like it. Perhaps God’s abode and Eden are one and the same. At least that is what is indicated to me.
AM writes:Give me a break here, my friend. I did not set Eden up as a “literal” place. You must have misread what I wrote.
How did I misrepresent you, both of these statements are your words. It sure looks as though you believe it to be a literal place, or am I mistaken again?
bertot, my friend: I am sharing with you my personal opinion. I don’t have the right to decide anything for anyone else. So you disagree with me. Wow! That’s a revelation.
You represented a possible figurative statement in In Rev 2:7 as literal (atleast from your perspective), then chastised ICANT for doing the same. This is all I was saying.
Bertot writes: One can certainly percieve these concepts and interpretations of words as literal or figurative, but as I said it takes the rest of the word of God to determine the validy and literal or figurative standpoints.
AM writes: If that is how you comprehend all of these separate yet canonized text, then that is your personal prerogative. Good for you. If that works for you, then go for it. I will rarely if ever agree with that mystical interpretation of these ancient Hebrew and Greek texts. But that should come as no surprise by now.
You did not understand what I was saying here. The context, setting and story, archeological facts, history and other information can determine whether the text should be literal or figurative. For example, when we see the expression, "the moon was turned to blood" or "the stars fell from the sky", we can pretty much believe and "know" that it should be figurative. I really dont know anybody that would take those statements as literal, do you? Other passages are not as obvious and could be understood either way.
Would not the interpretation you gave Rev 2:7 be mystical and really unidentifiable any real sense?
Bertot writes:
Why would the literalness of Rev amount to nothing, naught and Zip? Why would where you spend eternity have anything to do with the "value" of the text. This quote seems to emotionally charged with no logical sense behind it.
AM writes:
My personal opinion is that the NT Book of Revelation is not a literal account of things that are to come to pass. That is my personal opinion. If I am wrong it appears as though when Jesus finally returns he is going to cast me right into the lake of fire. I guess we’ll find out when all that comes to pass.
All the best, Ger
The question I asked above was how would your personal belief about the text and you going to Hell in a hand basket, make the text as Naught, nill and Zip?
So, show me Hell and then Hell will be real. Better yet, ask you God to show me Hell, and while He’s doing so maybe he can clear up this thing about Him being kind to the unthankful and the evil.
In the Warren-Matson debate on the existence of God. Dr Warren told Matson that God loved even him. Matson said, " Ill keep that in mind when I lift my eyes in torment"
Again you were misunderstanding what i was saying. I was only pointing out that Hell has the very real possibilty of being real and shouldnot be dismissed as figurative, simply because someone percieves that way. Do you understand now?
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by autumnman, posted 07-03-2008 7:27 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by autumnman, posted 07-03-2008 11:19 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 07-04-2008 12:19 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 48 of 321 (473956)
07-03-2008 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dawn Bertot
07-03-2008 10:36 PM


Re: Questions
How did I misrepresent you, both of these statements are your words. It sure looks as though you believe it to be a literal place, or am I mistaken again?
We seem to have a terminology problem again. God’s abode being of a different realm means to me that it is not “literal = being true to fact, actual, factual.” I can only presume, assume, or make a conjecture.
quote:
AM writes:
Some other realm is more like it. Perhaps God’s abode and Eden are one and the same. At least that is what is indicated to me.
You represented a possible figurative statement in In Rev 2:7 as literal (atleast from your perspective), then chastised ICANT for doing the same. This is all I was saying.
I was employing Rev. 2:7 that figuratively describes Paradise and the tree of life as a biblical representation of the metaphorical and poetic manner in which I interpret the Eden Narrative. I did not realize that anyone seriously accepted the Book of Revelation as a literal account of what was to come. My mistake.
You did not understand what I was saying here. The context, setting and story, archeological facts, history and other information can determine whether the text should be literal or figurative. For example, when we see the expression, "the moon was turned to blood" or "the stars fell from the sky", we can pretty much believe and "know" that it should be figurative. I really dont know anybody that would take those statements as literal, do you? Other passages are not as obvious and could be understood either way.
I am in agreement with what I hear you saying.
Would not the interpretation you gave Rev 2:7 be mystical and really unidentifiable any real sense?
What interpretation did I give to Rev. 2:7? Let me go back and see.
On post 36 ICANT had posed this question:
Do you have a scripture for this belief or just your belief.
And I replied:
quote:
AM wrote: Let’s start with Revelation 2:7 “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.”
How is it that I am interpreting Rev. 2:7 in your mind?
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-03-2008 10:36 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-03-2008 11:39 PM autumnman has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 49 of 321 (473958)
07-03-2008 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by autumnman
07-03-2008 11:19 PM


Re: Questions
AM writes
We seem to have a terminology problem again. God’s abode being of a different realm means to me that it is not “literal = being true to fact, actual, factual.” I can only presume, assume, or make a conjecture.
Is God real AM. If he is would not his prsence and dwelling place be real?
Before this gets out of hand and becomes silly, let me just say you should have been a politician. You mastery and manipulation of words and ideas is nothing short of amazing.
AM wrote: Let’s start with Revelation 2:7 “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.”
AM writes:
Some other realm is more like it. Perhaps God’s abode and Eden are one and the same. At least that is what is indicated to me.
AM writes: How is it that I am interpreting Rev. 2:7 in your mind?
I dont know, crazy, nutty me, I guess I am mistaken again. Give me a break AM.
Sorry I got distracted I was over reading your "Edenproverb.com", thingy. "the role of the serpent' Good gravy!!, how long did it take you to write that piece?
I did not realize that anyone seriously accepted the Book of Revelation as a literal account of what was to come. My mistake.
These are the kinds of comments I was refering to that are distracting and demeaning and are intinded to belittle and intimidate. They could be better left off and out. certainly you know there are people that believe this and more.
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by autumnman, posted 07-03-2008 11:19 PM autumnman has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 50 of 321 (473964)
07-04-2008 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dawn Bertot
07-03-2008 10:36 PM


Re: Falling Stars
bertot writes:
"the moon was turned to blood" or "the stars fell from the sky", we can pretty much believe and "know" that it should be figurative.
Why so?
Which way would a star have to be traveling to be falling?
Well there is one Here that is headed in some direction, I don't know if it is up or down or sideways but it is in a hurry.
It is clipping along at a mere 3 million miles per hour. If it don't hit something it is going to fall a long way.
Now the moon turning to blood does sound a little hard and for us it would seem impossible. But in Genesis 1:1 God spoke the universe into existence. It was complete and perfect at that time. Or either God is the bumbling idiot that I have been told here that He is.
If God can do that why would He have a problem with turning the moon into blood?
If a person can believe Genesis 1:1 he will have no problem believing the rest of the book. If he can't believe Genesis 1:1 he will believe nothing else in it.
Now the moon turning to blood thing happens when the sun goes out. This is in the end time.
Acts 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
The moon could be figurative, but figurative of what?
Scientist agree that the sun is going to go out one day. So that is not in question.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-03-2008 10:36 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-04-2008 9:20 AM ICANT has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 51 of 321 (473991)
07-04-2008 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICANT
07-04-2008 12:19 AM


Re: Falling Stars
bertot writes:
"the moon was turned to blood" or "the stars fell from the sky", we can pretty much believe and "know" that it should be figurative.
ICANT writes:
Why so?
Which way would a star have to be traveling to be falling?
It would have to be falling from "our" sky to be falling, otherwise its just traveling, see the difference. Things are considered "falling" if they enter a gravitational process pulling them inward or downward, hence "falling".
Since "stars" dont travel and are stationary and only travel in the sense that the universe is expanding, it would be unreasonable to assume they could fall to the earth. Further, even if a Star (Sun) collided with the earth, it would incinerate it long before it had a chance to "fall" anywhere in our atmosphere, correct. This is why I do not believe these statements should be taken literally.
Well there is one Here that is headed in some direction, I don't know if it is up or down or sideways but it is in a hurry.
It is clipping along at a mere 3 million miles per hour. If it don't hit something it is going to fall a long way.
Its not falling its just traveling. If it hits the earth it will fall from the "sky".
You were doing so well ICANT, dont start losing it now.
Now the moon turning to blood does sound a little hard and for us it would seem impossible. But in Genesis 1:1 God spoke the universe into existence. It was complete and perfect at that time. Or either God is the bumbling idiot that I have been told here that He is.
If God can do that why would He have a problem with turning the moon into blood?
So you believe at some point the moon will actually be turned into blood? If so I will have to make my apologies to AM, there is actually some one who believes this to be a literal statement. Do you also believe that all statements in the scriptures should be taken literally. If not, could you provide me with a passage that should be taken figuratively.
Now the moon turning to blood thing happens when the sun goes out. This is in the end time.
Acts 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
The moon could be figurative, but figurative of what?
Scientist agree that the sun is going to go out one day. So that is not in question.
To be completly objective here I will disagree with you as much as I might with AM on things. Thats just being objective. Having said that what does all of what you said in the above quote have to do with the moon actually turning to blood. It seems a bit disjointed. Do we have to know what the moon would be figurative of for it to be figurative, cant it just be figurative?
When a supernova happens at present does its moon/s turn to blood actually or are they just incenerated?
Perhaps we should get back to the subject at hand. We probably dont want the enemy camp to see discord amoung the troops. However, feel free to disagree with me when ever you want.
D Bertot
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 07-04-2008 12:19 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-04-2008 10:15 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 53 by ICANT, posted 07-04-2008 5:36 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 52 of 321 (473996)
07-04-2008 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dawn Bertot
07-04-2008 9:20 AM


Re: Falling Stars
I will be out most of the 4th as I am sure you will be have a wonderful day. question? Does England have a 4 of July, this is a trick question.
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-04-2008 9:20 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 53 of 321 (474032)
07-04-2008 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dawn Bertot
07-04-2008 9:20 AM


Re: Falling Stars
bertot writes:
It would have to be falling from "our" sky to be falling, otherwise its just traveling, see the difference. Things are considered "falling" if they enter a gravitational process pulling them inward or downward, hence "falling".
Why would it have to hit the earth?
Matthew and Mark, said they would fall from heaven. They did not say our stars in our solar system would necessarily be the ones to fall.
bertot writes:
Since "stars" dont travel and are stationary and only travel in the sense that the universe is expanding,
Stars don't travel.
bertot writes:
Its not falling its just traveling. If it hits the earth it will fall from the "sky".
Can't make up your mind.
It is either stationary or it is falling. It left it's orbit some 3500 years ago. There is no gravitational force holding it. It is in total free fall, the milky way does not have enough gravity pull to keep it in our solar system.
bertot writes:
So you believe at some point the moon will actually be turned into blood? If so I will have to make my apologies to AM, there is actually some one who believes this to be a literal statement. Do you also believe that all statements in the scriptures should be taken literally. If not, could you provide me with a passage that should be taken figuratively.
I take everything literally. If it turns out to be figuratively that's OK by me.
We have to be very careful when we read the Bible. It contains the Word of God, angels, demons, devils, Satan, snakes, ass, Kings, Queens, rich men, poor men, beggars, thieves, children of the devil, children of God, Jesus and His apostles, etc.
I really get a kick out of the fuss made on this site about the talking snake in the garden. Then I realize these people where not around in the 50's when I was watching Mr. Ed the talking horse and Francis the talking mule on TV. They don't understand that the devil was talking to the woman through the serpent.
bertot writes:
ICANT writes:
Now the moon turning to blood thing happens when the sun goes out. This is in the end time.
Acts 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
The moon could be figurative, but figurative of what?
Scientist agree that the sun is going to go out one day. So that is not in question.
To be completely objective here I will disagree with you as much as I might with AM on things. That's just being objective. Having said that what does all of what you said in the above quote have to do with the moon actually turning to blood. It seems a bit disjointed. Do we have to know what the moon would be figurative of for it to be figurative, cant it just be figurative?
Then why did Paul put it in there.
Are you disagreeing that the sun will go out? Science agrees.
So why did Paul follow that statement with a figurative statement?
Maybe some copyist thought that was a neat idea, so he inserted "and the moon into blood".
But if Paul put it there because God wants it there it will happen.
bertot in msg 52 writes:
I will be out most of the 4th as I am sure you will be have a wonderful day. question? Does England have a 4 of July, this is a trick question.
I don't know about England but the British Commonwealth of Cayman Islands does with fireworks and all. It is a holiday today and Monday. They have a 4 day weekend holiday. I spent 15 years there.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-04-2008 9:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by autumnman, posted 07-04-2008 10:28 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 56 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-05-2008 10:46 AM ICANT has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 54 of 321 (474070)
07-04-2008 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ICANT
07-04-2008 5:36 PM


Re: Falling Stars
You guys:
I have a question regarding the five rivers described in the Eden Text:
Acknowledging the natural force of gravity; is it not most natural for four tributaries {a.k.a. smaller rivers} to feed into one larger watershed {a.k.a. river)?
But, doesn’t Gen. 2:10 thru 14 describe one great watershed {a.k.a. river} dividing and becoming four smaller watersheds {a.k.a. rivers)?
Would this reversal of the natural force of gravity as applied to water not constitute a riddle?
ICANT wrote: I take everything literally. If it turns out to be figuratively that's OK by me.
So, what do you think?
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ICANT, posted 07-04-2008 5:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 1:32 AM autumnman has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 55 of 321 (474072)
07-05-2008 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by autumnman
07-04-2008 10:28 PM


Re: Falling Stars
autumnman writes:
Acknowledging the natural force of gravity; is it not most natural for four tributaries {a.k.a. smaller rivers} to feed into one larger watershed {a.k.a. river)?
In England the Lea river does exactly that. It divides into three or four smaller shallower rivers.
You can find the information Here
It is said that King Alfred did this in 896.
If a King could do that, Why would a God that spoke the universe into existence have a problem with having one large river divide into four smaller shallower rivers to water the garden?
autumnman writes:
So, what do you think?
I believe Eden was a place on earth that God planted a garden in. There was a river that came from Eden and divided into four smaller rivers to water the garden.
One day maybe I will share what I think.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by autumnman, posted 07-04-2008 10:28 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by autumnman, posted 07-05-2008 11:24 AM ICANT has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 56 of 321 (474096)
07-05-2008 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by ICANT
07-04-2008 5:36 PM


Re: Falling Stars
Why would it have to hit the earth?
Matthew and Mark, said they would fall from heaven. They did not say our stars in our solar system would necessarily be the ones to fall.
Hitting the earth is not a requirment for them to be considered falling, only that they are in a gravitational "fall".or pull.
I dont remember saying anything about the stars in our solar system, where did that come from?
bertot writes:
Since "stars" dont travel and are stationary and only travel in the sense that the universe is expanding,
ICANT writes:Stars don't travel.
bertot writes:
Its not falling its just traveling. If it hits the earth it will fall from the "sky".
Can't make up your mind.
It is either stationary or it is falling. It left it's orbit some 3500 years ago. There is no gravitational force holding it. It is in total free fall, the milky way does not have enough gravity pull to keep it in our solar system.
ICANT writes:
Why so?
Which way would a star have to be traveling to be falling?
Well there is one Here that is headed in some direction, I don't know if it is up or down or sideways but it is in a hurry.
It is clipping along at a mere 3 million miles per hour. If it don't hit something it is going to fall a long way.
First you say there is no direction in space, then you say its either stationary or its falling.
Cant make up your mind, EH. "Free fall from UP"? How did you decide it came from up in space, since it is not headed for earth? Remember this statement: "I don't know if it is up or down or sideways but it is in a hurry."
I take everything literally. If it turns out to be figuratively that's OK by me.
How and when would a thing turn out ot be figurative, when would we know this exacally? What crteria would you employ?
By everything do you mean everything in the Bible or in everything in existence?
Then why did Paul put it in there?
Did you mean Luke in Acts 20?
Then why did Paul put it in there.
Are you disagreeing that the sun will go out? Science agrees.
So why did Paul follow that statement with a figurative statement?
Maybe some copyist thought that was a neat idea, so he inserted "and the moon into blood".
But if Paul put it there because God wants it there it will happen.
The only point here is, does it "have" to be literal. Cant it be figurative with out an exact reason. Cant it be a discription of the terrible and awesome day. Am I wrong or incorrect for believing it is figurative. This was my initial point with AM about literal and figurative, if you will remmember.
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ICANT, posted 07-04-2008 5:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 1:14 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 57 of 321 (474102)
07-05-2008 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by ICANT
07-05-2008 1:32 AM


Re: Falling Stars
ICANT
Split into canals; thanks for that information.
So, when Ezekiel refers to Eden as the garden of God and the Mountain of God--sometime before or shortly after the Exile--that makes what kind of sense to you?
Why don't you walk me through your interpretation of the two creation accounts, if you wouldn't mind.
I'd like to become more familiar with your point of view.
Regards,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 1:32 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 2:18 PM autumnman has replied
 Message 60 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 8:05 PM autumnman has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 58 of 321 (474110)
07-05-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dawn Bertot
07-05-2008 10:46 AM


Re: Falling Stars
bertot writes:
Cant make up your mind, EH. "Free fall from UP"? How did you decide it came from up in space, since it is not headed for earth? Remember this statement: "I don't know if it is up or down or sideways but it is in a hurry."
If space is expanding in every direction at the same time from that little speck that was in the middle of nowhere, How would you determine which direction is up and which is down?
bertot writes:
How and when would a thing turn out ot be figurative, when would we know this exacally? What crteria would you employ?
I will use one example.
I have read where many here say the lake of fire is figurative.
I believe it is literal.
When would we know if it is literal or figurative? At the great white throne judgment when all unbelievers are cast into the lake of fire.
bertot writes:
By everything do you mean everything in the Bible or in everything in existence?
I was speaking concerning the Bible. But in retrospect I kinda go along with everything period.
I suppose that is why I have so much trouble when discussing cosmology. I believe in fact and fiction. Tentative is just that and is open for discussion.
Genesis 1:1 Is either a fact or a lie. There is no room for discussion.
berot writes:
Did you mean Luke in Acts 20?
Luke was a physician not a prophet. He penned the book of Acts and many of Paul's books. He was a constant companion of Paul. Paul was caught up into the third heaven and saw many things he never repeated but some he did.
bertot writes:
The only point here is, does it "have" to be literal. Cant it be figurative with out an exact reason.
If it is there because God wanted it there it will happen. God does not say or do anything without a reason.
If it is there because someone though that it would magnify a terrible day in that case it would be figurative.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-05-2008 10:46 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 59 of 321 (474119)
07-05-2008 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by autumnman
07-05-2008 11:24 AM


Re: Canals
autumnman writes:
Split into canals; thanks for that information.
They did not become canals until several hundred years later.
autumnman writes:
So, when Ezekiel refers to Eden as the garden of God and the Mountain of God--sometime before or shortly after the Exile--that makes what kind of sense to you?
Ezekiel was talking billions of years after the Exile.
Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
The King of Tyrus.
the Phoenician city on the Mediterranean coast
This King had been in Eden.
This King was created not born.
This King was perfect.
This King was the anointed cherub.
This King had walked in the midst of God's Holy Mountain.
This King was cast out of God's Holy Mountain.
This King was cast to the ground because of iniquity.
This King is still King of the Earth. That will cease one day.
He will remain King until the real King comes to take up His throne.
The King Ezekiel is talking about is Lucifer, Satan, or the Devil whatever name you ascribe to him.
autumnman said: "Ezekiel refers to Eden as the garden of God and the Mountain of God".
Ezekiel does not refer to Eden as the garden and mountain of God.
Ezekiel refered to Eden as the garden of God. No location given.
Ezekiel refered to the mountain of God. No location given.
Eden was on earth.
The mountain of God is in the third heaven. That is the one just outside our universe.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by autumnman, posted 07-05-2008 11:24 AM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by autumnman, posted 07-05-2008 10:56 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 60 of 321 (474141)
07-05-2008 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by autumnman
07-05-2008 11:24 AM


Re: My View
autumnman writes:
Why don't you walk me through your interpretation of the two creation accounts, if you wouldn't mind.
I'd like to become more familiar with your point of view.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
This is a declared statement. It is either true or false. There is no room for any other answer.
I think because the way man's mind works we find Genesis 1:2 where it is. Man can not comprehend an instant universe. Therefore the seven day of Moses appears next instead of what is supposed to be there.
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
This verse declares it is the generations of the heavens and the earth.
This verse declares it is talking about the day that happened at Genesis 1:1.
So the entire story from Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:26 is talking about the way things happened in the day the Lord God made the heaven and the earth.
Verse 5 tell us this fresh created earth had no plants, it had not rained and there was no mankind.
Verse 6 tell us the face of the ground was watered from beneath.
Verse 7 tell us God formed man from the dry or loose ground.
God breathed the breath of life into man. No other creature.
Verse 8 God planted a garden eastward in Eden. There he put man.
Verse 9 God caused the ground to produce vegetation. Every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food was there.
The tree of Life was there.
The tree of good and evil was there.
Verse 10 A river went out of Eden to water the garden. It parted and made 4 rivers.
Verse 11, 12, 13, & 14 describe the rivers for us.
Verse 15 God gave the man a job to keep the garden.
Verse 16 Man told he could eat of every tree in the garden.
Verse 17 Except the tree of knowledge of good and evil he could not eat from, for in that day he would surely die.
Verse 18 It is not good that man should be alone.
Verse 19 God formed every beast, and every fowl out of the ground. The ground did not produce them God did.
God brought the animals to the man to see what he would call them.
Verse 20 No help meet found for man.
Verse 21 Deep sleep fell upon man, God took a rib.
Verse 22 God made a woman from this rib, and brought her unto the man.
Verse 23 the man called her woman.
Verse 24 the man said mankind would give up everything for woman.
Verse 25 they were man and wife.
Genesis 3
Verse 1 Serpent approached the woman with a loaded question.
Verse 2 woman told serpent they could eat of the fruit of the trees.
Verse 3 Except the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden. We can't eat or touch lest we die.
Verse 4 Serpent told Eve you will not surely die.
Verse 5 Serpent told her your eyes will be opened and you will be as God knowing good and evil.
Verse 6 she took and ate, she gave to the man and he did eat. Man gave up everything for woman.
Verse 7 they knew good and evil. Tried to cover their nakedness.
Verse 8 they heard the voice of the Lord so they hid.
Verse 9 voice asked where art thou.
Verse 10 the man said he was afraid because he was naked.
Verse 11 voice asked who told him he was naked. God then gave man a chance to come clean. He asked did you eat what you shouldest not eat.
Verse 12 typical human blame someone else. He blamed it on God because God gave him the woman.
Verse 13 God asked what she had done. She blamed it on the Serpent.
Verse 14 God didn't ask the Serpent because he would have said it was Satan talking through me. Then He could have asked Satan and He would have said I was just doing what you allowed me to do, so it is your fault. This is one of my wild idea's.
God cursed the Serpent for having been used by Satan.
Verse 15 God then told Satan he would put emity between the seed of woman and him.
Verse 16 God said He would multiply her sorrow in childbirth.
Another wild idea. How can you multiply something unless it already exists?
Verse 17 the man was told he would eat of the knowledge of good and evil all the day of his life.
Verse 18 cursed with thorns and thistles.
Verse 19 man told he would have to work to eat.
Verse 20 Adam = mankind Eve = the first woman.
Verse 21 God made clothes for them.
Verse 22 God said man had become like Him and knew good and evil. Man could not be allowed to eat of the tree of life in that condition.
Verse 23 Therefore God kicked man out of His estate.
Verse 24 God set up a guard to keep the man from getting back in the garden to keep the way of the tree of life.
The next chapter 4:1 through 4:26 gives a little history of what then took place.
There is no mention of day's or night's.
There is no mention of water creatures.
God told the man the day he ate the fruit he would die. He did.
In my previous reply to this message I gave the scripture in Ezekiel where Satan was cast out of the mountain of God.
In Genesis 28:17 it says he was cast down to the ground. The word translated ground is the same word translated earth in Genesis 1:1.
Now as to what happened between Genesis 4:26 and Genesis 1:2 only God and the angels know. Because God does not tell us. I have some pretty wild ideas.
This day has passed and the man who ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil has died.
In Genesis 1:2 we find the earth in a mess. It was void and without form and covered with water.
With all the things that have taken place prior to this situation this could not be the form the earth was in Genesis 1:1.
How did it get in this condition? I have some pretty wild ideas.
But God does not tell us.
It was in a mess and God began to fix the problems.
The first thing needed on earth was some light. God took care of that problem in verse 3.
God then divided the light from the darkness.
It was evening time as the daylight part of this day was taken up between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:5.
So this evening and the next morning was the first day of Moses.
From this time on we have days and nights consisting of around 24 hour periods until we get to the seventh day. The evening and the morning of the seventh day has not arrived yet.
Verse 6, 7, and 8 the waters were divided with a firmament in between which God called heaven. The evening and morning was the second day of Moses.
In verse 9 God gathered water into one place, and let dry land appear.
In verse 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the water's He called seas.
In verse 11, & 12 God said let the earth bring forth vegetation from the seed on the ground it did. No creating involved.
Verse 13 says this was the third day of Moses.
Verse 14 & 15 God said let there be lights in the firmament to give light upon the earth. He did not create them.
Verse 16 God made two great lights. Word translated made means, caused to produce. God caused the great light to produce light and the lesser light to reflect that light.
Verse 17 God set them in the firmament, to give earth light.
Verse 18 to rule over day and night.
Verse 19 Says this was the fourth day of Moses.
Verse 20 Water creatures and fowl brought forth from water.
Verse 21 God did some creating here whales
Verse 22 Creatures told to be fruitful and multiply.
Verse 23 conclusion of the fifth day of Moses.
Verse 24 the earth brought forth the living creature after his kind.
Verse 25 God caused the creatures to produce after it's own kind.
Verse 26 God said let us make man in our image and likeness.
Verse 27 God created mankind in His image a male being and a female being.
Verse 28 God blessed them and told them to be fruitful and multiply.
Verse 29 Declared seed bearing fruit and herbs was for food.
Verse 30 The green herb was for food for all creatures.
Verse 31 This was the end of the sixth day of Moses.
Genesis 2:1 The heavens and the earth was finished.
Verse 2 gives us the morning of the seventh day. Which God took off from His creating work.
Verse 3 God blessed the seventh day. Because He rested from His creative work.
We are fast approaching the evening of that seventh day and the morning will bring a New Eternal Day with a New Heaven and a New Earth all restored back to the glory they had before the first man took the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil from his wife and ate it. Disobeying the only rule God had given him.
The generations of the man created in the Image of God begins in Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Not the day he formed man from the dust of the ground.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by autumnman, posted 07-05-2008 11:24 AM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by autumnman, posted 07-05-2008 11:38 PM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024