If God is good...

Amen well said, I agree Creationists should love to discuss and debate (I would rather use the word discuss I guess because well Im not the smartest person in the world and debating in a sense would require you to know the information by current knowledge and I always seem to need to do the research before I respond correctly. Hehe but I agree and It is true, If anyone has any problems written in the bible I am positive there you are misunderstanding, or trying to make it point to something rediculous like the world is flat because it says in the bible something about the 'circle of the earth' He didn't say the earth is a circle, any person if he went into outer space could look at the earth and say hey it is a circle by appearence but we know that by perceiving depth we can see that it is a sphere and we can go around it and see that it is a sphere. Many of the versus in the bible are written by appearence. Many people expect the bible to be a science book explaining why things are the way they like gravity or any scientific aspect of the universe.

"Ah the old "the Hebrew word actually means.." argument so tell me if they buggered that one up why do you lot hold the KJV to be infallible?"
--Im not exactly sure if the word actually means 'sphere', my argument would be from another perspective on this, but replying to your comment, we dont' hold the KJV to be infallable, though it isn't creation scienct to assume it, the bible is according to my 'beleif' infallable, not the KJV "Study to show thyself approved unto God".------------------

"no it doesn't...if it did,sphere is the word they would have used. That word existed in the time of King James. Besides,there are at least 7 place in the bible where the world is refered to as a flat,circular thing."
--Ok I think I will propose my argument whether the original Hebrew means sphere, circle, square, rectangle or octagon. The first thing, just to note, is that the word 'sphere' is located no where in the NIV, NLT, KJV, RSA, NIVFormatted, and WWEnglish(NewTestement), bible. These are the passages made by the biblical translations:NAS-
2 Corinthians 10:13 2 Corinthians 10 2 Corinthians 10:12-14 But we will not boast beyond our measure, but within the measure of the sphere which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach even as far as you.2 Corinthians 10:15 2 Corinthians 10 2 Corinthians 10:14-16 not boasting beyond our measure, that is, in other men's labors, but with the hope that as your faith grows, we will be, within our sphere, enlarged even more by you,2 Corinthians 10:16 2 Corinthians 10 2 Corinthians 10:15-17 so as to preach the gospel even to the regions beyond you, and not to boast in what has been accomplished in the sphere of another.NKJV-
2 Corinthians 10:13 2 Corinthians 10 2 Corinthians 10:12-14 We, however, will not boast beyond measure, but within the limits of the sphere which God appointed us--a sphere which especially includes you.2 Corinthians 10:15 2 Corinthians 10 2 Corinthians 10:14-16 not boasting of things beyond measure, that is, in other men's labors, but having hope, that as your faith is increased, we shall be greatly enlarged by you in our sphere,2 Corinthians 10:16 2 Corinthians 10 2 Corinthians 10:15-17 to preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's sphere of accomplishment.21st Century NKJV-
Amos 9:6 Amos 9 Amos 9:5-7 It is He that buildeth His spheres in the heaven, and hath founded His troop on the earth. He that calleth for the waters of the sea and poureth them out upon the face of the earth--the LORD is His name.In many of these passages when it does talk of a sphere it clearly states the earth is a sphere as well as other planets and stars in the heavens. Now the rest of my argument, concerning whether it litterally means circle, we must realise in this passage :Isaiah 40:22 Isaiah 40 Isaiah 40:21-23 - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."--This passage deals with 'the circle of the earth', now we must as the question, who is writting this? Was it God or was it a person? It was a person speaking of God sitting above the circle of the earth. Now since it is a person trying to attribute characteristics to the earth, we must take it from his point of view. Did he know the earth was a sphere? I doubt it that he was positive unless he was told something that I don't think was written in the bible. What do we see when we look accross the ocean? We don't see a perfectly flat horizon as we would see on a flat earth, we see it bending as if it were a circle of the horizon. Also if he somehow had a vision of the earth from space, we would also see a circle, as we only see 2 dementions, we perceive 3 dementions. And thus, 'the circle of the earth' is completely accurate using sphere or circle in context.------------------

"but you just made my point TC. If the person speaking of God was writing about him from his point of view and based of his knowledge of things,why then should we not assume that the entire Bible is nothing more than man's interpretations of the things he did not understand at that time?"
--You have it wrong, it is not an interperetation, it is an explination for our understanding of that they saw. I can show the same car crash from two perspectives, and give each persective to two people, they both saw the same thing, but they will describe it differently, to what they saw. God sees the world as a sphere, how do we see it? As I explained it above, we can only see it as a circle unless you are in a space shuttle and move around the earth. It can be fully correct and explained to the persons perspective."People refering to the water above the firmament (that infamous canopy)may have concluded that rain was actually water leaking from water located above the clouds. They may well have come to this conclusion due to lack of understanding of the concept of evaporation and condensation."
--You misunderstand again the implications of the bible as well as the vapor canopy theory."There isen't a single part of the Bible than cannot be interpreted as ignorant attempts to explained unknown phenomenon based on cultural bias present at the time."
--Such as? I am unaware of any part ignorantly explained of unknown phenomena.------------------

"well,one exemple is that in the Bible,lust is identified as coming from the heart. Today,we know for a fact that no single emotion originates from the heart but from the brain."
--Yes we know that, but he was not refering to the bodily organ as the heart, the heart is clearly portrayed as your soul, your character/personality and its actions, thus the heart."There is also a mention in the scripture about Jesus coming back to stand on the world's highest peek and behold the 4 corners of the world. First off,how many corners are there in a sphere and second,what montain could possible allow one standing on it to view AROUND the world."--ChristianAnswers - Read more - 'Four corners' of the earth - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c017.html

quote:

---

Perhaps no phrase in Scripture has been so controversial as the phrase, "the four corners of the earth." The word translated "corners," as in the phrase above, is the Hebrew word, KANAPH. Kanaph is translated in a variety of ways. However, it generally means extremity.
It is translated "borders" in Numbers 15:38. In Ezekiel 7:2 it is translated "four corners" and again in Isaiah 11:12 "four corners." Job 37:3 and 38:13 as "ends."

​

The Greek equivalent in Revelation 7:1 is gonia. The Greek meaning is perhaps more closely related to our modern divisions known as quadrants. Gonia literally means angles, or divisions. It is customary to divide a map into quadrants as shown by the four directions.

---

------------------

"But if you are willing to admit that some parts of the Bible are subject to interpretation,why are you not willing to admit that ALL of it is then subject to interpretation. How decides what part of the Bible is an interpretation and which part is to ba taken literaly?"
--Did God say it or did a man say it? that it Literal to Interperetation. But the hebrew words as was explained can be different words but mean the same thing. Such things as this passage are obvious when looked at carefully "Study to show thyself approved unto God".------------------

"God can't be good. Why create a hell for unbelievers? "
--Hell was created for Satan and his angels, you should actually read that book be for it is critisized. It is your assertion which is absurd."A simpler less drawn out answer to the question "Is god good?"would be "NO, because doesn't exist. He is a myth. In the same category as Zeus. So the question is non-sensical. Ask me something that makes sense."
--Really? I wasn't aware that God was disproven! Wouldn't happen to have that kind of data/information available would you? I didn't think you would...------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-17-2002]

2 Peter 2:4 - For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[1] putting them into gloomy dungeons[2] to be held for judgment.--Find me a verse in the bible where you can replace 'angels' with 'Gods Creation'(in the context of humans) and you'll be getting somewhere. Also, for those who say that they have to see God to believe it, is irrational, and if there is no other way, it is ignorant.
--Furthermore, John seemingly is unable to differentiate the difference between direct and indirect evidence. And I addressed you rightly, just be weary of the magnitude of your confidence in your assertions. Not only will you then sound some-what open-minded, you will also give yourself some lee-way in your credibility.-------------------

A good comparable, is the ToE, we did not see it happen, we only have indirect evidence of it. Not direct, contrary to popular belief, you did not observe any single operation or process which controlled the evolution of life and the earth. What we do have for Evolution is indirect evidence. We look at the earth and piece together its characteristics and the findings, patterns and ordered observations. We find that it is reasonable to believe that some process has ordered the fossil record, and some process has geodynamically churned our Earth. This obviously requires some degree of faith no matter where it is taken, no matter how obvious you may think it is because this is irrelevant to the question of indirect vs. direct evidence. This is my reasoning by which my assertion that if you have to see God to believe it, that it is irrational, is supported. My reasoning for the latter (and if there is no other way, it is ignorant), is that if you are denying the possibility of indirect evidence. Also, I know of absolutely nothing you would learn in your physics, chemistry, calculus, or biology class that should be ignored if you are a Christian.------------------