Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 6:59 AM
24 online now:
(24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Why read the Bible literally: take two
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 306 (221061)
07-01-2005 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
07-01-2005 1:33 AM


Re: Faith
You say I MUST convince you of a ton of assumptions if I'm to "convince" you? Why am I required to "convince" you? Since when has that become the criterion for a well-argued point? That's setting the goalposts out in space somewhere.

Relax, Faith. I've been looking back at the original--the very original--start of this thread, and I realize that this whole thing was based on the assumption of the truth of Christianity. And when I say "me," I did not mean me personally. I meant "one who was arguing."

I got it now. However, even from a Christian prospective, what about the time that Jesus said he would return within "our" lifetime? Obviously that was not meant literally.

So I guess some of what He said is literal and some not.

And the way we decide which is not literal is whether it is realistic or not (Jonah) or whether it came true or not.

This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-01-2005 12:44 AM

This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-01-2005 12:46 AM

This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-01-2005 12:51 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 1:33 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 1:58 AM robinrohan has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 47 of 306 (221062)
07-01-2005 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 1:43 AM


Re: Faith
I got it now. However, even from a Christian prospective, what about the time that Jesus said he would return within "our" lifetime? Obviously that was not meant literally.

So I guess some of what He said is literal and some not.

There seems to be a big confusion about what "literal" means. Some things may be difficult to understand as written, but that's just the ordinary difficulty with context or how things are expressed, and can be resolved with more study. It's just not a matter of his meaning something ELSE, or something nonliteral, it's a matter of OUR understanding what he meant in the idioms in which he spoke, which are often unfamiliar to us. This happened on part I of this discussion when GDR raised a similar question about a supposed "literal" reading but it was really a matter of interpretation or understanding in context, not a matter of a literal or nonliteral reading at all.

And the way we decide which is not literal is whether it is realistic or not (Jonah) or whether it came true or not.

Yes, that seems to be the case. The problem with that ought to be pretty obvious. You will never learn what the Bible has to teach if you insist that it confirm only what you already believe. The Bible is ABOUT things that most people reject as unrealistic. When you come to believe it true, then you find yourself believing things you formerly rejected as unrealistic or impossible in the natural realm. You learn that God is real. You learn that miracles are true. You learn that if God is real there is no problem with the miracles. You are a typical doubting Thomas. He refused to believe the reports that Jesus had risen from the dead. He would not believe unless he saw, so Jesus allowed him to see. The rest of us must believe that what they are telling us is true, because they are honest, certainly not because the reports in any way appeal to our preexisting expectations about what is possible. There's a ton of evidence but it isn't likely to be the kind you are insisting on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 1:43 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 2:08 AM Faith has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 306 (221063)
07-01-2005 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
07-01-2005 1:58 AM


Re: Faith
There seems to be a big confusion about what "literal" means.

Indeed there is. But if Jesus says to his followers, "I will return in your lifetime," I suppose that is figurative, since He did not return in their lifetime.

But if he says something about the creation of the Earth according to Genesis, we are to suppose that is literal.

Any particular reason to say that the latter is literal, while the former is figurative? It is true of course that He did not return (literally), but on the other hand is there any reason to suppose that his idea of Genesis was not also figurative?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 1:58 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 2:58 AM robinrohan has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 49 of 306 (221079)
07-01-2005 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 2:08 AM


Re: Faith
Indeed there is. But if Jesus says to his followers, "I will return in your lifetime," I suppose that is figurative, since He did not return in their lifetime.

OK I couldn't remember the exact passage you were referring to. You are referring to his saying that "some standing there would not see death until [they] saw him coming in his kingdom," right?

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Luk 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

This is certainly not a matter of a literal-versus-figurative reading since what could it be figurative OF? Either they would see his kingdom come or they wouldn't, no? It does appear to be a matter of interpretation what it means, but there is some agreement that it means they would see the spread of the gospel into the world under God's power, the manifestation of that power being a big proof of the coming of the kingdom.

Some also refer to the very next scene, Jesus' appearance on the mount of transfiguration, attended by just a few of his disciples, which in a sense shows Jesus in His kingdom, with Moses and Elijah.

I think it also may imply a reference to those who saw his resurrection and his ascension, and saw the power of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Much later, John saw him as the ascended Lord which he reports at the beginning of Revelation.

Here are some commentaries on the passage:

28. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here--"some of those standing here."
which shall not taste of death, fill they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom--or, as in Mark ( Mar 9:1 ), "till they see the kingdom of God come with power"; or, as in Luke ( Luk 9:27 ), more simply still, "till they see the kingdom of God." The reference, beyond doubt, is to the firm establishment and victorious progress, in the lifetime of some then present, of that new kingdom of Christ, which was destined to work the greatest of all changes on this earth, and be the grand pledge of His final coming in glory.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1120198839-7436.html#38203

2.) The near approach of his kingdom in this world, v. 28. It was so near, that there were some attending him who should live to see it. As Simeon was assured that he should not see death till he had seen the Lords Christ come in the flesh; so some here are assured that they shall not taste death (death is a sensible thing, its terrors are seen, its bitterness is tasted) till they had seen the Lords Christ coming in his kingdom. At the end of time, he shall come in his Fathers glory; but now, in the fulness of time, he was to come in his own kingdom, his mediatorial kingdom. Some little specimen was given of his glory a few days after this, in his transfiguration (ch. 17:1); then he tried his robes. But this points at Christs coming by the pouring out of his Spirit, the planting of the gospel church, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the taking away of the place and nation of the Jews, who were the most bitter enemies to Christianity. Here was the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Many then present lived to see it, particularly John, who lived till after the destruction of Jerusalem, and saw Christianity planted in the world.

... It is spoken as a favour to those that should survive the present cloudy time, that they should see better days.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1120198948-89.html#83

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.'Wait,' you say, 'the disciples are all dead and Jesus' Kingdom hasn't come yet. Did Jesus make a mistake?'Stay tuned.The answer lies in Chapter 17 . . .

And the same interpretations are given for the Luke 9:27 version of the same thing:

Lastly, To encourage them in suffering for him, he assures them that the kingdom of God would now shortly be set up, notwithstanding the great opposition that was made to it, v. 27. "Though the second coming of the Son of man is at a great distance, the kingdom of God shall come in its power in the present age, while some here present are alive. They saw the kingdom of God when the Spirit was poured out, when the gospel was preached to all the world and nations were brought to Christ by it; they saw the kingdom of God triumph over the Gentile nations in their conversion, and over the Jewish nation in its destruction.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1120202574-3075.html#6

27. not taste of death fill they see the kingdom of God--"see it come with power" ( Mar 9:1 ); or see "the Son of man coming in His kingdom" ( Mat 16:28 ). The reference, beyond doubt, is to the firm establishment and victorious progress, in the lifetime of some then present, of that new Kingdom of Christ, which was destined to work the greatest of all changes on this earth, and be the grand pledge of His final coming in glory.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1120202658-7404.html#39640

But if he says something about the creation of the Earth according to Genesis, we are to suppose that is literal.

Any particular reason to say that the latter is literal, while the former is figurative? It is true of course that He did not return (literally), but on the other hand is there any reason to suppose that his idea of Genesis was not also figurative?

The former isn't figurative, it's a matter of interpretation concerning what Jesus meant, as shown above. He didn't refer to his return, He referred to the coming of His kingdom. Some also saw HIM ascended - Stephen, Paul, John.

About Genesis, all the evidences I've given are the reason. The one I would emphasize at the moment is that Jesus' work of redemption makes no sense without a literal Fall. His death in our place makes no sense except in the context of the literal entrance of death into the world as the consequence of sin, to restore us to the previous sinless condition. The Fall makes no sense as a metaphor if the Good News of the gospel is that the effects of the Fall were paid for by the real death of the Son of God. There must also be a real original first couple from whom we all inherit the propensity to sin. Referring to Jesus as the "second Adam" is just sort of cutesy unless there was a real first Adam, and all the ways Jesus IS that second Adam are meaningless without the first; and what does it mean that Jesus' is the firstborn of the "New Creation" if there wasn't a literal Old Creation and what would be the point of giving us a figurative Old Creation if He literally died in order to bring in the New? And Jesus' fulfillment of the prediction of the Seed of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent likewise becomes meaningless unless the serpent is real and his seduction of Eve is real, which is the whole reason for the need for our redemption. Etc.

This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 03:31 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 2:08 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 3:32 AM Faith has responded
 Message 53 by LinearAq, posted 07-01-2005 8:57 AM Faith has responded
 Message 56 by lfen, posted 07-01-2005 10:25 AM Faith has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 306 (221087)
07-01-2005 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
07-01-2005 2:58 AM


Re: Faith
It does appear to be a matter of interpretation what it means, but there is some agreement that it means they would see the spread of the gospel into the world under God's power, the manifestation of that power being a big proof of the coming of the kingdom.

That is a figurative interpretation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 2:58 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 3:55 AM robinrohan has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 51 of 306 (221092)
07-01-2005 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 3:32 AM


Re: Faith
That is a figurative interpretation.

I really do not see how you get that it is figurative. Seems to me that if you have a metaphor or a figure it has to be a metaphor or a figure OF something. Either the kingdom came or it didn't. I think what you mean is that it didn't come according to what you would expect it to mean, no? As written it does sort of sound like maybe it could refer to the second coming, but since the second coming didn't happen that soon, we know it has to refer to something else.

Also Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God as already present where He was:

"Mat 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Luk 10:11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

So it's not as if it has to refer to the Second Coming. Wherever Jesus or the Holy Spirit was, the Kingdom of God was. And in fact the Kingdom did come in God's power after Jesus ascended, as clearly attested in the Book of Acts with the many signs and miracles, healings etc. It is here now among His believers.

This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 05:41 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 3:32 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 9:50 AM Faith has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12445
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 52 of 306 (221104)
07-01-2005 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
06-30-2005 9:58 AM


Re: There is no reason to read the Bible literally.
Jar writes:

My Christian faith does not rest on whether or not the Bible is literally true or whether much of it is symbolic in nature.


What does your Christian faith rest on?
NIV writes:

Heb 11:1-3 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.


1)Would you agree that the universe was formed at Gods command, or do you see Him as a disinterested bystander?
2) Was the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ a necessary literal event?
3) Does God expect theological understanding and a personal relationship with us, or is He merely content to give us good philosophical guidence and then allow us to run along and evolve into better and better creatures? What role is He expected to play in the future of humanity? A bygone philosophical icon of moral example and direction or a Savior that will ultimately be needed by all of fallible humanity? I believe the latter. What about you, Jar?

This message has been edited by Phatboy, 07-01-2005 05:44 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 06-30-2005 9:58 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 07-01-2005 10:35 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 53 of 306 (221108)
07-01-2005 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
07-01-2005 2:58 AM


Re: Faith
Faith writes:

Here are some commentaries on the passage:

This is followed by blueletterbible commentaries that basically say the "kingdom of God come with power" is the establishment of the church.

Ok...since Jesus didn't come again in their lifetimes then there must be another explanation of what He meant. I can accept that because the wording of Jesus was ambiguous and open to interpretation.

Faith writes:

The one I would emphasize at the moment is that Jesus' work of redemption makes no sense without a literal Fall. His death in our place makes no sense except in the context of the literal entrance of death into the world as the consequence of sin, to restore us to the previous sinless condition.

This is where I start to lose understanding. Why must the Fall be literal?

Why couldn't the Fall have only ushered in the death of the soul rather than physical death? Maybe physical death has been around all along. I say this because Adam didn't physically die the day he ate the fruit.

quote:
Gen 2:17 (God is speaking) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. (emphasis mine)
So what died that day? Or was God mistaken?

Moreover, why couldn't the story of the Fall merely be a metaphor for the fact that all humans are created with the capacity to sin based on the combination of free will and selfishness? In fact, couldn't the extension of the consequences of Adam's sin to us be an explanation of our inheritance of these traits that cause us all to sin and need Christ's redeaming power?

Where does Christ ever say it was literal or historical fact?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 2:58 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 11:51 AM LinearAq has responded
 Message 102 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-02-2005 4:38 AM LinearAq has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 306 (221114)
07-01-2005 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
07-01-2005 3:55 AM


Who did Cain marry?
I really do not see how you get that it is figurative. Seems to me that if you have a metaphor or a figure it has to be a metaphor or a figure OF something.

The second coming is a metaphor for the establishment of the church.

What about the logical problems of Genesis such as who Cain married?

The Bible speaks as though there were all these other poeple around.
Says Cain to God:
"Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face I shall be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagbond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that findeth me shall slay me." Gen 4:14

Who is this "everyone"? It can only be his parents.

"And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."

What is the necessity of this mark? It's not like there are a lot of strangers out there.

This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-01-2005 08:51 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 3:55 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 12:04 PM robinrohan has responded
 Message 63 by Chiroptera, posted 07-01-2005 1:02 PM robinrohan has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 55 of 306 (221118)
07-01-2005 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
07-01-2005 12:53 AM


Re: There is no reason to read the Bible literally.
No I haven't missed such assertions.

Reading these as two separate chronological accounts is simply illiterate if you don't mind my saying so.

No I don't mind you saying that at all.

The one account is chronological, the other is focused on specifics of the creation for a particular purpose.

Sorry but they are both chronological. They each lay out a progression, each act leading to the next act. And they are mutually exclusive. If one happened then the other is wrong.

But Faith, you are free to interpret them anyway you want. It's your faith, Faith.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 12:53 AM Faith has not yet responded

lfen
Member (Idle past 2851 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 56 of 306 (221119)
07-01-2005 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
07-01-2005 2:58 AM


Re: Faith
if He literally died in order to bring in the New?

Who died? or better what died?

An egg, which Christians assert was never fertilized by a sperm, or at least a sperm from another human begins dividing and developing into an organism which continues developement to adulthood when it ceases functioning as a consequence of the trauma of crucifixion.

It is asserted that that organism was non functioning for three days although it is (at least prior to modern medical monitoring) possible for life signs to be undetectable for that period of time with a subsequent full recovery and then began functioning again with its heart beating, its cells metabolising and it began walking around but then in some fashion that physical body disappears from the face of the earth. That disappearance rather than showing a physical body isn't immortal is taken as proof that people will live forever somewhere else in a place called heaven.

What is death? The irreversible dissolution of the intergrity of the molecules and chemical processes of the cells that constitute the neccesary functioning of an organism?

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 2:58 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 12:10 PM lfen has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 57 of 306 (221120)
07-01-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Thugpreacha
07-01-2005 7:39 AM


Re: There is no reason to read the Bible literally.
1)Would you agree that the universe was formed at Gods command, or do you see Him as a disinterested bystander?

That depends on what you mean by "the universe was formed at Gods{sic} command"?

I believe that GOD created the universe. But I don't believe that includes predtermining every subsequent event. He did not create man IMHO as a desired end product.

2) Was the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ a necessary literal event?

Do I think that it has to be literal to have meaning? No.

The third question would make an interesting discussion but I think it's OT here.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-01-2005 7:39 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 58 of 306 (221143)
07-01-2005 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by LinearAq
07-01-2005 8:57 AM


Re: Faith
The one I would emphasize at the moment is that Jesus' work of redemption makes no sense without a literal Fall. His death in our place makes no sense except in the context of the literal entrance of death into the world as the consequence of sin, to restore us to the previous sinless condition.
=====
This is where I start to lose understanding. Why must the Fall be literal?

So that the redemption would be literal, so that there is a real human condition from which we are to be literally really redeemed. Otherwise "redemption" loses its meaning.

Why couldn't the Fall have only ushered in the death of the soul rather than physical death? Maybe physical death has been around all along. I say this because Adam didn't physically die the day he ate the fruit.

POint is he wouldn't have died at all if he hadn't eaten the fruit and death is the reason for Jesus' sacrifice so that way it all hangs together. Of course if you want to deny any part of Christian theology then it doesn't hang together, it just falls into a heap of meaningless nothing. But that's my very point. A literal reading supports the consistency of Christian theology. With a literal reading the Bible is an amazing interwoven tapestry of meaning.

Gen 2:17 (God is speaking) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. (emphasis mine)

So what died that day? Or was God mistaken?

This has been discussed to death elsewhere. The spirit died that day and actually so did the body begin to die but the death of the entire body did not occur for another 900 years or so. Death is a process, it started with the spirit and it includes diseases and weakenings and everything that takes a toll up to complete death of the whole organism. It happens to us a lot faster than it did to them.

Moreover, why couldn't the story of the Fall merely be a metaphor for the fact that all humans are created with the capacity to sin based on the combination of free will and selfishness? In fact, couldn't the extension of the consequences of Adam's sin to us be an explanation of our inheritance of these traits that cause us all to sin and need Christ's redeaming power?

Why metaphorize what is better understood as literal? It simply reduces the impact. It has a lot less meaning if He died for a mere metaphor of a Fall, and to be the second Adam based on a mere metaphor of a first Adam as opposed to a reality.

Where does Christ ever say it was literal or historical fact?

Many things are not said but are logical inferences from other parts of the Bible or in context.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by LinearAq, posted 07-01-2005 8:57 AM LinearAq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by LinearAq, posted 07-02-2005 12:08 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 59 of 306 (221146)
07-01-2005 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 9:50 AM


Re: Who did Cain marry?
I really do not see how you get that it is figurative. Seems to me that if you have a metaphor or a figure it has to be a metaphor or a figure OF something.

The second coming is a metaphor for the establishment of the church.

????? The second coming is going to be a real second coming. The church was really truly established by the power of God. I'm not following you.

What about the logical problems of Genesis such as who Cain married?

The Bible speaks as though there were all these other poeple around.
Says Cain to God:
"Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face I shall be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagbond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that findeth me shall slay me." Gen 4:14

Who is this "everyone"? It can only be his parents.

Why? The timing of the events is not given. Adam and Eve lived hundreds of years and kept having children. Their children also lived hundreds of years and had many children. In those days before sin had taken its toll to the extent it did over time, the genetic consequences of marrying a sibling were much less, but in a very short time the population grew quite large.

C. Cain and his descendants 1. (16-17) Cain moves away and marries

a. Where did Cain get his wife? Genesis 5:4 says that Adam had several sons and daughters; Cain obviously married his sister

b. Isn't marrying a sister sin according to Leviticus 18:9, 11; 20:17, and Deuteronomy 27:22 (which even prohibit the marrying of a half-sister)?

c. Here, necessity demanded that Adam's sons marry his daughters. And at this point, the "gene pool" of humanity was pure enough to allow close marriage without harm of inbreeding. But as a stream can get more polluted the further it gets from the source, there came a time when God decreed that there no longer be marriage between close relatives because of the danger of inbreeding

i. Even Abraham married his half-sister Sarah (Genesis 20:12); this was not prohibited by God even at this time. Marrying a brother or sister was not forbidden until God forbade it

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1120233639-1006.html

"And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."

What is the necessity of this mark? It's not like there are a lot of strangers out there.

When people live to be hundreds of years old and keep propagating there are a lot of strangers in the world very fast.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 9:50 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 12:30 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 60 of 306 (221149)
07-01-2005 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by lfen
07-01-2005 10:25 AM


Re: Faith
if He literally died in order to bring in the New?

Who died? or better what died?

An egg, which Christians assert was never fertilized by a sperm, or at least a sperm from another human begins dividing and developing into an organism which continues developement to adulthood when it ceases functioning as a consequence of the trauma of crucifixion.

God formed Jesus in Mary's womb just as He formed Adam out of the dust.

It is asserted that that organism was non functioning for three days although it is (at least prior to modern medical monitoring) possible for life signs to be undetectable for that period of time with a subsequent full recovery and then began functioning again with its heart beating, its cells metabolising and it began walking around but then in some fashion that physical body disappears from the face of the earth. That disappearance rather than showing a physical body isn't immortal is taken as proof that people will live forever somewhere else in a place called heaven.

Huh? I guess if you want to rewrite the Bible, go ahead, but don't impose your reading of it on Christian theology. This scenario has zip to do with what the Bible actually says happened.

What is death? The irreversible dissolution of the intergrity of the molecules and chemical processes of the cells that constitute the neccesary functioning of an organism?

lfen

Not if God intervenes to reverse the process, which is what Jesus' death made possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by lfen, posted 07-01-2005 10:25 AM lfen has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019