Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why read the Bible literally: take two
Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 306 (240485)
09-05-2005 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brian
06-27-2005 3:22 PM


Re: Tenatively Rejected
The reasons you can give for taking YOUR postings literally will give you some idea as to why the Bible should be taken literally most of the time. Ah, you say MOST of the time...well, if you posted a vision you had (in a trance, say) for us, a literal interpretation is unlikely to be a helpful one. If you were to use figures of speech like..."If I eat one more thing, I'm going to explode!", I would hope none of us would go looking for a bomb squad to send to your home to defuse you...yes, there are exceptions to taking things literally in ALL of our lives, not just the Bible...however, the rule is, it's literal unless the context or language used dictates otherwise. All this is taught in English (or any language) class, although I think most people have a rough idea of how to figure these things out without necessarily knowing all the technical terms involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 06-27-2005 3:22 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Nuggin, posted 09-05-2005 1:54 AM Steve8 has replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 306 (240486)
09-05-2005 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by lfen
07-05-2005 10:11 PM


Re: Bible as Empirical Word of God
Interesting post. Just needed some clarification...when you say you don't believe God has communicated to us thru any book...can I ask why not? I mean, is it because God CAN'T do that, he WOULDN'T do that or he HASN'T done that? If he CAN'T do it, why not? Did he tell you he wasn't capable? Or do you just believe he doesn't exist? I would ask those same last two questions for WOULDN'T and HASN'T, also. Not trying to be clever, just trying to determine what view of God you have (if any) and where it came from in the first place. That's all. I'm always intrigued by people who have views about God without subscribing to a holy book of any kind, I always want to know why they think what they believe has authority, at least for them. By the way, if you stated your view of God earlier, please just direct me to your former comment(s) with my apologies, I haven't had time to read all the comments on this thread just now. Past my bedtime lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by lfen, posted 07-05-2005 10:11 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by lfen, posted 09-05-2005 3:34 AM Steve8 has not replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 306 (240581)
09-05-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Nuggin
09-05-2005 1:54 AM


Re: Tenatively Rejected
Well, I think there may be some wiggle room for the statement 'of every animal'. Most creationists I know of, accept microevolution, i.e. evolution within a species, so it's quite possible that Noah could have taken one TYPE of every animal (i.e. one breed of dog, as opposed to two Labs, 2 Dobermans etc. - yes, I know these breeds probably were not around much in BC years, being mostly bred by man at a later date...but you get my point, I hope) and still had room for all the animals. The whole idea of 'species' is a fairly modern one, so it's hard to say what the Bible writers meant by that statement.
Re. God made man out of clay...can I ask WHY God couldn't have done that in the beginning?...our bodies do have the carbon elements that can be found in the ground today. Are you assuimg evolution to be true, therefore it didn't happen, or was there something about God that would make it impossible for him to do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Nuggin, posted 09-05-2005 1:54 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Brian, posted 09-05-2005 3:34 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 123 by Nuggin, posted 09-05-2005 5:48 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 124 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2005 6:53 PM Steve8 has not replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 306 (240739)
09-05-2005 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Brian
09-05-2005 3:34 PM


Re: Quite possible?
Boy, I'm amazed at how many replies I've had to my postings in 24 hours!!! Thinking maybe I should have stuck to one comment at a time now, instead of addressing multiple topics lol. The replies are so much faster than a thread at say your typical blog site, man!...bear with me, I'm knew to this type of site...
Believe it or not, there have been studies into this question about Noah's Ark and the animals. Here is a link below - Noah’s Ark | Answers in Genesis
Also, I was curious as to how you define a fairytale...I note that the former atheist turned Christian author C.S. Lewis, found that when comparing the Bible with other fairy stories and myths of the past, there were clear differences between the two which he mentions in his book "God In The Dock" - http://members.aol.com/thompsonja/cslewis.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Brian, posted 09-05-2005 3:34 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Phat, posted 09-06-2005 3:21 AM Steve8 has replied
 Message 132 by Nighttrain, posted 09-06-2005 6:09 AM Steve8 has replied
 Message 133 by Brian, posted 09-06-2005 9:33 AM Steve8 has replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 306 (240741)
09-05-2005 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Nuggin
09-05-2005 5:48 PM


Re: Tenatively Rejected
If human beings are indeed made in the image of God and nothing else in the universe is, not really unusual to see him create us somewhat differently than anything else, is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Nuggin, posted 09-05-2005 5:48 PM Nuggin has not replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 306 (240821)
09-06-2005 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Brian
09-06-2005 9:33 AM


Re: Quite possible?
In what way to you find AiG's scholarship very poor? (I realise that many evolutionists generally regard creationists as nutcases simply because they don't believe in evolution...I need more evidence to come to that conclusion). Re. links, I believe you gave me one the other day...why are some links ok and not others?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Brian, posted 09-06-2005 9:33 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by NosyNed, posted 09-06-2005 12:51 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 147 by Brian, posted 09-07-2005 4:38 AM Steve8 has replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 306 (240825)
09-06-2005 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Nighttrain
09-06-2005 6:09 AM


Re: Quite possible?
I have not heard him say that...of course, a narrative is a story...calling something a narrative does not say anything about it's truth or falsity. After all, there are true stories, false ones, and ones that have a mixture of the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Nighttrain, posted 09-06-2005 6:09 AM Nighttrain has not replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 306 (240827)
09-06-2005 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Phat
09-06-2005 3:21 AM


Re: Quite possible?
I'm sorry, your link does not appear to work. Brian the admin. already told me not to use links even though he sent one himself to me! So I'm waiting on his reply to explain the policy more. I'm new to a website like this. I ask for your patience!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Phat, posted 09-06-2005 3:21 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Rahvin, posted 09-06-2005 1:31 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 140 by AdminJar, posted 09-06-2005 2:50 PM Steve8 has replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 306 (240840)
09-06-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Rahvin
09-06-2005 1:31 PM


Re: Quite possible?
I gave him the link that was a specific answer to a specific question he asked...however, I can cut and paste if need be. I'm just not the fastest typewriter in the world lol, and the replies come in here thick and fast!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Rahvin, posted 09-06-2005 1:31 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by AdminJar, posted 09-06-2005 2:52 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 142 by Rahvin, posted 09-06-2005 3:12 PM Steve8 has replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 306 (240941)
09-06-2005 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by AdminJar
09-06-2005 2:50 PM


Re: On using links
Thanks for the tips.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by AdminJar, posted 09-06-2005 2:50 PM AdminJar has not replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 306 (240942)
09-06-2005 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by AdminJar
09-06-2005 2:52 PM


Re: Cut & Paste
Thanks for the tip.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by AdminJar, posted 09-06-2005 2:52 PM AdminJar has not replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 306 (240944)
09-06-2005 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Rahvin
09-06-2005 3:12 PM


Re: Quite possible?
Thanks for the advice re. typing...
Sorry if my link was not directly to the question I was trying to address...I had pasted it from my browser...not sure why it wasn't the exact page...anyway...
Re. change in the plates...you really think having the whole Earth completely covered with water would not affect the plates in significant ways?? Though I would certainly not argue that everything re. plate tectonics has been fully understood (I don't think even an evolutionist would say so either actually), I have read plenty to conclude creationists may be onto something...don't see any harm on everyone working from their own perspectives to see what comes up.
Either way, not sure anyone can be dogmatic about it at this point. More work to do yet on both sides to understand tectonics.
Re. mountain uplift, marine fossils have been found on Mt. Everest's peak so it seems to me anything's possible. Of course, you are assuming that it takes several billions of years worth of energy to make geologic changes necessary in a few thousand years...another assumption YEC's don't hold to... I have to say, the doctrine of uniformitarianism that evolutionists tend to believe, really does seem to blind them to other possibilities. It wouldn't be the first time evolutionists got their time estimates for things to happen wrong.
Re. the location for the animals, I don't think any creationist would seriously argue that the land masses, their flora and fauna, or even the climate would be the same pre-Flood vs. post-Flood. Perhaps there was only one land mass pre-Flood? So who knows what the distances involved were? There is another answer at the end of the article you linked for me that addresses your issue re. Koalas etc....surprised you missed it...actually I'm not really, as it assumes a creationist position which you don't hold to. That's one of the things I've learned about this debate as a former atheistic evolutionist myself...in order to understand the opposing camp's views, you must accept ALL of their presuppositions first (however temporarily or permanently)...only then can you see their logic...without that, you're always groping in the dark.
It has been proven (most recently in last Christmas' tsunami) that animals will tend to flee from areas where inclement weather is coming before the effects of weather can be felt by us. So this notion that at least two of each of the animals could not congregate in the same area of their own accord is a little ungenerous to animals. Not saying they knew where the Ark was, but that where the Ark was may have been the last place to be affected by the global change causing the Flood. That's not even bringing God into it, which would also be a possibility.
Re. the Epic of Gilgamesh...if you have two documents about a Flood...assuming they are both talking about the same event, where one describes a seaworthy vessel, the other one describes one which is not seaworthy...which one is more likely to have been written first?? On that basis, most historians would say the former because the other is probably a corrupt version of the first...the Biblical account is the one with a seaworthy vessel (the only one out of all of the world-wide Flood stories, so far as I know).
Re. animal kinds, as a creationist, I have never questioned microevolution (evolution within a 'kind' e.g. birds changing into other breeds of birds, dogs changing into other breeds of dogs), only macroevolution (evolution from one 'kind' to another i.e. reptiles to mammals etc.)... after all, in your quote there, ligers are still cats, wholphins are still aquatic mammals.
I suppose I could go on but as you have pointed out there are other threads for this topic, perhaps I should drop this here and pick it up elsewhere. It is a big topic in itself.
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 09-07-2005 11:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Rahvin, posted 09-06-2005 3:12 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Nighttrain, posted 09-07-2005 4:29 AM Steve8 has replied
 Message 148 by Rahvin, posted 09-07-2005 12:26 PM Steve8 has not replied
 Message 158 by Nuggin, posted 09-07-2005 2:05 PM Steve8 has replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 306 (241052)
09-07-2005 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Brian
09-07-2005 4:38 AM


Re: Quite possible?
Hi, Brian,
Thanks for the clarification re. links. I did provide the page with the specific answer to the question you had in your previous post, but for some reason, when others clicked on it, they just got the home page or something...not sure what happened but anyway, your point is taken.
Re. that AiG link, I think you've got to remember that that site is primarily for families with children, not scholars, so technical details are kept to a minimum...that's why AiG prints 2 magazines, one for families (Creation) and one for scholars (Technical Journal), the latter would be what you are looking for. In my study of the issues of the last 15 years, I have heard all these arguments from various critics over the years that are presented on the site, whether they be authors or just the ordinary person on the street. Certainly, Christians (especially younger ones) visiting this site will have met most if not all of the objections mentioned in the article and so would want to 'cut to the chase'. I think the point is to give possible answers to common questions/objections in a brief form, so non-scholars don't get lost in the verbiage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Brian, posted 09-07-2005 4:38 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Phat, posted 09-07-2005 1:39 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 156 by PaulK, posted 09-07-2005 1:46 PM Steve8 has not replied
 Message 157 by Brian, posted 09-07-2005 2:04 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 159 by CK, posted 09-07-2005 2:24 PM Steve8 has replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 306 (241059)
09-07-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Nighttrain
09-07-2005 4:29 AM


Re: Quite possible?
Nightrain,
I am answering questions that other evolutionists have asked me, not coming up with topics out of the blue...if you don't want to reply to my post, you don't have to...there are evolutionist arguments I have seen on this site that are 'old hat' to me too, if I'm too bored by them to answer I will ignore them. However, I guess for me, this is not about winning arguments per se, but for finding out what's really behind all this vitriol. 'Cause I suspect there is more to all the hot air than meets the eye. I thought by the title of this site EvC that it would be an equally balanced site on the issue but I'm coming to see that it's a site for evolutionists to debunk creationism. Oh, well, I'm not afraid of that. I will ignore the snide remark about the 'Dark side'...as a former atheist myself, been there, done that, as they say...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Nighttrain, posted 09-07-2005 4:29 AM Nighttrain has not replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 306 (241088)
09-07-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by CK
09-07-2005 2:24 PM


Re: Quite possible?
Hi, Charles,
I know of creationists who have been kicked out of scientific organisations because they didn't toe the party line re. evolution, despite not signing anything ahead of time. That is the reason why these creationist organisations have been formed, because the evolutionist ones do not give them the freedom to do work from their own perspective. Your evolutionary friends have actually created that problem! The bottom line is, if a private organisation wants to investigate something from a certain perspective it can, but I think the more scientists who are out there studying things in different orgainisations from all different perspectives, the more likely we are to make new discoveries...but the more that the evolutionist community takes a 'our way or the highway' approach, the more we close off the potential of finding new areas of discovery. I can't see how anyone who has studied the history of science can miss that. My creationist friends see it, hence these newer organisations. After all, many scientific discoveries were made before Darwin without any help from evolution. My point, is, live and let live, and we'll see what happens.
Re. the comment Brian made a day or two ago, about how annoying or hypocritical Christians can be...could it be that they remind him that despite many humanist claims to the contrary, that people aren't inherently good, that no matter how much we are taught to be good, sometimes we just aren't and that the Bible might be right that we are all sinners in need of saving? The question is, does that mean we must save ourselves (as most religions suggest, and that humanists tend to imply), or that only God can save us from our sins (as Christianity suggests)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by CK, posted 09-07-2005 2:24 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Nuggin, posted 09-07-2005 5:18 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 162 by CK, posted 09-07-2005 5:20 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 163 by Chiroptera, posted 09-07-2005 5:34 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 164 by CK, posted 09-07-2005 5:47 PM Steve8 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024