Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
71 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (5 members, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,324 Year: 4,436/6,534 Month: 650/900 Week: 174/182 Day: 7/47 Hour: 3/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noahs Flood
Percy
Member
Posts: 20770
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 61 of 100 (562507)
05-29-2010 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Flyer75
05-29-2010 10:38 AM


Flyer75 writes:

Just one small point I'll make and I'll address your other evidences to this as you post them: If, as Genesis states, God gave Noah 120 years to prepare a monstrous "boat" for this event, did Noah waste is time doing so??? Wouldn't the average man of any sort of intelligence just gathered his belongings and walked away, like to Asia or somewhere, instead of building a boat to float around on during a localized flood????

And why would Noah have needed such a large boat if he only had to save species indigenous to only the local region? He wouldn't have needed to save elephants or dinosaurs or giraffes or kangaroos or squirrels or cattle and all that.

And if the flood was local then since people everywhere else around the globe were spared they must not have been evil. Presumably God was aware of the rest of the world, so why does the Bible describe God as looking down on the world and seeing Noah as the only good man left?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 10:38 AM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 1:06 PM Percy has seen this message

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2209
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 62 of 100 (562510)
05-29-2010 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by greentwiga
05-29-2010 10:06 AM


Re: A flood of flood mythes.
Any evidence of a mega tsunami ever hitting the fertile crescent?


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by greentwiga, posted 05-29-2010 10:06 AM greentwiga has taken no action

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 1662 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 63 of 100 (562512)
05-29-2010 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
05-29-2010 11:06 AM


Very good points Percy which I was going to bring up later...lol.

I have a hard time understanding TEs. Honestly, I can understand where an atheist is coming from better then I can OEC or theistic evolutionists. Their reasoning makes zero sense. They pick and chose what they wish to believe out of the bible. The atheist doesn't believe it....period. The OEC for some reason feels the need to completely rewrite the book of Genesis to conform to modern day (literally just the last 200 years) standards.

Here's another point to make in the literal global flood argument. God promised to never wipe out the earth again with water....so if the flood was only local, is he lying when thousands die every year in local floods????


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 05-29-2010 11:06 AM Percy has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2010 1:22 PM Flyer75 has taken no action
 Message 65 by Huntard, posted 05-29-2010 1:29 PM Flyer75 has replied
 Message 66 by Granny Magda, posted 05-29-2010 1:36 PM Flyer75 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 64 of 100 (562513)
05-29-2010 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Flyer75
05-29-2010 1:06 PM


I don't see a lot of difference between twisting the Bible to try to make myths fit the facts and twisting the Bible to "explain" contradictions" or make prophecies "successful".

It seems that nobody is able to believe that the Bible is entirely true without misrepresenting it in some way. Which pretty much proves that it isn't entirely true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 1:06 PM Flyer75 has taken no action

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1534 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 65 of 100 (562514)
05-29-2010 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Flyer75
05-29-2010 1:06 PM


Flyer75 writes:

They pick and chose what they wish to believe out of the bible.


Well.... So do you really. Or are you going to tell me you follow every rule that's in there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 1:06 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 1:36 PM Huntard has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 66 of 100 (562515)
05-29-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Flyer75
05-29-2010 1:06 PM


Believing the Bible
Hi Flyer,

I have a hard time understanding TEs. Honestly, I can understand where an atheist is coming from better then I can OEC or theistic evolutionists. Their reasoning makes zero sense. They pick and chose what they wish to believe out of the bible. The atheist doesn't believe it....period.

This may be a slight digression, but I just want to address this quickly.

Speaking as an atheist, I don't quite see it this way. I am perfectly willing to believe the Bible where it touches upon verifiable history. To my way of looking at things, the Bible is just one historical source among many. I do not see it as being an especially reliable source, but I doubt very much that it is completely fictional. I just need a little outside verification from independent sources before I take the Bible's word for something. There is too much in there that is fantastical or clearly fictional to rely on the Bible alone as a historical source.

Having said that, there are some Bible stories that really defy belief and stand contrary to the evidence. We know for certain that there was no worldwide flood. The evidence against it is simply too great. This is why OECs take the position they do; they know that there was no flood, but they simply cannot abide the idea that the Bible could be wrong about something. Therefore the interpretation must be changed, to better fit the evidence. I agree with you that in taking the local flood position, OECs are re-interpreting the text. The story clearly describes a worldwide flood. The tricky bit for Christians is reconciling this with the fact that no such flood ever occurred.

Personally, I don't think it really matters what the details of the flood event were supposed to have been. The flood myth exists to tell a mythic story; that of God's covenant with man. This is its primary purpose. The specifics of the event aren't the important bit and to get caught up in disputes with geologists over such minor points of belief to miss the point. For all we know, the story's authors might never have intended it to have been taken literally at all. I suspect you'll find that many theistic evolutionists tend toward this view.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 1:06 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 1:43 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 1662 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 67 of 100 (562516)
05-29-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Huntard
05-29-2010 1:29 PM


Well.... So do you really. Or are you going to tell me you follow every rule that's in there?

Can you give me an example Huntard? I assume you mean something to the effect of one killing their children when they disobey?

As you probably know, we as Christians, no longer live under Israelite OT law.

So, yes, I violate those laws all the time, such as a tatoo and the fact that I shave my beard.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Huntard, posted 05-29-2010 1:29 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Huntard, posted 05-29-2010 1:59 PM Flyer75 has replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 1662 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 68 of 100 (562517)
05-29-2010 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Granny Magda
05-29-2010 1:36 PM


Re: Believing the Bible
Having said that, there are some Bible stories that really defy belief and stand contrary to the evidence. We know for certain that there was no worldwide flood. The evidence against it is simply too great. This is why OECs take the position they do; they know that there was no flood, but they simply cannot abide the idea that the Bible could be wrong about something.

But here's the difference between you and OEC. You probably, in fact I know you don't, accept Christ's resurrection. I can live with that. But why would someone pick and choose what is real in the Bible if one wants to follow Christ? I have actually heard TE say that the miracles, such as the casting out of demons in the NT, were nothing but natural sicknesses that people had. Now, if an atheist says that, so be it, they have a reason to say that. What reason does a supposed Christian have to say about that? If Christ was incapable of casting out demons or turning water into wine, then he surely was not capable of raising himself from the dead, was he? I'm not arguing this to PROVE anything to an atheist. I'm arguing it against TE or OEC.

Paul himself in the NT, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, addressed the global destruction of Noah's flood.

Percy, who I assume is not a follower of the Christian religion, hit the nail on the head really. Anybody who just picks up the bible will see that it was a global flood that is talked about in the OT and in the NT. The point is, a TE claims Scripture, but then doesn't believe what's in it.

The OEC or TE have the NT has a serious problem for their argument.

Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Granny Magda, posted 05-29-2010 1:36 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Granny Magda, posted 05-29-2010 2:01 PM Flyer75 has taken no action
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2010 3:07 PM Flyer75 has taken no action
 Message 79 by glowby, posted 05-31-2010 11:05 PM Flyer75 has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1534 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 69 of 100 (562518)
05-29-2010 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Flyer75
05-29-2010 1:36 PM


Flyer75 writes:

Can you give me an example Huntard? I assume you mean something to the effect of one killing their children when they disobey?

As you probably know, we as Christians, no longer live under Israelite OT law.

So, yes, I violate those laws all the time, such as a tatoo and the fact that I shave my beard.


Ok, then you don't have to follow the ten commandments either. They're part of the old law as well. Yet strangely, I always get hit up with them when discussing morality with a Christian. Since you don't think you should follow the OT law, cast out the ten commandments as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 1:36 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 4:10 PM Huntard has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 70 of 100 (562519)
05-29-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Flyer75
05-29-2010 1:43 PM


Re: Believing the Bible
But here's the difference between you and OEC. You probably, in fact I know you don't, accept Christ's resurrection.

Sure. I see no reason to accept accounts of supernatural events in general.

But why would someone pick and choose what is real in the Bible if one wants to follow Christ?

Perhaps because they thought that, divine or not, whether 100% historically accurate or not, his teachings were especially valuable. Personally, that doesn't quite cut the mustard for me. To be fair, you would be better served by an answer from a TE.

Percy, who I assume is not a follower of the Christian religion, hit the nail on the head really.

Yeah, he has a knack for that.

The point is, a TE claims Scripture, but then doesn't believe what's in it.

In my experience, TEs and other moderate Christians cite scripture in a slightly different way to creationists, literalists and so on. With moderate Christians, scripture is more likely to be discussed in terms of the author's intent or it's allegorical content. With creationists, there seems to be a more... proscriptive view of scripture. Creationist members here at EvC typically show a great deal more confidence in their scriptural interpretations than TEs.

Basically, I think that moderate Christians are less constrained by the idea that the Bible's word is law. I think this can only be a good thing.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 1:43 PM Flyer75 has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 71 of 100 (562520)
05-29-2010 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Flyer75
05-29-2010 1:43 PM


Re: Believing the Bible
quote:

But here's the difference between you and OEC. You probably, in fact I know you don't, accept Christ's resurrection. I can live with that. But why would someone pick and choose what is real in the Bible if one wants to follow Christ?

You clearly don't understand what greentwiga is doing. He's just trying to interpret the Bible to fit with the facts. And I have no doubt that you do much the same thing in interpreting the Bible to fit with your beliefs.

quote:

I have actually heard TE say that the miracles, such as the casting out of demons in the NT, were nothing but natural sicknesses that people had. Now, if an atheist says that, so be it, they have a reason to say that. What reason does a supposed Christian have to say about that? If Christ was incapable of casting out demons or turning water into wine, then he surely was not capable of raising himself from the dead, was he?

Isn't a miraculous cure of a natural illness still miraculous ? And if mental illness is not caused by demons now, why believe that it used to be ? That's not denying miracles - that's just not believing that mental illness is caused by demons. How can you hope to argue against their view when you refuse to even recognise that instantly curing a mental illness would be a miracle ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 1:43 PM Flyer75 has taken no action

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 1662 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 72 of 100 (562523)
05-29-2010 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Huntard
05-29-2010 1:59 PM


Ok, then you don't have to follow the ten commandments either. They're part of the old law as well. Yet strangely, I always get hit up with them when discussing morality with a Christian. Since you don't think you should follow the OT law, cast out the ten commandments as well.

One, some of the ten commandments are actual laws that society has inacted itself for us to follow, so yes, I still follow those.

Thou shalt not steal, murder, ect.

Two, the others not addressed in our actual laws are addressed by Christ himself in his teachings in the NT and are still to be followed by Christians today. Thou shall not covet, commit adultery, ect...

I'm not sure what this proves though....we've gotten off the beaten path quickly here. There is a difference (and theologians of all stripes will agree here) in the Law and historical facts laid out by Paul himself in the NT. I fail to see the correlation between OT Israelite covenant law, completely wiped out by the death and resurrection of Christ, and historical events that are attested to in the NT by Christ and Paul more then once (such as a global flood).

Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Huntard, posted 05-29-2010 1:59 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Asking, posted 05-29-2010 4:49 PM Flyer75 has taken no action
 Message 75 by Huntard, posted 05-30-2010 4:49 AM Flyer75 has replied

  
Asking
Junior Member (Idle past 4277 days)
Posts: 19
Joined: 05-19-2010


(1)
Message 73 of 100 (562524)
05-29-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Flyer75
05-29-2010 4:10 PM


Thinking on it religion has two techniques it uses to ensure it stays tied into the issue of morals and ethics in society in order to sustain its sense of self-importance and influence on society.

1) The ability of religion to impose its views on society

And

2) The ability of a religion to adapt to changes in a societies morals

Looking at the various religious belief systems the first of these techniques is by far the prefered means and can be extremely sucesful as it taps into peoples vulnerability fo childhood indoctrination and peoples willingness to cave in to peer pressure, or at the very least suspend their skepticism. It also makes good use of oppression through mental and physical assaults on individuals who deviate from what that faith considers acceptable behaviour. Even better their brain-washed masses are enthusiastic (At least those on the top of the pile) to dish out punishment as they've been deluded into thinking that they'll get some kind of reward when they die.

The second technique seems to be adopted by the more benign and englightened (I use this term in a relative sense) religions who have lost their iron-grip of society and instead must bring their beliefs in line with that of the majority of society. Take the CoE's stance on homosexuality and women clergy which has been softening (Although not across the board) over the last few decades. In some ways this is good but in others its bad as it also means that such flexiable religions can adopt the most heinous beliefs simply to appease their followers.

There is also a major problem with religions claiming that they are the source of morals and smugley pointing to their holy books rules (Or more commonly a select few of the more humans ones) as proof of this. Not only is this a rediculous claim but its also plagarism as religion certainly didn't invent morals. Morals are part of our behavioural evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 4:10 PM Flyer75 has taken no action

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3135 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 74 of 100 (562534)
05-30-2010 12:36 AM


When Worlds Collide
I'm still reviewing the Burckle Crater material introduced by Mr. Green in Message 58. Any expert insights will be greatly appreciated. There's a claim that the impact was around 2800 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burckle_Crater

Burckle Crater is an undersea crater the Holocene Impact Working Group consider likely to have been formed by a very large scale and relatively recent (c. 2800-3000 BC) comet or meteorite impact event. It is estimated to be about 30 km (18 mi) in diameter [1], hence about 25 times larger than Meteor Crater.

It is located to the east of Madagascar and west of Western Australia in the southern Indian ocean. Its position was determined in 2006 by the same group using evidence of its existence from prehistoric chevron dune formations in Australia and Madagascar that allowed them to triangulate its location. But the theory that these chevron dunes are due to tsunamis has been challenged by geologist Jody Bourgeois; using a computer model to simulate a tsunami, she believes the structures are more consistent with aeolian processes.

This last bit I've bolded seems faulty to me, at first. They used their chevrons in 2006 to triangulate a location, checked that location, found a crater. Sounds like science at work, yes? Then later someone is saying Oh those chevrons aren't even from a tsunami though. If so, why do they triangulate a huge crater? Unless the guys doing the work cheated somehow, know about the crater ahead of time, and even then the details elude me. At first glance it looks like their hypothesis is going well.

Then I look at who they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Impact_Working_Group

The Holocene Impact Working Group is a group of scientists from Australia, France, Ireland, Russia and the USA who hypothesize that meteorite impacts on Earth are more common than previously supposed.

The group posits one large impact (equivalent to a 10-megaton bomb) every 1,000 years. This estimate is based on evidence of five to ten large impact events in the last 10,000 years. Satellite observations suggest the presence of many recent impact craters and landforms such as chevrons which are thought to have been caused by megatsunamis. The chevrons often point in the direction of specific impact craters, the supposition being that the chevrons were deposited by tsunamis originating from the impacts which formed those craters.

A prime example the group cites is the impact event named Burckle crater located off the coasts of Australia and Madagascar.

Burckle is their headline, to support their main theory, that we are getting whacked hard by rocks. Their theory isn't just getting sniffed at over aeolian chevrons, after all.

The group states that their hypothesis is likely to be controversial: "I wouldn't expect 99.9 per cent of (the scientific community) to agree with us"[1] Their work is controversial because it contradicts much of what is understood about impacts and tsunamis.

So then I started looking into where their date comes from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burckle_Crater#Formation

Burckle Crater has not yet been dated by radiometric analysis of its sediments. The Holocene Impact Working Group think that it was created about 5,000 years ago (c. 2800-3000 BC) during the Holocene epoch when a comet impacted in the ocean, and that enormous megatsunamis created the dune formations which later allowed the crater to be pin-pointed.

That part I bolded, that seems critical to me. Where exactly does the date come from then? Who are these guys, and what do they do for a living?

http://archaeology.about.com/...atechange/a/masse_king_2.htm

The Masse brothers found that the destruction myths almost always described one or more of four phenomena--a great flood, a world fire, the falling of the sky, and a great darkness. When two or more of these phenomena were described by myths in the same culture, they fell into a consistent sequence. At least in the Gran Chaco, the flood was earliest, then the fire, and more recently the falling sky and the darkness. Their analysis suggested that the last two events--falling sky and great darkness--reflect aspects of volcanic eruptions. The world fire and great flood myths are different.

I know, I know, you have seen the Velikovsky data before. Now you are seeing it again. Bear with me, it's for a good cause.

http://archaeology.about.com/...atechange/a/masse_king_3.htm

Sixteen of the myths Masse examined describe when the flood storm occurred in terms of seasonal indicators. Fourteen myths are from Northern Hemisphere groups, and place the event in the spring. The one from the Southern Hemisphere places it in the fall--that is, spring north of the equator. Seven stories give the time in terms of lunar phase--six at the time of the full Moon, another two days later. Stories from Africa and South America say it happened at the time of a lunar eclipse, which can only occur when the Moon is full. A 4th century BC Babylonian account specifies a full Moon in late April or early May.

Chinese sources recount how the cosmic monster Gong Gong knocked over a pillar of heaven and caused flooding toward the end of the reign of Empress Nu Wa, around 2810 BC. The 3rd century BC Egyptian historian Manetho says there was an "immense disaster" (but doesn't say what kind) during the reign of the pharaoh Semerkhet, around 2800 BC. The tomb of Semerkhet's successor, Qa'a, was built of poorly dried mud bricks and timbers showing unusual decay; the following pharaohs of the second dynasty relocated the royal cemetery to higher ground. Masse's analysis of astrological references in multiple myths from the Middle East, India and China--describing planetary conjunctions associated with the flood storm, whose actual times of occurrence can be reconstructed using contemporary astronomy software--leads him to conclude that the event happened on or about May 10, 2807 BC.

Are you starting to sweat yet? Can you feel it coming?

Plotting the distribution of great flood myths together with specific reported phenomena like directions from which great winds blew or tsunamis came, Masse finds that the most efficient way to account for them is by positing a very large comet impact in the central or southern Indian Ocean. This might not account very well for flood myths in the Americas, but Masse thinks that flooding there could have resulted from partial disintegration of the incoming comet, with two or more pieces falling on different parts of the earth over a period of hours or days. Some of the myths speak of multiple events happening in close succession. But the really big impact, he thinks, the most lethal of the bunch, occurred somewhere south of Madagascar.

Where, it turns out, there is a possible impact crater on the sea floor 1500 kilometers southeast of Madagascar. Named Burckle Crater and discovered only recently by Masse's colleague Dallas Abbott from Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, it is a little under 30 km in diameter and is visible on bathymetric maps. Stratigraphic cores taken near there suggest that it is an impact crater, but are not definitive. The Burckle Crater needs more study, but it is 3800 meters deep, so it's not an easy place to explore. More readily accessible is the southern coast of Madagascar where recently studied chevron-shaped dune deposits of potential tunamic origin may be indicative of giant waves more than 200 meters in height. Masse and Abbott have joined together with more than 25 other scientists to form the "Holocene Impact Working Group," to better explore Burckle Crater, Madagascar, and other locations bearing potential Holocene physical evidence of impact.

Catastrophic. Magic. Marketing. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.


  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1534 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 75 of 100 (562535)
05-30-2010 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Flyer75
05-29-2010 4:10 PM


Flyer75 writes:

One, some of the ten commandments are actual laws that society has inacted itself for us to follow, so yes, I still follow those.

Thou shalt not steal, murder, ect.


Ok, that's two, where are the other eight? Can we chuck them out safely? Thou shalt not bear false witness? Isn't in the law. Thou shalt not have any other gods before me? Not there either. Can we safely just shrug our shoulders and say: "Ah well, they're the old law anyway, they don't matter?

Two, the others not addressed in our actual laws are addressed by Christ himself in his teachings in the NT and are still to be followed by Christians today. Thou shall not covet, commit adultery, ect...

Well, he doesn't mention them all, does he? Also he says this:

quote:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So, according to Jesus, the old law still applies, and whosoever breaks it is in for a big surprise when he/she gets to the pearly gates.

So, what is it, do the old laws still apply, or only the ones that were made into actual laws (which is two out of I don't know how many)? And why, seeing as Jesus clearly said we should uphold them all?

I'm not sure what this proves though....we've gotten off the beaten path quickly here. There is a difference (and theologians of all stripes will agree here) in the Law and historical facts laid out by Paul himself in the NT. I fail to see the correlation between OT Israelite covenant law, completely wiped out by the death and resurrection of Christ, and historical events that are attested to in the NT by Christ and Paul more then once (such as a global flood).

Well, it was just to show that you were also picking and choosing from the bible, everyone is. Now, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, there's stuff in there that's really worth picking up, but nobody can say they live according to gods laws nowadays, they pick and choose what suits their fancy, and run with that, meanwhile telling everybody else how they are sinners because they don't follow "god's laws" (not saying you are like this, there are people like this though, care to join me in stopping them? )

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : After 1 reply, got "off-topic" banner up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 4:10 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Flyer75, posted 05-31-2010 10:06 PM Huntard has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022