jaybird18c

Neither of which is its real purpose.

God...mostly due to the Great Deluge. Coconino Sandstone

As opposed to what exactly beowulf? You're either going to read a text and attempt to derive what the author intended to convey or you're going to impress on the text what you want it to say. You may not agree with what something says but that does not give you the right to distort what the author intended to say.

We're talking about God...and origins. Someone had to build your house. Someone had to cut the wood. The wood then had to grow. Taken back far enough, the matter for the wood had to come from somewhere (like all other matter). It had to be organized at the molecular level...and so on. I know who organized it. I know because design implies a designer. I also know because of the revelation of scripture...and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit informing my conscience. I don't claim all knowledge...but God does. So why aren't you an agnostic and not an atheist? Do you claim all knowledge?

So...are you now claiming agnosticism instead of atheism?

I'm just describing the grammatical-historical method of interpretation which is how even the Early Church Fathers interpreted Scripture. Somewhat different than the way you'd treat the Odyssey, I think (as you and most others would describe it; including me). There's also a whole lot more support for the biblical account making its comparison with the Odyssey kind of ridiculous.

No dude. You just treat it like you would honestly treat any other literary work. You treat something written as history...literally as a historical account...a poem literally as poetry...a metaphor literally as a descriptive device...etc.

For one to be an atheist, in the true sense of the term, he would have to claim to possess all knowledge (which is impossible). To definitively deny the possibility of God would mean that it could be proven. I admit that the contrary can't be proven airtight. But neither can you prove that God doesn't exist. Of course, I know you could then say the same could be said of the flying spaghetti monster. I would then say I am agnostic with regard to the FSM. Can you say the same with regard to God? I say you can't truly be an atheist. Then you might say that the proof is incumbent upon me because I declare that there is a God. But you make a declarative statement yourself in saying that there definitely is not. That also puts a burden of proof on you. Again unless you are going to claim agnosticism instead of atheism.

You neither understand nor were there. Ever. Now how could you possibly know that? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to infringe on your atheism.

Because I like to at least be understood even if not agreed with?

I'm sorry you feel that way. Opinions vary.

Can I understand what you just said literally as sarcastic?

In a sense, that's true. The Bible does have the property of perspecuity meaning that it is understandable even to an atheist. An atheist can read what it says and understand it even if he doesn't believe it. However, there is more to it than that. Simply giving a mental ascent to what the bible says isn't enough. In that sense, one must be enlightened to understand it. That is to say, understood with the intent of submitting to what it says. It is "spiritually understood." For example, John 11:35 reads "Jesus wept." (the shortest verse in the bible). You could survey a group of atheists in a room and they'd probably come up with the consensus that it means, Jesus was upset and cried. On the other hand, the verses that explain Jesus as the only way to salvation and why will not really make sense to them...because "the preaching of the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing." So, I completely understand the misunderstanding of and hostility toward what we're talking about. I used to be there.

Not really. It’s just way more in-depth than you’d like to make it seem. The bible is probably the most scrutinized book in history because of what’s at stake. Those topics can be found in several good systematic theology books. The one I had to read for a seminary class was “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith” by Dr. Robert L. Reymond. Because the creation event is over? ….and we can measure and accurately predict physical properties in the present? I can’t say with absolute certainty how things occurred in the beginning. That’s why it’s called a theory. But then, neither can you. Again…I see organization and I think…Organizer. I see design (e.g. DNA)…and I think….Designer. You must believe it all happened on its own…by chance. Either way…ultimately…you can’t prove it scientifically. Added: And that goes back to our presuppostitions...which influence all of our interpretations going forward.

No Billvon. The bible can be trusted literally. However, there obviously is a misunderstanding of what we mean by literal interpretation. A literal interpretation of the Bible does not mean that we, for instance in Psalm 93:1, believe that the Earth stands still. We have to understand the literary type and purpose. Psalm 93, according to Dr. John MacArthur, is “dedicated to celebrating God’s sovereign kingship over the world.” It “glorifies God’s eternal, universal kingdom which is providentially administered through His Son. Nothing is more powerful than the Lord, nothing is more steadfast than his reign; nothing is more sure than His revelation.” Psalm 93:1 is “an exclamation of the Lord’s universal reign over the earth from the time of creation and forever.” Literal interpretation means that the bible is to be read and understood in a plain and straightforward manner. It means that we read the text literally understanding what is meant to be conveyed by the original author to the original audience. It means that we read it with the understanding that historical narratives are literally that. In other places, there are metaphors and simile and are literally read as such. Poetry and songs are also included and are to be read as such. It doesn’t mean that they aren’t conveying truth. It just means that we take into consideration the literary style. Because we understand that the bible is to be read and interpreted literally and not allegorically, we also understand the creation story, for instance, as a historical narrative. It was written as a literal account of events, times, and genealogies.

We've discussed this a lot before Billvon. I KNOW you're smarter than that. I know you understand the progressive revelatory nature of the scriptures telling the very long story of God's chosen people and illustrating His plan of salvation for his people. You make reference to certain laws which I know...you know the difference between civil law (pertaining only to the Nation of Israel), ceremonial law (which was eventually fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ), and God's moral law (ten commandments; which apply to us today). I know...you know because we've discussed it. I know...you know the proper context which must be applied to the verses stating silence of women in church...that it is not a matter of male superiority...but one of differing roles...and Godly submission. I know that you know the Bible contains lots of literary forms one of which is poetry and metaphor as with Psalm 93:1. Of course you read it literally....it is literally poetry. Come on man...

That is a loaded question. One could go into detail and explain infallibility, authority, self-authentication, sufficiency, perspicuity, finality, reliability, trustworthiness, internal & external evidences...but simply put, it is the revealed word of God, written by men moved along by the Holy Spirit. That is a loaded assertion. All of which have been dealt with ad-nauseam. You guys really need to do some research and come up with some new material instead of just reading off the top 10 common objections.

I can't speak for the accuracy or inaccuracy of every theologian but the Bible can be trusted....literally.

I agree. However, I'd say we strive to understand how God created the universe by studying the universe. I don't disagree with them. I just don't think we can know exactly. I think they're in the ball park, however. I'm not prepared to make the assumptions you just made. It's got nothing to do with the timeframe of written language. You're showing your biased presuppositions. Don't worry. It's okay. At least, it's honest.

Not true. I just don't buy everything hook, line, and sinker...with anyone for that matter...Creationist or not. Neither should you. The conclusions you come up with based on the evidence we see is very much influenced by your presuppositions. My presuppositions are clear. You seem to deny yours. Not sure where you're going with that. I don't know exactly how old the Earth is. The Bible doesn't say exactly. It does seem to indicate that it's in the range of 10's of thousands of years versus billions of years, though. Sounds a lot like New Darwinian Evolutionary theory....or ignoring the possibility of the results of a global flood (as is recorded in the Bible), etc.

Psst... jakee... I believe the universe had a beginning. 15 billion years ago? No. I disagree with the length of time. Does Science Conflict With The Bible? by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Psst... jakee... I believe the universe had a beginning.

Recorded human history isn't that long. I guess you meant to say that constants could have changed during the course of time? I'd say yes. Even with the Big Bang Theory, the idea is that they were probably unified. We weren't there in the beginning and we’d be assuming things were the same based on what we see today. No. What you can extrapolate (and be sure of) from current observations are things you can observe, test, repeat, and falsify. Anything else is speculative. I share a lot of the evidence you do in that regard. Both Creation and The Big Bang describe a beginning. However, I wasn’t there. My foundation, which I know you don’t share, is not with the changing ideas of man but with the unchanging word of God (which is the way science used to be before man decided to elevate himself above God). “In the beginning, God created…”

Why would I reject observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation (operational science)? The only problem I have is with some of the “pseudo-science” of today which is built on speculation based on very biased secular presuppositions (historical science). Distant Starlight

Oh....winsor....I forgot you were there...