What is the SINGLE biggest caster of doubt on God's Word?

One question...

How does one claim to be a Christian and claim the theory of evolution to be fact? They seem to be opposing views.

 

Not if one comprehends that scripture was not written to be a science textbook. I can find no where in scripture that makes the claim. If it were, we'd have to ascribe to a flat earth, and a geocentric universe.

Believe me, I used to be a strict 4004bc YECist and a KJVOist to boot.

 

There many Christians including myself on this board who could be classified as Theistic Evolutionists. We have debates about this topic quite regularly.

There is the hidden Science Forum of BB.

Here are some recent debates.
Does teaching evolution harm Christianity?
Evolution and common genetics
The lie of evolution
Is Theistic Evolutionist an oxymoron?

 

I don't want to turn this thread into yet another C/E debate.

But I would like to reiterate my previous comment in regards to the OP, that hyperfundamentalism is the SINGLE biggest caster of doubt on God's Word?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/5861.html#000011

 

The biggest single caster of doubt is NOT evolution. Evolution is just a sub-category of it. It is the concept that 'all roads lead to God'. That business of 'your god is the same as my God' or any other way it might be stated. That is what lulls so many into thinking they are just fine with what they are believing. "The Bible is just another book" falls into this idea.

For a Christian, this road comes by way of the only temptation Satan has EVER had to use with everyone and anyone but Jesus. It is the same temptation he used with Eve:

Did God REALLY say?.....think for yourself....

Thinking for yourself is fine until it runs counter to God's explicit Word. Then it is wrong, pure and simple.

A word on the evolution issue: No, John, the Bible is not a science textbook BUT
1. It gives the parameters within which scientific truth may be found
and
2. Those scientific facts it presents are true.

 

Helen, I agree completely.

 

Helen, southern Oregon? I was raised in Dunsmuir, CA! Man I miss that area! ALl those wild Rainbows in the river ... brings back lots of memories!

 

Why is the science forum hidden? This would be laughable if it weren't so low-minded and pathetic.

Another poster mentioned hyper-fundamentalism as one of the "casters of doubt" on The Bible and I think this is a good example of that.

There's nothing like some good old Christian anti-intellectualism to bring on the ridicule.

 

For instance:

Leviticus 11:13-19 says that a bat is a bird.

Leviticus 11:20-21 speaks of four-legged insects

Leviticus 11:6 Says that rabbits chew the cud like ruminants.

We've got the science of the Bible and we don't need none of that fancy learnin'!

 

Folks, I didn't want to see this thread get turned into yet another C/E debate. But I do think that the thread so far is a good example of why I believe hyperfundamentalism to be the single biggest caster of doubt on God's Word? Few people are bothering to take the threat of hyperfundamentalism seriously, even on a thread about casters of doubt. I guess hyperfundamentalism is more prevalent than I had realized.

 

I wasn't around when it happened, but I believe the official reason was because it became too much of a pain to moderate, like most forums dedicated to controversial issues with strongly emotional differing opinions (ie, the C&A forum and the Bible Translations forum that was getting very KJVO centric)

 

For instance:

Leviticus 11:13-19 says that a bat is a bird.

Leviticus 11:20-21 speaks of four-legged insects

Leviticus 11:6 Says that rabbits chew the cud like ruminants.

We've got the science of the Bible and we don't need none of that fancy learnin'! </font>[/QUOTE]You sure came on spitting nails, didn't you?

First of all, I was the moderator of the cr/ev forum for several years. We ended up having to check EVERY post first, from both sides, because of the animosity and personal insults. It had nothing to do with who was right or wrong or any way that I felt or the administrators felt. It had to do with the fact that those participating could not remain courteous to one another. Finally, to be quite frank, I was exhausted. We were also planning to sell our home and move and I did not have time to babysit the forum anymore.

It was removed from Baptist Board not for any fundamentalism, which seems to be your automatic knee-jerk reaction, but because of attitudes like yours! They were on both sides, by the way...

Then, at the request of one or more people, a quiet forum was started as a private thing. I have checked in a few times, but am not interested in arguing the same old same old, such as what you presented in the quote I have here.

Which I will answer now.

We tend to be extremely ethnocentric and often cannot remember that other people defined and classified differently from the way that we do.

1. Animals were classified by the Hebrews and almost all ancient peoples I am aware of by locomotion. Thus bats and birds, because both flew, were in the same category. Flying reptiles would have been classed in the same category. Whales and dolphins would have been, and were considered, simply big fish. The fact of warm-blooded and cold-blooded or air-breathing or not where they were concerned did not matter to them as it does to us.

2. Flying creatures were classified into two categories. Two legged and more than two legged. Flying bats, birds, and reptiles were all two legged. More than two-legged was simply 'four legged' no matter how many legs were involved. It was a simply differentiation and that was all. This can also be seen in other cultures of the time. Thus insects, not being two legged, were four legged. Beetles were the same. If a centipede flew, it would have been the same!

3. Rabbits chewing the cud -- the entire point here is how you define cud. If you define it as food not completely digested and then sent around for another go, then yes, rabbits chew the cud. http://www.hopperhome.com/rabbit_digestion.htm It is only our ethnocentricity which refuses to admit this definition might be perfectly sufficient and simply more inclusive that being limited to ruminants.

In order to understand what people are saying, you have to understand more about them than just the way you are seeing them. Leviticus is perfectly sensible if you take the time and the humility to understand they classified things a little differently than we do. And in that classification system, they were just fine and perfectly right.

 

Nah, to be a BIG LIE, it has to be something not real obvious.
We have contraversies all the time about 'Christ not flesh' and
'evolution'. The best answer has to be something we accept and
hardly ever acknowledge.

In another forum i'm debating Security of the Believer,
also known as (AKA): OSAS = once saved, always saved.
The Devil uses insecurity of the believer to temp believers
off the right track. People who believe they are now lost
ACT LOST (and probably never got saved). But we are aware of
this problem and argue it all the time on BB.

So here is my candidate for the BIGGIE:

Some people say:
If you can find one error in the Bible, then you can't
trust the Bible at all. (I.E. one small error taints
the whole Bible).

If you can't find one error in the Bible, you ain't lookin'.
I've written e-sword.com half a dozen times pointing out errors
i've found in his versions of the Bible. Minor errors for sure,
but errors none the less.

The Devil uses this phony statement to lead folks astray.
Anybody with any sense can figure out which are the boo boos
and which aren't.

Are we supposed to rephrase the scripture to say this?

Nothing can seperate us from the Love of God which in
in Christ Jesus except stupid typos.

Are we supposed to think God is so weak that one little dyslexic
typist's error DESTROYS HIS HOLY WRITTEN WORD?

I've noticed God's Holy Written Word repeats the most important
subjects the most often. One of the most frequent subjects is
about a persons personal salvation provided through Jesus.

(this is off the top of my head, so I may miss a metaphors or two):

A saved person is:
1. saved from eternal hellfire
2. saved to do good works
3. born again
4. born into the family of God
5. adopted into the family of God
6. redeamed (this is a slavery term meaning 'bought back)
7. saved from the penalty of sin
8. saved to new life above
9. part of the Body of Christ
10. part of the Bride of Christ
11. cleansed from all sin
12. indwelt by the Holy Spirit
13. iInvited to the Wedding Supper of the Lamb

Can you see you can take half the elements from this list
and Salvation in Christ Jesus would still be worthwhile to seek?

No matter how many errors there are in the Bible:
Jesus saves.

Things like the meaning of the word 'day' in Genesis One
pale by comparision to God's Wonderful Salvation for us provided
gracefully through Messiah Yeshua.
I didn't get no INVITE to God's creation (I wasn't even
technically consulted ) BUT I have been invited over and over
to receive GOd's Salvation (personally for Ed) via the Blood of Jesus.

Revelation 22:17 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ )

Both the Spirit and the bride say , "Come!"
Anyone who hears should say, "Come!"
And the one who is thirsty should come.
Whoever desires should take the living water as a gift.

You weren't invited to come to God's Creation of the Universe.
But you are invited to come into God's special Salvation for
you in Jesus, the Christ/Messiah/Chosen One.

 

That's easy: hyperfundamentalism.

We Christians think that the biggest caster of doubt is on the outside. It is not. It is on the inside. Hyperfundamentalism is 10 times more dangerous than liberal religiionism. It is a cancer that eats away at the body of Christ from the inside out. It succeeds so well at casting doubt on God's Word that it causes outsiders to buy into that doubt.

... </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother JohnV -- Preach it!

The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism:

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

The hyper-fundamentals:

1. Anti-Bible (KJBO = King James Bible Only)
2. Anti-education (AKA: pro-ignorance)
3. Anti-success
4. Anti-female
5. Anti-alien (Hate of gay-boys, racism, etc.)

Typical statements made by the hyper-fundamentalists:
(note that the world calls them "fundies"
and we real fundamentalists have to bear this
hyperfundamentalist burden unjustly):

1. The KJB replaces the original language manuscripts as being God's word
2. Calling "seminary": "cemetery"
3. Jerry Falwell sold out to the Devil
4. mistreatment of women
5. Jews killed Christ

 

Helen!!!!

Any way you want to slice it, it boils down to:
Man says "X" billion years for humans to "develop" or "hatch" or "evolve"; you choose!

God says "after their own kind", in 6 days total!

Now, which are you going to believe, since both cannot be true?

 

JWI: //So, once again, if evolutionists are going to repeatedly
claim that creationists misinterpret the Bible, it is only right
that you show us the correct interpretation. //

OK, sounds reasonable.

1. I am required by the Holy Written Word of God to CHECK every
alleged quoted scripture to see if it is right. Please help God
help his servant by showing not only the citation (book, chapter, verse - which
you did - Thank You) but also the translation. Thank you for your help.

Here is the verses from a specified translation:

2Pe 1:20-21 (KJV 1611 Edition):

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture
is of any priuate Interpretation:
21 For the prophecie came not in olde time by
the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they
were moued by the holy Ghost.

2. I don't remember anybody here saying anything like "a matter of
private interpertation". Quite frankly this is just a 'strawman'.
Sorry we don't have time here to watch folks who don't know how to debate
try to trick others with strawman demolition derbys.

3. Your statement equating "private interpretation" and
"can be interpreted as a person chooses" shows a complete lack of
understanding of 2 Peter 1:20-21. So here is our example: a self-proclaimed
creationist has misinterpreted the Bible. BTW, note the real Bible has
a capital "I" in Interpretation. Do you know what that means?

4. The meaning of 2 Peter 1:20 would be easier if you used the same language
as you learned as a child, the same language common people use in common
situation today. Here is the verse said better:

2 Peter 1:20 (Better translation):
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture
is of any priuate application:

BTW the Greek term translation "Interpertation" in 1611 means the
same thing that "application" means now.

5. Here is the wrong understanding of 2 Peter 1:20:
Nobody is supposed to use the Scripture to apply it to their
daily lives.
Specific scriptures pertains only to specific individuals. This understanding is NON-BAPTIST.

6. Here is the right understanding of 2 Peter 1:20:
Nobody should think that the scripture written for all
pertains only to them. (This precludes things like 'Bible codes'
which are a form of idolatry.)

BTW, there is a Baptist Distinctive called 'the Doctrine of Soul Sufficentcy'.
The competent Soul is required to understand before God each scripture
and figure out their own application to their own life.
The Scriputre is given for all, and applied by each to their own life.

 

You sure came on spitting nails, didn't you?

[/QB][/QUOTE]

Yes, I did. Just keep in mind that this is merely an internet message board.

Helen makes a great point here that is quite humbling to me and that is simply that the Bible pre-dates Linnaeus' classification system. That is, if it flies, it's a bird. If it lives in the ocean, it's a fish, etc.

Hares are not ruminants, but it's not as though the Bible says, "Hares and cattle are ruminants". Helen's comment towards ethnocentrism is entirely accurate regarding my post.

I was reminded of how smug I myself become when others accuse the Bible of geocentrism and a "flat earth" mentality.

Thank you, Helen

-JF

 

Actually I think there are times when the non-believer thinks he is better than the Christian because of what he sees.

 

Excellent post.....

 

The Bible does not say the bat is a bird, it says the bat is a fowl. There is a difference. A fowl was any winged creature.

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Comment- Insects with wings were also called fowls. However, they were called fowls that "creep"

Lev 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon [all] four, [shall be] an abomination unto you.

Lev 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon [all] four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

Lev 11:22 [Even] these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

Lev 11:23 But all [other] flying creeping things, which have four feet, [shall be] an abomination unto you.

Comment- Yes, the Bible says these insects (creeping things)have four feet. And they do. But the Bible says they also have "legs" with which they leap. Legs is plural, which indicates at least two in number, so these creatures must have at least 6 appendages.

Do you really believe people that lived much of their life outdoors and even ate grasshoppers as part of their diet did not know that insects have 6 legs?

For people that supposedly claim to believe the Bible, you try hard to find mistakes in it.