Do you believe that there has been millions and millions of years?

[Anthony]

I say it doesn't matter which way God created what we see.

This is a turf war between those who think they see clearest.

There are those who just don't like scientists and what they do, and they respond in kind with their version because they don't like religionists and what we do.

What doesn't fit is Prophesy; nothing in science explains it.
However given time scientists could codify this super-natural phenomenon - and the lesser scientists would leap on it as "proof" that religion is wrong.

Science is creation in a court of law, subject to strict rules of evidence and nothing more - but there is no judge behind the bench.

My problem with science is that it is the province of fallible men, and in their hands science could destroy the world.
Just as there is bad religion and good religion, there is good science and bad science, and it is a greater danger than bad religion.
Religion is the only defense against that danger.
However much I may agree with the good usages of science, for the defense and safety of humanity I will side with Religion in any dispute between the two.
Any ETHICAL scientist must do the same.

God bless

 

[Pastor Larry]

I say it doesn't matter which way God created what we see.

But it doesn't matter what is said, because God could have done it anyway, and could have told us he did it anyway, but the fact is that he told us he did it one way. And that has to carry weight.

 

[Anthony]

Which is why to us "gospel" means "truth".

The better scientist would agree.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Which is why to us "gospel" means "truth".

The better scientist would agree.

I always thought gospel meant good news.

 

[Anthony]

and not truth?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

and not truth?

I think Gospel means "Good News" or "Good Tiddings" from old English. From the Greek euangelion. I believe it is true. But I don'te believe it means truth. Else we would call it Sooth.

 

[Anthony]

The truth shall set you free

For the wicked the truth is very bad news.
Truth only harms the wicked.

I'll stick with truth.

God bless

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The truth shall set you free

For the wicked the truth is very bad news.
Truth only harms the wicked.

I'll stick with truth.

God bless

Are you saying that your definition of Gospel as truth will be bad news for the wicked and harm them?

I believe the Gospel is truthful. But I believe it means Good News which is from old english that was translated from the Greek which means the same thing. If the Greek had meant truth the old english word would have been sooth. So you would be preaching the Sooth. As you can guess I'm having fun and know what you mean. The Good news is truth. Amen (so be it)?

 

[Anthony]

It is risky replying to large strings because I don't have time to read every entry.

The gospel is a seed, when planted it grows into a vast crop of good fruit.
Many who object to it do so because they fail to see it is a seed and say that it is incomplete and hence flawed.

Cain was cast out and went to another place and took a wife.
No explanation of where that wife came from.
That is a seed as well.
For his purpose God didn't go into who Cain's wife was or where she came from; only that she was. By that standard the Bible leaves out much that happened.
Some go to Gap theory as a possible explanation.
Does the presence of Cain's wife disprove Genesis? No.
Obviously what God created was different from what Cain went to - something with an origin that was un-Godly.
Something that had been poisoned and warped as Cain was poisoned and warped.
What God created was new and good - whatever was there already was old and bad, and gave rise to evil in the world.
From the seed of Seth came Noah, who appears alone to have not followed in the steps of Cain.
None will ever know what part Abel was to have played in creation, because resident evil interfered with God's work in an attempt to prevent it.
Therefore Genesis is literal truth as regards God's purpose, and the folk of Nod are just as irrelevant as the question of how many years there were.
The children of God came to the world with Adam, and all that may have been other than that are extinct.
Genesis speaks of us, not what was before us.
That before is immaterial, as is the question of the time involved; it is an unprofitable debate.

God bless

 

[ajg1959]

It' funny how we have different terms for things.

I have always heard that gospel menat "truth" or "good news", but to me the gospel is simply the story of Jesus, and how we can be redeemed by HIm, and Him alone.

I guess that "gospel" to me means How Jesus came to pay the price for my sins.

That is both truth and good news.....but so is me catching a 30 pound catfish. It may be true that I caught one, and it may be good news that we will have a fish fry...but it dont compare to Jesus, and His plan for my salvation.

AJ

 

[Anthony]

Are you saying that your definition of Gospel as truth will be bad news for the wicked and harm them?

I believe the Gospel is truthful. But I believe it means Good News which is from old english that was translated from the Greek which means the same thing. If the Greek had meant truth the old english word would have been sooth. So you would be preaching the Sooth. As you can guess I'm having fun and know what you mean. The Good news is truth. Amen (so be it)?

The Gospel is terrible news for satan and all who follow him - it is a sentence of death. Harm them? Big time.

God bless

 

[gb93433]

Liberal applies to theology as well. And a non-literal view of scripture qualifies as liberal.

There are times when you would shame God by interpreting scripture literally. Scripture must be interpreted in light of its historical context.

A few examples are:

Ruth 2:12 "May the Lord reward your work, and your wages be full from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge."

2Sam 22:11 "And He rode on a cherub and flew;
And He appeared on the wings of the wind.
Psal 17:8 Keep me as the apple of the eye;
Hide me in the shadow of Your wings

Psal 36:7 How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God!
And the children of men take refuge in the shadow of Your wings.

Psal 57:1 Be gracious to me, O God, be gracious to me,
For my soul takes refuge in You;
And in the shadow of Your wings I will take refuge
Until destruction passes by.

Psal 61:4 Let me dwell in Your tent forever;
Let me take refuge in the shelter of Your wings. Selah.

 

[Anthony]

Scripture is only the tiny portion of God's will that we are capable of grasping; go beyond that and you travel in dangerous unexplored country known only to God.

Forbidden territory that only the rebellious enter into - enter there yourself and you are at the mercy of the rebellious who inhabit that land. Those who seek knowledge beyond their understanding which leads to destruction.

God bless

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Scripture is only the tiny portion of God's will that we are capable of grasping; go beyond that and you travel in dangerous unexplored country known only to God.

Forbidden territory that only the rebellious enter into - enter there yourself and you are at the mercy of the rebellious who inhabit that land. Those who seek knowledge beyond their understanding which leads to destruction.

God bless

I heard a sermon once from a Church of God preacher who said that the problem with Christians today is that they are too educated. Trying to figure out how things work is not rebellious. It's curiosity. There is no sin in that. When you're curiosity leads you to be immoral then you've broken the boundery. 200 years ago people said that if men were meant to fly they would have wings. Now how silly does that sound?

 

[Anthony]

A lifetime is not enough to fully grasp the Scriptures, but some say it isn't enough. Give us more!
What they want are easy answers, and seek in the forbidden country for them.

Even though he slay me, I trust in Him.

We must study scripture to avoid seeking easy answers away from it; it is all we need - and all we can truly trust.

God bless

 

[Marcia]

There is nothing in the Enuma Elish in itself to indicate that we should take that as myth either.

Just from a literary viewpoint, I would call this myth or at least mythlike. For example, giving a name to "chaos" is very mythlike.

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...
Ages increased,...
Then Ansar and Kisar were created, and over them....
Long were the days, then there came forth.....
Anu, their son,...
Ansar and Anu...
And the god Anu...

Put this next to Genesis and see which is more believable, even to an atheist.

 

[Marcia]

It depends on the "Context", but in this context it's the "Spiritual application", the "natural" is not going to be "preserved "forever" , but melt with fervent heat.

The world is full of "Symbols" representing spiritual things.

I think you're confusing the world with literature and Biblical prophecy. Some things in the Bible are used as symbols, but only when the context indicates that, and then the Bible usually explains it elsewhere, or a consistent use of that symbol gives a meaning.

The actual physical sun and moon themselves are not symbols (unless you happen to be an astrologer), but they are used as symbols at times in the Bible, such as the case of Jacob's dream and in Revelation.

Most times in the Bible, they are just literal and have no symbolic meaning, such as here:
He came to a certain place and spent the night there, because the sun had set; and he took one of the stones of the place and put it under his head, and lay down in that place. Gen. 28:11

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just from a literary viewpoint, I would call this myth or at least mythlike. For example, giving a name to "chaos" is very mythlike.


Put this next to Genesis and see which is more believable, even to an atheist.

The atheist would put them both in the same catagory. Both versions including the quote you have there do not claim to be myth within the document regarding itself. God calls man earth that sounds "myth" like too. Just because one is more concise doesn't equate with more truth. The Athiest would probably say that they both sound fantastical. In fact, they would probably think from a literary standpoint that the bible does pack a lot with less it doesn't grab the imagination as much as the Enuma Elish. A literary look might choose the Enuma because its more entertaining.

 

[Marcia]

I was taught that man came from apes or apelike creatures.

But in this article from the March 11 Washington Post, it says that scientists now say we come from a ratlike creature. There is a statue of it in the Smithsonian.

Creationist students were taking a tour and there is a photo of a ratlike creature, called a morganucodan, in the Smthsonian that is supposedly the earliest mammal ancestor of man.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031003690.html

Near the end of the "Evolution Trail," the class showed no signs of being swayed by the polished, enthusiastic presentation of Darwin's theory. They were surprised, though, by the bronze statue of man's earliest mammalian ancestor.

"A rat?" exclaimed Amanda Runions, a 21-year-old biochemistry major, when she saw the model of a morganucodon, a rodent-like ancient mammal that curators have dubbed Grandma Morgie. "All this hype for a rat? You're expecting, like, at least an ape."

Evolution theories on the origin of life and man just get more and more ridiculous as time goes by.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I was taught that man came from apes or apelike creatures.

But in this article from the March 11 Washington Post, it says that scientists now say we come from a ratlike creature. There is a statue of it in the Smithsonian.

Creationist students were taking a tour and there is a photo of a ratlike creature, called a morganucodan, in the Smthsonian that is supposedly the earliest mammal ancestor of man.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031003690.html



Evolution theories on the origin of life and man just get more and more ridiculous as time goes by.

Under Darwins theory of Natural Selection all mammals have a common ancestry. But now that I know I came from a "rat" like creature I'm more apt to believe in Darwin. I've known many a rat in my time.