• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The smoking gun, of the Earth’s age

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

preacher4truth

Active Member
michael-acts17:11 said:
It is self-authenticating in that it is contains the written accounts of fulfilled prophecies that spanned hundreds & thousands of years. It also contains references to scientific facts & prehistorical cultures which have been proven true within the past century. No other collection of documents can claim the same evidential truth.
Click to expand...

What did Jesus say about not believing the words of God?

The Bible doesn't need corroboration.

Your post is right on friend.
 
J

jimc06

New Member
preacher4truth said:
Not really. People can suggest what they like. Your suggestions probably appear ridiculous to some. Some people just choose to take Gods' Word literally. Nothing is ridiculous about that. They may see you not taking it as such utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, on what basis do people choose to take the Genesis account literally? The Bible is composed of a broad range of writings, from intellectual "theology" to plain narrative, to poetry, parable, and allegory. In some places, the Bible itself specifies what literature is. For example, the Cross is repeatedly described as a truly historical event, independently investigated, with multiple eye witnesses, the truth of which our faith depends, etc. Other passages are explicitly stated to have happened (as Paul says of the Exodus events).

Without such statements about the creation account, what is the argument for choosing a literal interpretation over an allegorical one?
 
Z

Zenas

Active Member
michael-acts17:11 said:
It is self-authenticating in that it is contains the written accounts of fulfilled prophecies that spanned hundreds & thousands of years. It also contains references to scientific facts & prehistorical cultures which have been proven true within the past century. No other collection of documents can claim the same evidential truth.
Click to expand...
Fine, I agree, but let's not try to use things like 2 Timothy 3:16 to prove scripture's veracity. I could write a book and insert a postlogue that says everything in the book is true, but that wouldn't make it so.

Incidentally I wasn't really questioning scripture's veracity as much as I was questioning Stilllearning's assertion that the words of every Bible writer were given to them by God. That is just wrong.
 
P

preacher4truth

Active Member
jimc06 said:
Out of curiosity, on what basis do people choose to take the Genesis account literally? The Bible is composed of a broad range of writings, from intellectual "theology" to plain narrative, to poetry, parable, and allegory. In some places, the Bible itself specifies what literature is. For example, the Cross is repeatedly described as a truly historical event, independently investigated, with multiple eye witnesses, the truth of which our faith depends, etc. Other passages are explicitly stated to have happened (as Paul says of the Exodus events).

Without such statements about the creation account, what is the argument for choosing a literal interpretation over an allegorical one?
Click to expand...

Faith, perhaps? :thumbsup:
 
J

jimc06

New Member
preacher4truth said:
Faith, perhaps? :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Why not take it on faith that it is allegory? :) For example, when Ex 31:17 refers to the seven days of creation, it also refers to God resting and being refreshed, implying that He had been tired. I take it on faith, however, that He does not tire, and so this is an anthropomorphism. Hence, why take the rest of the passage literally?
 
P

preacher4truth

Active Member
jimc06 said:
Why not take it on faith that it is allegory? :) For example, when Ex 31:17 refers to the seven days of creation, it also refers to God resting and being refreshed, implying that He had been tired. I take it on faith, however, that He does not tire, and so this is an anthropomorphism. Hence, why take the rest of the passage literally?
Click to expand...

Creation doesn't need corroboration. You seem to need a lot of corroboration. Is this true? Do you know Harry E. Fosdick? He preached this way. I'm sure you are not as he, correct?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

matt wade

Well-Known Member
It's quite simple. If you can't believe God created everything as it is literally spelled out in the Bible, you believe in the wrong God. You will have an eternity in Hell to agonize over it.
 
J

jimc06

New Member
preacher4truth said:
Creation doesn't need corroboration. You seem to need a lot of corroboration. Is this true? Do you know Fosdick? He preached this way.
Click to expand...

I don't know Fosdick. But I'm not talking about corroboration, rather interpretation. When Scripture interprets Scripture, do you consider that corroboration?
 
M

matt wade

Well-Known Member
jimc06 said:
I don't know Fosdick. But I'm not talking about corroboration, rather interpretation. When Scripture interprets Scripture, do you consider that corroboration?
Click to expand...

Scripture is inerrant. It is believed because it is God speaking to us. It needs no corroboration.
 
P

preacher4truth

Active Member
jimc06 said:
I don't know Fosdick. But I'm not talking about corroboration, rather interpretation. When Scripture interprets Scripture, do you consider that corroboration?
Click to expand...

You should check out Fosdick. He held similar views of God.

I think you have enough questions to answer for yourself. I'll leave you to that.

I just simply believe what God said.
 
R

Robert Snow

New Member
matt wade said:
It isn't important? It's of the utmost importance! If you can't believe that God created the earth and everything on it exactly as he has told us, what else can't you believe in the Bible? Of course the history of the creation is important. If it's not important, what else should be dismiss? I'm sure I can name a few that you would dismiss. The flood, Jonah, Job, just about everything with Moses. Which of these others do you dismiss as unimportant?
Click to expand...

Slow down there Seymour! You have a wonderful gift of assuming something others don't say. Don't let your imagination run wild!

It doesn't matter to me how God created the universe. He could have done it all in one second or taken 100 trillion years, to me it doesn't matter.

If the six days in Genesis are six literal 24 hour days, that is fine with me. In fact, I believe the days in Genesis are exactly that, 24 hours, but it could easily be a restoring of a previous creation that was also done by God. Now just because I don't see the universe as young, doesn't mean I don't believe God did it exactly as He said.

As far as Jonah is concerned, I believe God prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah and that he was vomited out on dry land three days later. But, God could have had a minnow swallow Jonah if He had wanted to.
 
J

jimc06

New Member
preacher4truth said:
You should check out Fosdick. He held similar views of God.

I think you have enough questions to answer for yourself. I'll leave you to that.

I just simply believe what God said.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm just asking one simple question right now. I believe what God says, too, but find that He speaks in different ways. For example, Jesus plainly said we need to eat His flesh to have eternal life (John 6:54), and those around Him seemed to take that literally. Yet we don't. Why choose to not take that literally, and then do choose to take Genesis 1 literally? I'm honestly wondering what reasons people have for making that choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top