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

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Helen:
Paul, ancient people knew how to count, too. Does that surprise you? They knew that four was not six, or eight, or any other number. Don't insult the Hebrews here, please.

They LIVED on the land, much closer to it than most of us do today. They had a pretty good idea of what they were talking about! Your post in this regard is an excellent example of determined ignorance.

I'm sorry, Helen, it is not my fault these verses are in the Bible:

Lev 11:22-23
"These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.
NASU

And you are assuming what evolutionary science wants you to assume in order to reach the conclusions they want you to reach.

Distance = rate times time. Light takes 3 million years to travel 3 million light years. This is "assuming" what "evolutionary science" wants me to assume, in your eyes.

You will always have a choice between man's wisdom and God's Word. I'm am sorry you so determinedly choose the former to the exclusion, when you feel it necessary, of the latter.

As do you! When, for example, you assert that some stars were created on day one of the six days of creation, when scripture plainly puts them on day four. And that's not the only place.

 

[Helen]

Paul, we have been round about this so many times. Here are the shortened versions of the responses from me that I am sure you know by heart now, and this is just for the sake of anyone else looking in:

1. It may not be 'your fault' that certain verses are in the Bible, but it is certainly your fault that you have paid no attention whatsoever to historical references where these things are concerned and it is your fault that your ethnocentricity can't get you past your nose.

2. d=rt is fine. You are assuming r has been an historical constant when data proves you wrong. At today's speed of light it would take light three million light years to go three million light years. However the same distance was covered in faster time even within the last three hundred years' worth of measurements, to say nothing of Creation Week!

3. Genesis 1:16b simply says that God also made the stars. It does not attribute them all to day 4. In Job 38, the same God who wrote Genesis 1 also says that there were morning stars in the beginning. "I can't help it if these verses are in the Bible..."

The interesting thing about the stars is the astronomy does recognize two distinct populations of stars which started at different times. The Bible was way ahead of them.

 

[Hope of Glory]

If you can find one error in the Bible, then you can't
trust the Bible at all.

If you think that God made errors, then where are they?

If God made errors, then he is an imperfect God.

 

[HankD]

Not just plain old ignorance, Hank, but deliberate and determined ignorance

Indeed. Ignorance is bliss (for a season).

HankD

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Helen:
Paul, we have been round about this so many times. Here are the shortened versions of the responses from me that I am sure you know by heart now, and this is just for the sake of anyone else looking in:

1. It may not be 'your fault' that certain verses are in the Bible, but it is certainly your fault that you have paid no attention whatsoever to historical references where these things are concerned and it is your fault that your ethnocentricity can't get you past your nose.

2. d=rt is fine. You are assuming r has been an historical constant when data proves you wrong. At today's speed of light it would take light three million light years to go three million light years. However the same distance was covered in faster time even within the last three hundred years' worth of measurements, to say nothing of Creation Week!

3. Genesis 1:16b simply says that God also made the stars. It does not attribute them all to day 4. In Job 38, the same God who wrote Genesis 1 also says that there were morning stars in the beginning. "I can't help it if these verses are in the Bible..."

The interesting thing about the stars is the astronomy does recognize two distinct populations of stars which started at different times. The Bible was way ahead of them.

If anybody really wants to see our mutual points of view they can certainly get all they need by viewing the now defunct archived folder Creation vs Evolution down there at the bottom of the page - and its Christmas. So I'm going to get back on topic and discuss the real danger to Christianity, which is NOT that you believe the wrong thing and I believe the right thing about evolution and the age of the earth (or vice versa from your perspective) . . . .

It is the way we fail to tolerate each other in spite of our differences.

Paul of Tarsus wrote many verses on the need to get along with the "weaker brother" in spite of his doctrinal shortcomings.

I suppose neither of us will ever give an inch on the things wherein we differ but I deeply appreciate your warm heart Helen, I know you love our Lord as much as anybody and when we get to heaven He'll surely straighten us both out on many things.

Everybody can bear witness I take stands on doctrinal points, sticking my neck out again and again . . . but there are also things more important than winning an argument, things like not hurting a dear brother or sister in Christ.

May the Lord show us all how to bear with one another in spite of our differences for the sake of what we have in common, the love of Christ our Savior!

 

[HankD]

Leviticus 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;
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.
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

The Hebrews viewed insects (three general kinds, "creepers", "winged creepers", winged, hopping creepers") as having 4 legs to "walk" with and then two as functional members for another task ("hands", "hoppers").

There are two kinds of plural in Hebrew: DUAL (Pairs, unless a cardinal number is used) - which has the YIM ending and more than two which has the IM ending.

The capitalized (my caps) LEGS in Leviticus 11:21 is dual.

So, there are four to walk with plus two to hop with = 6 appendages.

Actually some of the MVs do a better job of illustrating this:

NKJV Leviticus 11:21 Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth.

"above their feet" Protruding above the four for creeping to distinguish them from flies for instance who may appear to hop.

If the "two" embedded in the dual is translated then we have:

NKJ Leviticus 11:21 Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have two jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth.

Paul, this is not a "problem" Scripture. Granted, there are others more worthy to receive that allegation.

As for the "hare" or rabbit which "chews the cud", this phrase does not specifically mean a ruminating animal but one that chews (grinds up) it's food before swallowing it rather than those predator/scavenger types who rip or tear their food enough to get it down their gullet.

However all "grinders" who have a cloven hoof are ruminators.

HankD

[ December 23, 2005, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Ed Edwards]

JWI: //It is also interesting that almost equal numbers of people
voted for "Professing Christians living like unbelievers"
and "Hyperfundalmentalism"

//This almost seems like a contradiction.//

I don't think so. Both have abandoned the truth for a lie.


JWI: //So, if you are not very zealous to live for God it casts
doubt on God's word, and if you are very zealous to live
for God it casts doubt on God's word.

//I guess you can't win.//

I respectfully disagree. I am a winner, cause I'm on Jesus' side.
Your statement suggests that 'hyperfundametnalist' is
'zealous to live for God'. No. Like the "Professing Christians
living like unbelievers", the hyperfundamentalists have
changed the grace of God into an occasion to sin. Those
zealous to live for God are (un-hyper)fundamentalists who
live like Christians instead of non-christains.

I consider the hyperfundamentalists (HYPER means 'beyond')
more dangerous because they tend to talk like real Christians
and play act like real Christians but they are wolves in sheepskins.
By contrast those who profess Christ but live like the world
talk like the world and play act like the world - they are a threat
only to themselves. The hyperfundamentalists are like vampires,
one bite and you are hooked, just like them

 

[EdSutton]

Original question- "What is the SINGLE biggest caster of doubt on God's Word?"
Answer- I tend to suspect Satan, myself. Ed

 

[buckster75]

Until I came to this web site I would have agreed with Ed.

But I think now it might be christians themselves. One accord. Yeah right. We (baptists)are only a portion that call themselves christians and while I know this is a site designed for debate....well point made.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Even the debate is of one accord after a fashion.

 

[buckster75]

Hope of Glory

for that to be true the meaning of that passage of Scripture would have to be different. In most cases debates are not "the fashion" of that Scripture.

but I am as guilty as any. I just started to think what a new convert might think seeing all that is said here.

 

[EdSutton]

I posted this slightly tangential 'quote' elsewhere, but will repeat it here.

"The Bible has suffered more at the hands of its friends, than it has from its enemies."

Ed

 

[JamieinNH]

Originally posted by EdSutton:
I posted this slightly tangential 'quote' elsewhere, but will repeat it here.

"The Bible has suffered more at the hands of its friends, than it has from its enemies."

Ed

I tend to agree. My reply above in this thread is: Each Other.

I believe that, if we can't agree and come together in Christ, how are we suppose to believe an unbeliever will?

Jamie