winsor 186
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>A careful reading of even the English translations shows this to be the case.
Of course.
Way back when, it was clear to all Christians that a "careful reading of the translations" revealed that the Earth was the center of the universe. So certain were they that they imprisoned Galileo and executed Bruno for (in part) suggesting that it moves.
A little later, a "careful reading of the translations" revealed that really wasn't the case, that the Bible did not in fact claim that the Earth was the fixed center of the universe. The Catholic Church even apologized for claiming that, which, from an organization that prides itself on its infallibility, is monumental indeed.
A little more recently, a "careful reading of the translations" revealed that the Earth was around 6000 years old, that the timeline was clear. A little later, a "careful reading of the translations" indicated that it was actually much older, and that any earlier 6000 year thing was just a bad translation.
A long time ago "a careful reading of the translations" revealed that the Earth was created in six days. Some time later "a careful reading of the translations" showed that the term "day" might not really mean "day" - it might mean age.
It's great that the Bible is so flexible, that "a careful reading of the translations" can be used to update it for the times. Still, I have to wonder what changes "a careful reading of the translations" will cause in the future.
Of course.
Way back when, it was clear to all Christians that a "careful reading of the translations" revealed that the Earth was the center of the universe. So certain were they that they imprisoned Galileo and executed Bruno for (in part) suggesting that it moves.
A little later, a "careful reading of the translations" revealed that really wasn't the case, that the Bible did not in fact claim that the Earth was the fixed center of the universe. The Catholic Church even apologized for claiming that, which, from an organization that prides itself on its infallibility, is monumental indeed.
A little more recently, a "careful reading of the translations" revealed that the Earth was around 6000 years old, that the timeline was clear. A little later, a "careful reading of the translations" indicated that it was actually much older, and that any earlier 6000 year thing was just a bad translation.
A long time ago "a careful reading of the translations" revealed that the Earth was created in six days. Some time later "a careful reading of the translations" showed that the term "day" might not really mean "day" - it might mean age.
It's great that the Bible is so flexible, that "a careful reading of the translations" can be used to update it for the times. Still, I have to wonder what changes "a careful reading of the translations" will cause in the future.
maadmax 0
Actually, it does.
Next, I suppose, you will tell me that a day to God is a 1000 years!
Next, I suppose, you will tell me that a day to God is a 1000 years!
Hey, Goggle " Time Dilation". One thing is for certain the universe (and our solar system) had a miraculous beginning, like the Bible describes. After which it expanded into what we have today 13.75 billion years later(our time). Time is relative depending on the observer. The Bible was not meant to be a physics book. All references to physical sciences are vague. The Bible was meant to be a spiritual guide, to which it is unparalleled.
...
maadmax 0
Quote>A careful reading of even the English translations shows this to be the case.
Of course.
Way back when, it was clear to all Christians that a "careful reading of the translations" revealed that the Earth was the center of the universe. So certain were they that they imprisoned Galileo and executed Bruno for (in part) suggesting that it moves.
A little later, a "careful reading of the translations" revealed that really wasn't the case, that the Bible did not in fact claim that the Earth was the fixed center of the universe. The Catholic Church even apologized for claiming that, which, from an organization that prides itself on its infallibility, is monumental indeed.
A little more recently, a "careful reading of the translations" revealed that the Earth was around 6000 years old, that the timeline was clear. A little later, a "careful reading of the translations" indicated that it was actually much older, and that any earlier 6000 year thing was just a bad translation.
A long time ago "a careful reading of the translations" revealed that the Earth was created in six days. Some time later "a careful reading of the translations" showed that the term "day" might not really mean "day" - it might mean age.
It's great that the Bible is so flexible, that "a careful reading of the translations" can be used to update it for the times. Still, I have to wonder what changes "a careful reading of the translations" will cause in the future.
Well there you have it, the scientific method works for Biblical interpretation as well. Who said Christians were stuck in their ways? No surprise to me, life is a learning process.
...
normiss 622
To some anyway. 
devildog 0
Quote>A careful reading of even the English translations shows this to be the case.
Of course.
Way back when, it was clear to all Christians that a "careful reading of the translations" revealed that the Earth was the center of the universe. So certain were they that they imprisoned Galileo and executed Bruno for (in part) suggesting that it moves.
A little later, a "careful reading of the translations" revealed that really wasn't the case, that the Bible did not in fact claim that the Earth was the fixed center of the universe. The Catholic Church even apologized for claiming that, which, from an organization that prides itself on its infallibility, is monumental indeed.
A little more recently, a "careful reading of the translations" revealed that the Earth was around 6000 years old, that the timeline was clear. A little later, a "careful reading of the translations" indicated that it was actually much older, and that any earlier 6000 year thing was just a bad translation.
A long time ago "a careful reading of the translations" revealed that the Earth was created in six days. Some time later "a careful reading of the translations" showed that the term "day" might not really mean "day" - it might mean age.
It's great that the Bible is so flexible, that "a careful reading of the translations" can be used to update it for the times. Still, I have to wonder what changes "a careful reading of the translations" will cause in the future.
Dismiss my point all you want, the truth is, and has always been, the Hebrew never, ever, ever suggests a direct line from father -> son with its word choice. And what I said was that even with a careful reading in ENGLISH, you can see that's the case. I specifically said English because you don't have to be a Hebrew scholar to realize it. Just because you and others insist on reading into the text something that's not there, doesn't make your criticism valid. On the same note, tradition and historical views of Genesis 1 do not support an iron clad view of a 6 day creation, yet another myth people like to perpetuate. In fact, there are numerous throughout history that have seen Genesis 1 as not a creation story at all. So arguing whether or not it took 6 days, or if each day is a thousand years is an argument without any rhyme or reason as it completely misses the point of the text. So on, and so forth.
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.
normiss 622
"Truth". 
Damn funny choice of word. 
billvon 2,400
>Just because you and others insist on reading into the text something
>that's not there, doesn't make your criticism valid.
That's my point. At one time the ENTIRE CHURCH insisted on reading into the text something that (apparently) isn't there. And I am sure that at some point in the future someone such as yourself will be arguing just as strenuously that some currently-canonical part of the Bible isn't really valid, and that anyone who thinks it's canonical is an idiot because of semantic points A, B and C.
>On the same note, tradition and historical views of Genesis 1 do not
>support an iron clad view of a 6 day creation . . .
Of course they do. Traditionally and historically most churches taught that that literally meant six days - and that was translated into Sunday being a holy day. One day = one day, a week = a week. That is changing today, which is a good thing.
>that's not there, doesn't make your criticism valid.
That's my point. At one time the ENTIRE CHURCH insisted on reading into the text something that (apparently) isn't there. And I am sure that at some point in the future someone such as yourself will be arguing just as strenuously that some currently-canonical part of the Bible isn't really valid, and that anyone who thinks it's canonical is an idiot because of semantic points A, B and C.
>On the same note, tradition and historical views of Genesis 1 do not
>support an iron clad view of a 6 day creation . . .
Of course they do. Traditionally and historically most churches taught that that literally meant six days - and that was translated into Sunday being a holy day. One day = one day, a week = a week. That is changing today, which is a good thing.
normiss 622
My understanding is that only 'Christians' can properly interpret the words of jebus, written by and as interpreted by man.
The rest of us are just wrong.
billvon 2,400
>My understanding is that only 'Christians' can properly interpret the
>words of jebus, written by and as interpreted by man.
Yep. And still, they all interpret them differently. Lesson I take from that - if an interpretation works for you, great!
>words of jebus, written by and as interpreted by man.
Yep. And still, they all interpret them differently. Lesson I take from that - if an interpretation works for you, great!
Coreece 190
QuoteYep. And still, they all interpret them differently. Lesson I take from that - if an interpretation works for you, great!
But isn't that how we got into trouble in the first place.
I think it's important to sincerely and dilligently strive for the the right one.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
Biblical chronological timeline. Some crazy shit
http://www.abiblestudy.com/part1.html
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
beowulf 1
QuoteQuoteYep. And still, they all interpret them differently. Lesson I take from that - if an interpretation works for you, great!
But isn't that how we got into trouble in the first place.
I think it's important to sincerely and dilligently strive for the the right one.
How would you ever know what the right one is? There have been so many "right one"s.
Just to add, no matter how sincere or dilligent you are in striving for the 'right one', it doesn't make it any more likely to be THE 'right one'.
QuoteDo you believe in the science behind DNA? Just curious.... That's the kind of proof that I like
Sure. It's a great testiment to the creative nature of God.
tkhayes 126
that same DNA science links us to a common ancestor with the apes and Chimpanzees, etc. It also links us to the entire evolutionary chain and debunks any belief that the world is 6000-10000 years old, and was created in 7 days.
I know, I know, God made the world 6000 years ago but he made it LOOOK LIKE it was billions of years old....except that the Bible does not say that.
AND, except that many Christians would disagree with that viewpoint.
Again, even Christians cannot decide what is right and what is wrong. They value science when it is convenient for them, yet they debunk it at the same time when it goes against their belief structure, despite OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary.
I know, I know, God made the world 6000 years ago but he made it LOOOK LIKE it was billions of years old....except that the Bible does not say that.
AND, except that many Christians would disagree with that viewpoint.
Again, even Christians cannot decide what is right and what is wrong. They value science when it is convenient for them, yet they debunk it at the same time when it goes against their belief structure, despite OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary.
But science doesn't go against Christian belief (for non-fundamentalists, which is most of them).
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
tkhayes 126
Quote(for non-fundamentalists, which is most of them)
that you for making my point.....you cannot agree on what 'version' of Christianity, is correct, yet you are also convinced of your own salvation.....and my damnation.
good luck with that.
and by the way science bumps up directly against Christianity, given the age of the world, some 6000 years old - ask Mike Huckabee, he knows......
QuoteTo some anyway.
Irony of the day....er, age.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Bible isn't a science textbook. How come people keep dwelling on this? It's not that hard a concept. Get past the first two chapters & tell me how, for example, the book of luke contradicts science.
Anyway, getting back to the kid getting hit by a dumptruck. God endowed matter with certain physical qualities. These qualities are what allow the physical universe to function. These qualities are also why the force of the truck caused the child to die. Maybe we humans are dicks for inventing trucks.
Anyway, getting back to the kid getting hit by a dumptruck. God endowed matter with certain physical qualities. These qualities are what allow the physical universe to function. These qualities are also why the force of the truck caused the child to die. Maybe we humans are dicks for inventing trucks.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
QuoteMy understanding is that only 'NON-Christians' can properly interpret the words of jebus, ... as interpreted by non-believers.
The rest of us are just wrong.
...and the hits just keep on coming!
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Coreece 190
QuoteQuoteQuoteYep. And still, they all interpret them differently. Lesson I take from that - if an interpretation works for you, great!
But isn't that how we got into trouble in the first place.
I think it's important to sincerely and dilligently strive for the the right one.
How would you ever know what the right one is? There have been so many "right one"s.
Well, I've never known anyone who could claim to know everything about God or the Bible. The important thing is that we do our best to head in that direction by utilizing every possible resource, just like in any other area of study.
Once we take a position and present our case, people can examine the various arguments for themselves.
QuoteJust to add, no matter how sincere or dilligent you are in striving for the 'right one', it doesn't make it any more likely to be THE 'right one'.
Well, when it comes to things that are difficult to understand like theology, science or medicine, I'm more likely to trust someone who is sincere and dilligent, rather than someone who is indifferent and lazy.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
QuoteMaybe we humans are dicks for inventing trucks.
Hey! Back off. No common sense allowed in here.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
maadmax 0
How would you ever know what the right one is? There have been so many "right one"s.
Just to add, no matter how sincere or dilligent you are in striving for the 'right one', it doesn't make it any more likely to be THE 'right one'.
Just to add, no matter how sincere or dilligent you are in striving for the 'right one', it doesn't make it any more likely to be THE 'right one'.
It is actually very easy to know which is the right path. Two concepts are very basic and will take a life time to complete. " Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, and soul and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
P.S. You will need to be transformed by the renewing of your mind through the work of the Holy Spirit to accomplish such a monumental task.
...
...
Gee, I guess I have to defer to your vast knowledge of the subject