19: There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21: And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22: And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23: And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24: And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25: But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26: And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27: Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29: Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30: And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31: And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Did this “certain rich man” and this “certain beggar” both actually exist?
Was that actual, literal person, the beggar, actually named Lazarus?
Was that actual person named Lazarus actually carried by the angels into Abraham’s literal bosom?
Did that particular rich man actually lift up his eyes from hell and see Abraham afar off and literally see Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom?
Did he actually converse with Abraham? Did he literally ask for water?
I presume that most Christians accept that Jesus was not speaking literally, and think that that particular rich man, that particular beggar, and Abraham did not actually do and say what Jesus said they did. If they have no problem thinking that everything mentioned in the quoted verses did not happen exactly as stated, then why do some have such a problem with the notion that everything mentioned in Genesis did not happen exactly as stated? If the former is not a threat to faith or an attack on God’s integrity, why is the latter?
Genesis 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.
Genesis 2:19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Given the “every fowl” of 2:19, can both verses be literally, factually correct? What answer for science is in these two verses of Genesis?
It looks like at least a tentative "answer for science" might be to go check some other English Bible versions in order to assess the soundness of an implicitly leveled charge that Gen. 1:20 and Gen. 2:19 are contradictory passages.
kawote "For those who do not accept by faith what Christ has done for them and do not recognize their sinful nature and need for redemption, the Bible warns that such people will live forever, but will be separated from God in a place of torment that the Bible calls Hell. But for those who commit their lives to the Lord—what a wonderful message! What a wonderful Savior! What a wonderful salvation in Christ the Creator! end oh qawote straight from the AIG
Sorry~~~ i have to laugh ~~~ live forever tormented in hell eh!!! Well hell's bells. Just what the devil wants. Do I get a pitch fork, blackish red skin, and one of those pointy tails?
I will continue to read.
I love to laugh ya know!
I would like to go a little further.
Been a looong long time since doctrinal days. Ten years for me. And that's a loooooong time within one's life expectancy these dayz. There is no catching up or down, just strings been out of tune and a dusty guitar.
If AIG offers hell and torment unless ~~~ well, let me just skip pass all the grace and go for all have come short of the glory of God~~~ to me, that leaves us, or just me, in hell.
Seems like a tunnel of a funel into "Believe or Else!"
Lourdy have the mercy those who teach such stuff and claim that stuff to be infalible truth.
Seems that one must first accept that the Bible is infalible then this becomes The Word Of God. (whoops~~~ have i been mispelling in·fal·li·ble ~~~ soory. i guess i go to hell again) Then after that one's life becomes blessed and all doors are open. Other than that you are going to hell to be tormented for all eternity for a life of, let's say, Methusala years of thinking years on earth.
Sounds like~~~ how can those who accept such a doctrine could live with them selfs for eternity in all purity.(notice (.) no (?)
Sounds like two hells to me!!!
other than that
i suppose some of are eternal bound one way or another~~~
what happens to those other that are
DESTROYED as if they have never existed~~~ i suppose the secret things belong unto the lord ya know
So, now, for those who are the "GOD SAID SEZ" remember those destroyed if ya can~~~
Sorry if I let anyone hanging. The geniuses digging out back took out by cable.
I would warn anyone who berates another for acting as they know everything about something not to then turn around and do the same thing. It doesn't really help your point.
I might add that during this discussion (don't know the exact number) but it sure seems like the athiest and agnostic side asks way more questions than the creationist side. They tend to point to all the unverifiable answers as truth. To assume truth in a discussion about origins is a very big presumption and way more arrogant than asking some theatening quesitons.
No rain till Noah? Yet there was water all around in the lakes, rivers, ocean(s) etc.. The sun moon and stars were in the the sky, people were breathing oxygen I would presume, and plants still worked the same way, as did the atmosphere. So photo sythesis was happening. The plants need water, oxygen, and CO2 for that matter, as well as many other things, like enough sun to live and flower and reproduce.
So, instead of going off on all the things I know about meteorology, I will ask yall with the answers how that worked. So the dew point stayed only around a certain level? Was there never enough sunlight to produce clouds with rain? Were there not enough aerosols in the air for rain? What about volcanoes? they produce a lot of aerosols. For hundreds of years? What about deciduous plants? Was there snow? HCW, working on a farm, you must know the importance of snow for certain plants. What about plants that now exist in tropical areas? They require a lot of water. Would you care to explain how these plants servived on mist? Did they later evolve after Pegeg. Was there not a rainforest on Pangea? Do you k now how much oxygen these types of plants convert? Same with the ocean.
Now I haven't claimed anything here, but the idea of there being no rain for hundreds of years causes me to question a whole lot of the limited knowledge I have of the way the atmosphere works with the living things on this planet.
Anyone care to make an attempt at answering some of these? Or is acceptance good enough?
There are many people, including many many Christians that believe myth to be stories and accounts that had a great oral tradition prior to being written down. Many times this was popular by wayof songs. And we all know that the song remains the same. Right, Song? or not. Anyways, many see song like attribute to many parts of Genesis, like a repeating chorus. For eg., "and God saw that it was good, and the evening and the morning were the _____ day". Or we could look at the Noah account and see the repetition in "I do set my bow in the cloud " and "I do set my bow in the cloud " and "And the bow shall be in the cloud" or "it shall be for a token of a covenant" and "This is the token of the covenant ". Seems very song like. Just ask SRTS.
I also want to point out
quote:
Hmmm "...when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:" seems to support the science that whenever the conditions exist, "the (rain)bow shall be seen in the cloud."
HCW, what you said and what the Bible says were two different things. One was "WHEN I bring a cloud over the earth" ( the only kind I know of) a rainbow can be seen coming ouut of it. The other is " Well that doesn't happen exactly like that, but when the conditions are right it does, so it lines up". That may be nit-picking, but you added a word. Imagine what would happen if I did that to Gen 1. Just a thought.
Sorry, that was a stupid question. No rain. No rainforests. These plants must have evolved. Would be interesting to see if all the plants in the rainforests are linked to other non-rainforest species. I kind of doubt it, but I could be wrong. If there are some that are rainforest specific, then that kinda shoots the "evolution only within species" and "no rain before Noah" concepts in the bunion. The other option would be to accept Gen as truth and not bother looking into this.
I would warn anyone who berates another for acting as they know everything about something not to then turn around and do the same thing. It doesn't really help your point.
i'll be damned~~~ i am innocent of that one this thread
I do set my bow in the cloud , and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
17And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant , which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth."
This is starting to get really good.
Ahemmmmm ! (cough!) Where does it say RAIN-bow? -->
Sure -- it stopped raining - but asumption prevails from there on that the bow mentioned was a rainbow. Does God need a reminder every day it rains, about His covenant with all flesh?? No -- not hardly.
The word bow is *qesheth*, and means a bow as in bending (as in for shooting, or strength).
Go to Zechariah 10:4 -
quote:
Zec 10:4
From Judah will come the cornerstone, from him the tent peg, from him the battle bow, from him every ruler..
The corner stone, the tent peg, the battle bow -- all speaking of one entity -- anyone else remember who the *cornerstone* is? ;)-->
And if I *recollect correct* that it is called *parallalism* that identifies one subject, with different entities or qualities of that same subject involved. If you figure out what one of the meanings refers to, and you have the definition of the others.
Isaiah 28:16 gives a definition of the *cornerstone*, and it is obviously a foretelling of Jesus. If He is the corner stone -- he is also the tent-peg, and the bow.
Now -- let's re-read the verse ---
quote:
I do set my bow in the cloud , and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
First time the flood happened, all was evil, and the clouds certainly did appear, and prevail, and no "bow".
While we are at it -- let's go to Matthew 24:30, for another look ---
quote:
At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky
What might that sign be, eh? A pretty rainbow, for all to admire? No. It says the nations will mourn, when they see it. The sign of the Son of Man will be the *bow* that protects the righteous.
Way I see it -- one of these days (God only knows when) -- this earth will be deemed *unfit* for habitation, and clouds will roll in like they did in the days of Noah, but unlike then, there will be *the Bow* intervening, doing whatever it takes to protect, and defend.
The bow could just represent God's protection. I could easily see a rainbow in a time where people used bows as weapons could be seen to represent just that. The same way you look at the clouds and see dragons or elephants or whatever, except here is a phenomena that is the same shape everytime.
quote:
Does God need a reminder every day it rains, about His covenant with all flesh?? No -- not hardly.
I didn't write the book, but that is what it says. Does God really look? Does God really remember? Or does he just know all things all the time? Seeing that with every other covenant, there is a reminder put in place for the mentally challenged humans, I would think that this would be similar. Take circumcision for example. An everyday reminder, as long as your not dehydrated. Did they have a word for rainbow, would be another good question. Maybe the name for that shape was the same with anything shaped like a bow, again cause that's what they used. KJV does use rainbow, I don't know how many other versions do. Then of course it does say that this is a "sign" of the covenant between God, man and ALL living things on the earth.
All living things? hmmm Well there are those that think that dinosaurs and many other now extict animals were on the ark. So God promises no floods that wipe everything out. But other natural disasters? Apparently those weren't covered under this covenant. Wiping out entire spieces was later deemed exceptable only not by way of flood, I guess. A loop hole was found, that while he won't use floods, he might decide to use volcanoes, tornadoes, drout or any other disaster tactic to whipe out animals like dinosaurs and the dodo bird and numerous others. Since he has used the loop hole for other speices, this covenant doesn't sit well with me as a human.
Or maybe, dinosaurs weren't FOB. (fresh off the boat)
It’s no secret that I don’t think much of the “Answers in Genesis” folks and other young earthers, but I’ve never said anything as nasty about them as some of their fellow Christians and creationists.
The article actually addresses the thread topic, so it may be of interest to Bible believers seeking information about that, whether or not they agree with the heresy charge.
Maybe I'd better add a disclaimer. I don't endorse anything in the article or the "God and Science" website.
I can’t speak for “people” but I have never tried to discredit God (1) or people who believe in God (2) . I have never argued that God doesn’t exist or that God didn’t create the universe and everything in it. I’ve never argued against Christianity or belief that the Bible is inspired by God, even though I don’t believe that it is (which is not even close to claiming that it is not).(3) The most I have done is to argue that some factual claims or arguments of some people are false (4) , ill supported (4a) , or illogical (4b) , and that a few are just plain ludicrous (4c) . I have no argument with basic Christian doctrine (5) and I neither want to nor can refute it (6) .
(1) Never tried to discredit God... Then what is this?
quote:
If Genesis is not purely myth , but rather is inspired by God, then much of it has to be figurative. Either that or almost nothing we think we know is reliable. Heck, the first “day” in Genesis is enough to tell it’s not literal. How do you literally have an evening and a morning being the first 24-hour day (or the second or third) without a sun or stars?
God used terms 'evening and morning' to represent the literal truth of "the first day," which IS literally ONE day. You are using semantics to discredit God and insinuate He is lying in the sense that it could not have possibly taken only one (24 hour) day.
"Long Gone" is a term that YOU use to represent the literal YOU. Its not a figure of speech, emphasizing something ABOUT you.
(2) No... You just posted links to websites of OTHER people who discredit people who love God. Not to mention this:
quote:
HCW, You... apparently know as little about law as you do about science.
I guess that post GIVES me credit?
(3) !!! I guess a direct statement that you don't believe that the Bible is inspired by God ISN'T arguing against the belief that it is? My children argue a lot. One says, "I believe that candy is mine!" The other says, "I don't believe that!" They go on:
"Yes it IS; ... No its NOT; ... is TOO; ... is NOT!" Oh I get it. You would ONLY be arguing if someone directly said to you... and you refuted directly. Is that it?
This one is really good. Even though you write that you don't believe the Bible is inspired by God, THAT is not even CLOSE to CLAIMing that its not. How DO you claim the Bible is not inspired by God then?
(4) Oh. The most you have done is to argue agains the CLAIMS. The claims are not part of Christianity? You just say the claims are false, not that the PEOPLE are lying, they just claim false things.
(4a) "ill supported" surely gives them credit too.
(4b) Oh. You're NOT discrediting anyone by telling US, their claims are illogocal, you're just informing us of the facts, right?
(4c) Ok so you just express scorn at SOME claims.
(5) Divine Creation in 7 ordinary days is NOT a claim of Christianity?
(6) Just WHAT are you referring to? Evidently you're limiting your scorn to the concept of the young earth and creation in 7 days? and only wish to rebuke those who believe that and refute their claims.
I'm not laying a charge of heresy on anyone. These are Christians accusing young earth creation "science" advocates of heresy. I'm sure there are counter charges flying around, too.
I didn't go looking for heresy charges. I've just been looking for other Christian perspectives, as I've had time. I found several interesting sites. I'll gather some links and post them later. Looks like I may want to address your last post first.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
39
27
33
Popular Days
Apr 11
31
Apr 8
24
Apr 9
19
Apr 13
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Jbarrax 22 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 39 posts
LG 27 posts
HCW 33 posts
Popular Days
Apr 11 2005
31 posts
Apr 8 2005
24 posts
Apr 9 2005
19 posts
Apr 13 2005
18 posts
LG
Did this “certain rich man” and this “certain beggar” both actually exist?
Was that actual, literal person, the beggar, actually named Lazarus?
Was that actual person named Lazarus actually carried by the angels into Abraham’s literal bosom?
Did that particular rich man actually lift up his eyes from hell and see Abraham afar off and literally see Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom?
Did he actually converse with Abraham? Did he literally ask for water?
I presume that most Christians accept that Jesus was not speaking literally, and think that that particular rich man, that particular beggar, and Abraham did not actually do and say what Jesus said they did. If they have no problem thinking that everything mentioned in the quoted verses did not happen exactly as stated, then why do some have such a problem with the notion that everything mentioned in Genesis did not happen exactly as stated? If the former is not a threat to faith or an attack on God’s integrity, why is the latter?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Given the “every fowl” of 2:19, can both verses be literally, factually correct? What answer for science is in these two verses of Genesis?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
It looks like at least a tentative "answer for science" might be to go check some other English Bible versions in order to assess the soundness of an implicitly leveled charge that Gen. 1:20 and Gen. 2:19 are contradictory passages.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...=8;49;15;31;47;
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Posted April 12, 2005 18:52
kawote "For those who do not accept by faith what Christ has done for them and do not recognize their sinful nature and need for redemption, the Bible warns that such people will live forever, but will be separated from God in a place of torment that the Bible calls Hell. But for those who commit their lives to the Lord—what a wonderful message! What a wonderful Savior! What a wonderful salvation in Christ the Creator! end oh qawote straight from the AIG
Sorry~~~ i have to laugh ~~~ live forever tormented in hell eh!!! Well hell's bells. Just what the devil wants. Do I get a pitch fork, blackish red skin, and one of those pointy tails?
I will continue to read.
I love to laugh ya know!
I would like to go a little further.
Been a looong long time since doctrinal days. Ten years for me. And that's a loooooong time within one's life expectancy these dayz. There is no catching up or down, just strings been out of tune and a dusty guitar.
If AIG offers hell and torment unless ~~~ well, let me just skip pass all the grace and go for all have come short of the glory of God~~~ to me, that leaves us, or just me, in hell.
Seems like a tunnel of a funel into "Believe or Else!"
Lourdy have the mercy those who teach such stuff and claim that stuff to be infalible truth.
Seems that one must first accept that the Bible is infalible then this becomes The Word Of God. (whoops~~~ have i been mispelling in·fal·li·ble ~~~ soory. i guess i go to hell again) Then after that one's life becomes blessed and all doors are open. Other than that you are going to hell to be tormented for all eternity for a life of, let's say, Methusala years of thinking years on earth.
Sounds like~~~ how can those who accept such a doctrine could live with them selfs for eternity in all purity.(notice (.) no (?)
Sounds like two hells to me!!!
other than that
i suppose some of are eternal bound one way or another~~~
what happens to those other that are
DESTROYED as if they have never existed~~~ i suppose the secret things belong unto the lord ya know
So, now, for those who are the "GOD SAID SEZ" remember those destroyed if ya can~~~
someone here said they could go on and on~~~
so can I
anybody else
energizer bunny baby
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
enny you lucky ones perhaps by chance may make it
come visit me
666 1st Hell Street North Avenue
Apt567
Fire Beach, Fl. 00000
Bring your ice skates for a good time since we both gonna be living forever.
Hope for a mutual invite!
may we then live forever in peace
if there is anything worth discovering
death
certainly is not the end of discovery
author unknown
Edited by oneyedjackswild1 psLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Why thank you, Cynic!
How careless of me.
Gotta admit also that the little jab at the Answers in Genesis folks was improper.
Edited by LGLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
yeah
a lotta h20 in there
reminds me
some scrip in whatever version
mentions
the voice of god as many waters
something is becoming flooding obvious
and i don't know
What?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
please remember laughter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Geeze a lot to talk about.
Sorry if I let anyone hanging. The geniuses digging out back took out by cable.
I would warn anyone who berates another for acting as they know everything about something not to then turn around and do the same thing. It doesn't really help your point.
I might add that during this discussion (don't know the exact number) but it sure seems like the athiest and agnostic side asks way more questions than the creationist side. They tend to point to all the unverifiable answers as truth. To assume truth in a discussion about origins is a very big presumption and way more arrogant than asking some theatening quesitons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
So I will continue with questions.
No rain till Noah? Yet there was water all around in the lakes, rivers, ocean(s) etc.. The sun moon and stars were in the the sky, people were breathing oxygen I would presume, and plants still worked the same way, as did the atmosphere. So photo sythesis was happening. The plants need water, oxygen, and CO2 for that matter, as well as many other things, like enough sun to live and flower and reproduce.
So, instead of going off on all the things I know about meteorology, I will ask yall with the answers how that worked. So the dew point stayed only around a certain level? Was there never enough sunlight to produce clouds with rain? Were there not enough aerosols in the air for rain? What about volcanoes? they produce a lot of aerosols. For hundreds of years? What about deciduous plants? Was there snow? HCW, working on a farm, you must know the importance of snow for certain plants. What about plants that now exist in tropical areas? They require a lot of water. Would you care to explain how these plants servived on mist? Did they later evolve after Pegeg. Was there not a rainforest on Pangea? Do you k now how much oxygen these types of plants convert? Same with the ocean.
Now I haven't claimed anything here, but the idea of there being no rain for hundreds of years causes me to question a whole lot of the limited knowledge I have of the way the atmosphere works with the living things on this planet.
Anyone care to make an attempt at answering some of these? Or is acceptance good enough?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
On myths. I think I've said this before but...
There are many people, including many many Christians that believe myth to be stories and accounts that had a great oral tradition prior to being written down. Many times this was popular by wayof songs. And we all know that the song remains the same. Right, Song? or not. Anyways, many see song like attribute to many parts of Genesis, like a repeating chorus. For eg., "and God saw that it was good, and the evening and the morning were the _____ day". Or we could look at the Noah account and see the repetition in "I do set my bow in the cloud " and "I do set my bow in the cloud " and "And the bow shall be in the cloud" or "it shall be for a token of a covenant" and "This is the token of the covenant ". Seems very song like. Just ask SRTS.
I also want to point out
HCW, what you said and what the Bible says were two different things. One was "WHEN I bring a cloud over the earth" ( the only kind I know of) a rainbow can be seen coming ouut of it. The other is " Well that doesn't happen exactly like that, but when the conditions are right it does, so it lines up". That may be nit-picking, but you added a word. Imagine what would happen if I did that to Gen 1. Just a thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Sorry, that was a stupid question. No rain. No rainforests. These plants must have evolved. Would be interesting to see if all the plants in the rainforests are linked to other non-rainforest species. I kind of doubt it, but I could be wrong. If there are some that are rainforest specific, then that kinda shoots the "evolution only within species" and "no rain before Noah" concepts in the bunion. The other option would be to accept Gen as truth and not bother looking into this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
a reminder
the host of this thread is
Horse Called War
i do not not know what that means
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
i'll be damned~~~ i am innocent of that one this thread
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Lindyhopper:
Good questions!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Exactly Oakspear~~~
If there were no wind, what are the use of kites~~~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
LMAO, Song, you crack me up man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
This is starting to get really good.
Ahemmmmm ! (cough!) Where does it say RAIN-bow?
-->
Sure -- it stopped raining - but asumption prevails from there on that the bow mentioned was a rainbow. Does God need a reminder every day it rains, about His covenant with all flesh?? No -- not hardly.
The word bow is *qesheth*, and means a bow as in bending (as in for shooting, or strength).
Go to Zechariah 10:4 -
The corner stone, the tent peg, the battle bow -- all speaking of one entity -- anyone else remember who the *cornerstone* is?
;)-->
And if I *recollect correct* that it is called *parallalism* that identifies one subject, with different entities or qualities of that same subject involved. If you figure out what one of the meanings refers to, and you have the definition of the others.
Isaiah 28:16 gives a definition of the *cornerstone*, and it is obviously a foretelling of Jesus. If He is the corner stone -- he is also the tent-peg, and the bow.
Now -- let's re-read the verse ---
First time the flood happened, all was evil, and the clouds certainly did appear, and prevail, and no "bow".
While we are at it -- let's go to Matthew 24:30, for another look ---
What might that sign be, eh? A pretty rainbow, for all to admire? No. It says the nations will mourn, when they see it. The sign of the Son of Man will be the *bow* that protects the righteous.
Way I see it -- one of these days (God only knows when) -- this earth will be deemed *unfit* for habitation, and clouds will roll in like they did in the days of Noah, but unlike then, there will be *the Bow* intervening, doing whatever it takes to protect, and defend.
and as the country song says ---
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
While we're being figuretive,
The bow could just represent God's protection. I could easily see a rainbow in a time where people used bows as weapons could be seen to represent just that. The same way you look at the clouds and see dragons or elephants or whatever, except here is a phenomena that is the same shape everytime.
I didn't write the book, but that is what it says. Does God really look? Does God really remember? Or does he just know all things all the time? Seeing that with every other covenant, there is a reminder put in place for the mentally challenged humans, I would think that this would be similar. Take circumcision for example. An everyday reminder, as long as your not dehydrated. Did they have a word for rainbow, would be another good question. Maybe the name for that shape was the same with anything shaped like a bow, again cause that's what they used. KJV does use rainbow, I don't know how many other versions do. Then of course it does say that this is a "sign" of the covenant between God, man and ALL living things on the earth.
All living things? hmmm Well there are those that think that dinosaurs and many other now extict animals were on the ark. So God promises no floods that wipe everything out. But other natural disasters? Apparently those weren't covered under this covenant. Wiping out entire spieces was later deemed exceptable only not by way of flood, I guess. A loop hole was found, that while he won't use floods, he might decide to use volcanoes, tornadoes, drout or any other disaster tactic to whipe out animals like dinosaurs and the dodo bird and numerous others. Since he has used the loop hole for other speices, this covenant doesn't sit well with me as a human.
Or maybe, dinosaurs weren't FOB. (fresh off the boat)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
It’s no secret that I don’t think much of the “Answers in Genesis” folks and other young earthers, but I’ve never said anything as nasty about them as some of their fellow Christians and creationists.
No Death Before the Fall - A Young Earth Heresy
The article actually addresses the thread topic, so it may be of interest to Bible believers seeking information about that, whether or not they agree with the heresy charge.
Maybe I'd better add a disclaimer. I don't endorse anything in the article or the "God and Science" website.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
I just read some of the stuff from your latest, "I hate AiG" link Long Gone. One word sums it up.
Rediculous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Speaking of rediculous....
(1) Never tried to discredit God... Then what is this?
God used terms 'evening and morning' to represent the literal truth of "the first day," which IS literally ONE day. You are using semantics to discredit God and insinuate He is lying in the sense that it could not have possibly taken only one (24 hour) day.
"Long Gone" is a term that YOU use to represent the literal YOU. Its not a figure of speech, emphasizing something ABOUT you.
(2) No... You just posted links to websites of OTHER people who discredit people who love God. Not to mention this:
I guess that post GIVES me credit?
(3) !!! I guess a direct statement that you don't believe that the Bible is inspired by God ISN'T arguing against the belief that it is? My children argue a lot. One says, "I believe that candy is mine!" The other says, "I don't believe that!" They go on:
"Yes it IS; ... No its NOT; ... is TOO; ... is NOT!" Oh I get it. You would ONLY be arguing if someone directly said to you... and you refuted directly. Is that it?
This one is really good. Even though you write that you don't believe the Bible is inspired by God, THAT is not even CLOSE to CLAIMing that its not. How DO you claim the Bible is not inspired by God then?
(4) Oh. The most you have done is to argue agains the CLAIMS. The claims are not part of Christianity? You just say the claims are false, not that the PEOPLE are lying, they just claim false things.
(4a) "ill supported" surely gives them credit too.
(4b) Oh. You're NOT discrediting anyone by telling US, their claims are illogocal, you're just informing us of the facts, right?
(4c) Ok so you just express scorn at SOME claims.
(5) Divine Creation in 7 ordinary days is NOT a claim of Christianity?
(6) Just WHAT are you referring to? Evidently you're limiting your scorn to the concept of the young earth and creation in 7 days? and only wish to rebuke those who believe that and refute their claims.
Bandying about insults along the way.
Right?
This thread passed rediculous a few pages back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Well, HCW, maybe you'll like this one better.
The Creation Science Heresy
I'm not laying a charge of heresy on anyone. These are Christians accusing young earth creation "science" advocates of heresy. I'm sure there are counter charges flying around, too.
I didn't go looking for heresy charges. I've just been looking for other Christian perspectives, as I've had time. I found several interesting sites. I'll gather some links and post them later. Looks like I may want to address your last post first.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.