The church is the collection of the saints. Those who actually are saints are not bound by any psychical assembly because a man cannot judge the salvation of another man, thus it is more a spiritual church of redemption. It is a fact of salvation that Christ being firstborn among the dead did offer salvation by sharing the inheritance of redemption and resurrection by saving it as a whole.

"18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."

Collosians 1

"13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; 14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. 15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God."

2 Cor 4


The church is a collection of all the saints, from no matter what time period, thus Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all part of the church long before an actual assembly took place, whether it be Catholic or otherwise.

"9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. "

Romans 8

This example shows the "mechanism" of salvation for the saints, that having the Holy Spirit they too shall be quickened from the dead as Christ was.

Quote :

"So you’re saying “no” you didn’t. Why did you think there was a God for a “long time” before listening to those CDs? What made you believe this?"

I guess I never really did answer the question did I? I'm saying that no I didn't and I am also saying that it is impossible for anyone who does not have the Holy Spirit to blaspheme against it.

It is much like sinning in the way of Satan, to know of God's power and perfection but to wholly rebel against him. The reason why I was agnostic before was merely because I thought something must have had a hand in creating all the complexities of the world. But it was more a fleeting vanity than any type of faith.


Please do tell me your testimony The E Man. It is always strengthening to hear other saints paths to salvation.

[Edited on July 3, 2011 at 12:07 PM. Reason : ]

7/3/2011 12:02:35 PM

Quote :

"all of which could have been created to make the earth appear much older than it is."

aaronburro, why do you think that abortion is murder? How do you know that human gestation isn't just an illusion to make you think that abortion is killing babies?

Your solipsistic nonsense is getting old.

Quote :

"All of science provides evidence. None of it provides incontrovertible proof. Learn the difference."

This is where you're being dishonest. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF. No one is claiming that you need incontrovertible proof to have confidence in a conclusion. Your silly solipsistic nonsense is pointless because without a reasonable consensus about what reality is you can't have a conversation about anything. Any statement of fact that you make on this message board I can respond with this bullshit. Why don't you go play with play-doh or coloring books or something and let the adults have a conversation?

7/3/2011 12:57:15 PM

Quote :

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven."

7/3/2011 4:51:59 PM

So how about those aforementioned fulfilled prophecies that validate the Good Book?

7/3/2011 5:28:49 PM

Quote :

"All of science provides evidence. None of it provides incontrovertible proof. Learn the difference."

Indeed, with the proliferation of modeling and simulation tools in the sciences, this statement is more wrong today than it has ever. And it was always wrong.

Science and engineering "provides" us with a great deal. Specific to a philosophical and practical description of the world, science creates explanations for what is observed, although there is the frequent feedback between expectation and evidence which we call experimentation. But like more religious, people in this thread have misinterpreted what the "explanations" are claimed to do.

I think the best example is the motion of the Earth around the sun. By many slightly factitious points, science never claimed the Earth revolved around the sun. Technically, we only have consistent models that fit all the observed motion of heavily bodies. If we were solving the problem today, we could literally put the recorded motion of the planets, sun, and stars into a computer program which would give equations and values, of which the some of the values would reflect the mass of the planets, for instance. You can still be a dickwad and contradict the fact that any of those equations or values represents what they are interpreted to be. But you are free to interpret the world however you want.

7/3/2011 5:38:03 PM

Quote :

"16For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. 17I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. 18They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. 19But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me. "

Psalm 22

Was fulfilled upon Christ's death on the cross.


"Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

Zech 9:9

"13And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? 14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good."

Isaiah 7:14

"2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.""

Micah 5
Christ was born in Bethlehem

"The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his."

Gen 49:10
He was of the House of David in the tribe of Judah.

The list goes on quite extensively.

7/3/2011 5:52:33 PM

What are you trying to list? places where a part of the bible foretold another part of the bible?

7/3/2011 7:40:02 PM

Quote :

"I guess I never really did answer the question did I? I'm saying that no I didn't and I am also saying that it is impossible for anyone who does not have the Holy Spirit to blaspheme against it. It is much like sinning in the way of Satan, to know of God's power and perfection but to wholly rebel against him. The reason why I was agnostic before was merely because I thought something must have had a hand in creating all the complexities of the world. But it was more a fleeting vanity than any type of faith. "

That's a good answer.

So what do you think about the miracles/saints of other religions and how they relate to Christinaity?

Do you believe in the idea of purgatory? For that matter, what do you think heaven is supposed to be like?

7/3/2011 10:26:41 PM

Quote :

"So what do you think about the miracles/saints of other religions and how they relate to Christinaity?"

I'll assume you don't mean different denominations, because any denomination can have saints which perform these acts, so long as they do so according to Jesus Christ.

As for the miracles of other religions several parts of scripture denounce acts, which are not of God, and by God:

"14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 22Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. 23For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. 24Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me. "

Acts 8

Gifts cannot be transferred by man, nor can they be received by works, but most always be a gift from faith in God.

"9When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. 10There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee."

Those who predict future events without direct revelation from God are here condemned. As are all other forms of pagan miracles.


"4Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. "

1 Cor 12

This exemplifies the manner which the church is divided, with different gifts belonging to different persons. Even though there are different gifts to different persons they all stem from the same source.


I'll go into purgatory and Heaven tomorrow or Tuesday, at the moment I'm a little too tired to construct my ideas, and the last thing I want to do is misspeak on the Gospel.

7/4/2011 1:43:31 AM

Quote :

"As for the miracles of other religions several parts of scripture denounce acts, which are not of God, and by God:"

This sentence doesn't make any sense. Will you please clarify?

7/4/2011 6:32:50 PM

You can't use reason when discussing religion or try to use logic with anyone who is religious. Logic and Religion are absolute oxymorons.





[Edited on July 4, 2011 at 8:57 PM. Reason : .]

7/4/2011 8:51:55 PM

I've heard the argument that you can't reason someone out of a position that they weren't reasoned into in the first place.

I don't agree though, because I once had irrational beliefs and my reasoning freed me from them.

Additionally, showing someone that their beliefs are unreasonable is not just for them but for any interested 3rd party who may be thoroughly less convinced.

7/4/2011 9:41:10 PM

Religulous is a pretty terrible movie. Jesus Camp is far more interesting and thought provoking for someone of any faith.

7/4/2011 9:54:45 PM

o rly? What was the matter with religulous?

7/4/2011 11:28:48 PM

Do Christians that interpret the Bible literally honestly suggest that every celestial body visible in the night sky is essentially no more than six thousand light years away? That scenario makes for an awfully hot universe.

7/5/2011 12:02:59 AM

And bingo was his name-o.

7/5/2011 12:12:09 AM

Quote :

"o rly? What was the matter with religulous? "

His arguments were fairly generic. Bill Maher made no attempt to understand why people become Christians, then frame his arguments from that perspective... he's preaching to the choir in his movie.

7/5/2011 12:18:14 AM

^not only that, but he was generally a douche to everyone he met. I really didn't care for that film.

concerning the "you can't use reason" argument, I agree with sam harris

Quote :

"If someone disagrees with you all you can do is appeal to scientific values and if he doesn’t share those values the conversation is over. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument are you going to provide to show the importance of logic?"

[Edited on July 5, 2011 at 9:00 AM. Reason : asfasdf]

7/5/2011 8:59:59 AM

I guess you can figure out which side of the atheist accomodationism argument I end up on.

7/5/2011 9:07:22 AM

you can say "you have NO IDEA how warm and fuzzy science makes me feel on the inside"

7/5/2011 9:17:36 AM

It's not like I want or expect Bill Maher to be respectful of anyone. I just didn't find his needling of a bunch of randomly picked morons to be very humorous. It kind of made me uncomfortable.

7/5/2011 9:17:53 AM

Religulous was just Bill Maher exploiting particularly dumb/crazy religious people for cheap laughs. If Religulous is a documentary about religion, then BORAT is a documentary about Kazahkstan.

btw smbc is on a religious kick. sorry Leon



[Edited on July 5, 2011 at 9:35 AM. Reason : .]

7/5/2011 9:26:52 AM

lol

7/5/2011 10:48:25 AM

I highly recommend this book to everyone.

7/5/2011 11:08:16 AM

Quote :

"Do Christians that interpret the Bible literally honestly suggest that every celestial body visible in the night sky is essentially no more than six thousand light years away? That scenario makes for an awfully hot universe."

If I am understanding Barnes' commentary correctly, because normally I do not focus in depth on Gen 1 which perhaps I should, he states that it is the relation of man to the Earth that is clearly established, and not the age of the Universe. Thus, which I continually stated on the last several pages, which apparently no one read, is that what is established is the 4000 years from the advent of man to the birth of Christ.

Also, I'm still waiting on that testimony The E Man, it is perfectly reasonable and should be a joy for saints to give there testimony, you can see mine on page 4.

7/5/2011 11:23:45 AM

Quote :

"This sentence doesn't make any sense. Will you please clarify?"

I'm sorry that should have been "not of God, or by God." Meaning neither.

7/5/2011 11:26:41 AM

Quote :

"Thus, which I continually stated on the last several pages, which apparently no one read, is that what is established is the 4000 years from the advent of man to the birth of Christ."

I'm really tired of people arguing that a Christian faith necessarily implies a belief that the Earth is 6000 years old.

But I'm confused and frustrated by Christians who refuse to make a clear position. It powers the argumentative loop of saying that the entire scripture is holy and thus true, then that obviously wrong parts are metaphorical, then as it's dying down again, argue that it's all true again. Let me be clear, I do not know what Leon believes about the origin of the universe.

Of course, the more important issue here is that the correctness of Genesis should not matter much in the first place. It is not central to Christianity. You should be more concerned about the fact that Jesus directly told his followers that the world would end in their own generation. So let me be clear

Genesis saying the Earth began 6000 yrs ago - not a big deal, no one expects anything better considering its origins anyway.

Jesus, the defining character of Christianity, says the Earth will end before 100 AD - pretty big problem

7/5/2011 12:04:07 PM

come on mrfrog, don't you know metaphor when you see it?

7/5/2011 12:11:19 PM

Quote :

"don't you know metaphor when you see it?"

So is there a reason to believe it? I don't read a sentence and identify the metaphor strictly based on how the sentence is written - particularly when it was translated in the first place... and comes from a different culture and time.

Remember John the Babtist? He was constantly going off on how the apocalypse was coming. As were his influences. You don't make a career based on something that is ultimately intended to be revealed as a metaphor. Jesus had plenty of influence from this kind of thinking. It is no surprise that it would appear in his own ministry. In fact, that's what we should expect. Doesn't change the fact that it was wrong.

7/5/2011 12:27:50 PM

Quote :

"concerning the "you can't use reason" argument, I agree with sam harris"

But he also says that it's still a conversation worth having. People will only understand that their beliefs are irrational by being confronted with rationality. They may not immediately change their mind, but the general dialog and shift in culture are what is ultimately important.

7/5/2011 12:37:11 PM

Quote :

"Remember John the Babtist? He was constantly going off on how the apocalypse was coming."

Where is this? John baptized according to repentance from sins. According to the words spoken by the prophets;

"3The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

4John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 5And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. 6And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey; 7And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. 8I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. "

"9And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. "

Luke 3

Now this is in reference to the fact that the judge (Christ) was born and thus had begun to accomplish the will of God. This may be a reference to a final judgement but does not put a time frame on when it will occur, only on the fact that another aspect of the final judgement, the judge, has been set in place for it to occur.

[Edited on July 5, 2011 at 1:15 PM. Reason : Odd extra words.]

7/5/2011 1:12:11 PM

Here is where Matthew Henry concisely describes what is occurring within the passages of Mark, and apply equally to the passages in Matthew where Christ describes both the final judgement and fall of Jerusalem.


"14But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: 15And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: 16And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. 17But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 18And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. 19For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. 20And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. 21And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: 22For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. 23But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

24But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. 26And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

28Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: 29So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. 30Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. 31Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 32But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. "

Mark 13



We have the application of this prophetic sermon. As to the destruction of Jerusalem, expect it to come very shortly. As to the end of the world, do not inquire when it will come, for of that day and that hour knoweth no man.


So it is apparent that Christ is not saying that the generation of the people he is talking to would not die before the end of the world, but that they would live through the fall of Jerusalem. He expressively states he is not aware of the time or hour of the final judgment, nor is it for man to know (sorry Harold Camping), this message is reflected many times throughout the NT.

Sorry for the multiple posts, but it's probably easier to read this way.

[Edited on July 5, 2011 at 1:27 PM. Reason : ]

7/5/2011 1:26:27 PM

Quote :

"So it is apparent that Christ is not saying that the generation of the people he is talking to would not die before the end of the world, but that they would live through the fall of Jerusalem. He expressively states he is not aware of the time or hour of the final judgment, nor is it for man to know (sorry Harold Camping), this message is reflected many times throughout the NT."

I won't get into the specifics of this right now, but yes, I was already aware that some maintain your position here. In fact most Christians do, but that doesn't mean the evidence points in that direction.

Most importantly, as a comparative statement, how is it that you dismiss the words of Jesus himself as open to interpretation while at the same time give a weak half-refutation of a verse in Genesis, that came from an unknown source through oral tradition and flies in the face of mountains of solid evidence about age of the universe which is undeniably a loosing battle? It didn't even directly say the universe is X years old, instead it said the world was created in Y days and then later says that Y days is equal to X years, so then people say that acceptance of X*Y as the age of the universe is important to their Christian faith. Jesus was not so ambiguous about the end of the world, and there is no shortage of people still waiting for the (delayed) destruction of Jerusalem or the world.

The strength of evidence for the apocalypse prediction based on what the bible itself says vastly outweighs that of interpreted time of creation, but your loyalties are the reverse of this.

So tell me: how do you choose what to believe and what not to?

7/5/2011 1:56:48 PM

In before the Holy Spirit.

7/5/2011 2:02:15 PM

Quote :

"Most importantly, as a comparative statement, how is it that you dismiss the words of Jesus himself as open to interpretation while at the same time give a weak half-refutation of a verse in Genesis"

How is this open to interpretation?

Quote :

"31Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 32But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. " "

If I was "interpreting" that Christ was talking about the fall of Jerusalem in the line prior to this, and he was really referring to the final judgement, why would he openly contradict himself in the next sentence of speaking?

Let me pull Barnes notes on Gen 1:1 since apparently no one is going to lay off the age of the Earth argument.

"It bears on the very face of it the indication that it was written by man, and for man, for it divides all things into the heavens and the earth. Such a division evidently suits those only who are inhabitants of the earth. Accordingly, this sentence Genesis 1:1 is the foundation-stone of the history, not of the universe at large, of the sun, of any other planet, but of the earth, and of man its rational inhabitant. The primeval event which it records may be far distant, in point of time, from the next event in such a history; as the earth may have existed myriads of ages, and undergone many vicissitudes in its condition, before it became the home of the human race. And, for ought we know, the history of other planets, even of the solar system, may yet be unwritten, because there has been as yet no rational inhabitant to compose or peruse the record. We have no intimation of the interval of time that elapsed between the beginning of things narrated in this prefatory sentence and that state of things which is announced in the following verse, Genesis 1:2."

7/5/2011 2:26:04 PM

I think one of the problems is that the history [Genesis] is for man's relevance to the Earth and hence there is not an apparent change of time written in the text because it is not relevant to man's dwelling upon the Earth. For example:

"1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. "

From Gen 1:1 there could be an arbitrarily long amount of time which passes, which is omitted here because it is not revealed, as it is mere time passing but not the addition of factors needed for man's dwelling on the Earth. Whereas the first day is the next instance of God bringing something to pass, which will affect man's dwelling on the Earth, bringing it from void and waste. Meaning:

"1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [And anywhere from 5 minutes to 10 billion years past] 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. "

Either of these could be an equally viable scenario, just as God does not wish man to know the beginning of time, he does not want man to know the end either. This is why I tried to correct myself saying that the age of man is 6000 years, not the age of the Earth. I very foolishly misspoke earlier, instead of fully explaining my point.



Also where is my testimony The E Man why do you not let us hear your testimony. There is no reason to be afraid of giving it.

[Edited on July 5, 2011 at 2:39 PM. Reason : I'm waiting with bated breath.]

7/5/2011 2:34:19 PM

What?

Genesis is clearly laying out, day-by-day, God's creation. "Day" doesn't mean

Quote :

"Whereas the first day is the next instance of God bringing something to pass, which will affect man's dwelling on the Earth, bringing it from void and waste."

It means day. Later in Genesis, it describes what God did on the second day, and the third day, and so forth.

Not to mention that even in your crazy interpretation, the stars are still created *after* the Earth which we know is wrong.

Also, there is no "deeps", there is no "firmament". Grass doesn't grow without sunlight, etc. For everyone else in this thread, there are a lot more problems with the Biblical creation story than the 6000 years part.

[Edited on July 5, 2011 at 2:55 PM. Reason : .]

7/5/2011 2:50:33 PM

The rest of this thread - tl;dr, so feel free to dismiss my questions if they have already been asked and answered. My question:

It seems that as scientific knowledge advances, explaining as yet unexplained natural phenomenon, new discoveries sometimes contradict the Bible or statements made by the religious establishment. For example, the idea of Earth as the center of the universe. When the Bible is contradicted, it seems that the justification seamlessly changes from a literal interpretation to a metaphorical understanding. From an outside perspective, this seems like spin doctoring. Where does this process end? What tenet, if any, is so critical as to force the widespread dismissal of a given religion, for example Christianity, by its followers if that tenet is proven to be a fallacy?

7/5/2011 3:01:42 PM

You obviously haven't read the thread.

LeonIsPro is a literalist. He doesn't take passages from the Bible figuratively. He ignores evidence when it doesn't support the conclusions presented in the Bible.

Maybe The E Man can address that, however.

7/5/2011 3:05:01 PM

Quote :

"Genesis is clearly laying out, day-by-day, God's creation."

It does not necessarily ascribe the creation of Earth to occurring in the first day. Now who is stretching interpretations? Here is Barnes explanation of this matter:

Quote :

"1. Creation implies something created, and not mere space, which is nothing, and cannot be said to be created. 2. Since "the earth" here obviously means the substance of the planet we inhabit, so, by parity of reason, the heavens must mean the substance of the celestial luminaries, the heavenly hosts of stars and spirits. 3. "The heavens" are placed before "the earth," and therefore must mean that reality which is greater than the earth, for if they meant "space," and nothing real, they ought not to be before the earth. 4. "The heavens" are actually mentioned in the verse, and therefore must mean a real thing, for if they meant nothing at all, they ought not to be mentioned. 5. The heavens must denote the heavenly realities, because this imparts a rational order to the whole chapter; whereas an unaccountable derangement appears if the sun, moon, and stars do not come into existence till the fourth day, though the sun is the center of light and the measurer of the daily period. For any or all of these reasons, it is undeniable that the heavens in the first verse mean the fixed and planetary orbs of space; and, consequently, that these uncounted tenants of the skies, along with our own planet, are all declared to be in existence before the commencement of the six days' creation. Hence, it appears that the first verse records an event antecedent to those described in the subsequent verses. This is the absolute and aboriginal creation of the heavens and all that in them is, and of the earth in its primeval state. The former includes all those resplendent spheres which are spread before the wondering eye of man, as well as those hosts of planets and of spiritual and angelic beings which are beyond the range of his natural vision. This brings a simple, unforced meaning out of the whole chapter, and discloses a beauty and a harmony in the narrative which no other interpretation can afford. In this way the subsequent verses reveal a new effort of creative power, by which the pre-Adamic earth, in the condition in which it appears in the second verse, is prepared for the residence of a fresh animal creation, including the human race. The process is represented as it would appear to primeval man in his infantile simplicity, with whom his own position would naturally be the fixed point to which everything else was to be referred. "

Quote :

"The first day's work is the calling of light into being. Here the design is evidently to remove one of the defects mentioned in the preceding verse, - "and darkness was upon the face of the deep." The scene of this creative act is therefore coincident with that of the darkness it is intended to displace. The interference of supernatural power to cause the presence of light in this region, intimates that the powers of nature were inadequate to this effect. But it does not determine whether or not light had already existed elsewhere, and had even at one time penetrated into this now darkened region, and was still prevailing in the other realms of space beyond the face of the deep. Nor does it determine whether by a change of the polar axis, by the rarefaction of the gaseous medium above, or by what other means, light was made to visit this region of the globe with its agreeable and quickening influences. We only read that it did not then illuminate the deep of waters, and that by the potent word of God it was then summoned into being. This is an act of creative power, for it is a calling into existence what had previously no existence in that place, and was not owing to the mere development of nature. Hence, the act of omnipotence here recorded is not at variance with the existence of light among the elements of that universe of nature, the absolute creation of which is affirmed in the first verse."

7/5/2011 3:05:43 PM

Quote :

"LeonIsPro is a literalist."

It's literally impossible that he is, in the same way it is impossible to believe that 1+1 = 2 and 1+1 = 3. There are contradictions in the bible, therefore you have to ignore at least some of the bible.

7/5/2011 3:12:08 PM

Quote :

"For example, the idea of Earth as the center of the universe."

I'm going to need this scripture reference, because I do not know it off the top my my head, overall this argument is somewhat arbitrary as you are saying why man's interpretation of the Bible changes when that was only the position of the Catholic church, who as I said earlier, I believe strongly "interpret" (another way to say it would be butcher) the word of God, and hence this is where a lot of misconceptions stem from. But we must also take note of the fact that I was initially wrong, holding as Disco Stu liked to call it a young Earth Creationist viewpoint, which was an inaccurate view, which I received by not having adequate understanding of scripture. It could be said that I merely cut corners to understand this and surely I am at fault for misrepresenting the scripture.

7/5/2011 3:12:15 PM

Also I stand by the fact that any contradiction in the Bible is wholly justifiable with either the concordance or the direction of other saints who have studied the matter. As simple proof of this, find me a concise commentary that ignores a verse of scripture and says "Well we don't know about this one." To assume that I know everything about scripture would be foolish, but I am here trying my best to explain it without severe misrepresentations. And from my previous post, we can see I have already failed in this respect.

7/5/2011 3:14:40 PM

Quote :

"But it does not determine whether or not light had already existed elsewhere, and had even at one time penetrated into this now darkened region, and was still prevailing in the other realms of space beyond the face of the deep. Nor does it determine whether by a change of the polar axis, by the rarefaction of the gaseous medium above, or by what other means, light was made to visit this region of the globe with its agreeable and quickening influences."

I can't believe he didn't break something doing those mental gymnastics.

7/5/2011 3:15:35 PM

You realize that he does state that the manner these things were done is supernatural, I.E. God achieved them as nature was not sufficient for this to be accomplished. So he's not trying to put forth a scientific argument, merely just stating possible explanations.

But as I said earlier I'm not the best person to speak of on this, just as you all are not the best people to speak on the age of the Earth as determined by science.

So if we could steer the conversation to another subject I think that may beneficial, but this discussion was certainly beneficial to increasing my understanding. So I'm glad people persisted in the debate.

Now if The E Man would just give us that testimony. I would be much happier.

[Edited on July 5, 2011 at 3:20 PM. Reason : ]

7/5/2011 3:17:11 PM

^x? Fair enough Leon, forget the Earth as the center of the universe example. It was more or less there to put the main question in context. What I'm more interested to know is at what point you would stop being a Christian. Is there any one tenet of faith, something really basic and central, that if somehow inexplicably proven wrong (I know your reaction is probably something along the lines of "such a series of events could never occur" - humor me), would lead you to come to the conclusion that all of Christianity is a delusion?

7/5/2011 3:26:40 PM

Someone did ask a similar question and though I did answer with this: "such a series of events could never occur" or something similar your question is much easier to answer. If I ever received a personal revelation from God, identified as such in accordance with scripture, where he said that Christ was not the Messiah i would be utterly without direction.

7/5/2011 3:36:41 PM

^But in such scenario, how would you know you weren't being deceived?

7/5/2011 3:44:10 PM

Paging Descartes...

7/5/2011 3:46:07 PM

I wouldn't bring it up, but Leon has already mentioned if aliens came to earth, he would assume deception....

7/5/2011 3:51:09 PM