PDA

View Full Version : What is the "plain reading" of this scripture?



Jose Fly
October 6th, 2015, 10:58 AM
Matthew 4 describes the temptation of Christ, and Matthew 4:8 describes how Satan took Jesus to the top of an "exceedingly high mountain" and "showed him all the kingdoms of the world".

Under a "plain reading", this would seem to depict a flat earth. Otherwise, why point out that the mountain was "exceedingly high?

jeffblue101
October 6th, 2015, 11:07 AM
J.P. Holding refuted this and many other flat earth accusations thrown against Scripture.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.php



Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them...


This verse in Matthew by no means implies a flat earth, nor a monstrous mountain large enough to oversee the earth. Indeed, I have always thought that the trip to the mountain was a psychological ploy by Satan -- indeed, given what we know of the honor and shame dialectic of that social world, it fits as the premise of an "honor challenge" by placing Jesus in a pre-eminent position -- and that the showing of the kingdoms was accomplished by means of projecting images of some sort, as on a computer screen.

Indeed, this is suggested by the parallel verse in Luke 4:5 -

The devil led him up to a high place, and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.

However, as anyone who has climbed mountains knows - and the writer of Matthew surely knew, if he lived in the area around Judaea, as Matthew did - the higher up you go, the smaller things down below get, by your perspective. So it seems unlikely that (even if he did believe it a flat earth, personally) Matthew's offering is not compatible with a globe.

Note that even on a flat earth, a high mountain would be a very poor place to observe the kingdoms of the world "in their glory." Furthermore, if Matthew was implying that a mountain existed from which all the world was visible, then obviously, the mountain would be visible from all parts of the world. It is ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed.

Jose Fly
October 6th, 2015, 11:14 AM
Jeffblue posted this...

http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.php


This verse in Matthew by no means implies a flat earth, nor a monstrous mountain large enough to oversee the earth.

Empty assertion.


Indeed, I have always thought that the trip to the mountain was a psychological ploy by Satan -- indeed, given what we know of the honor and shame dialectic of that social world, it fits as the premise of an "honor challenge" by placing Jesus in a pre-eminent position -- and that the showing of the kingdoms was accomplished by means of projecting images of some sort, as on a computer screen.

Wow....all that from "the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor"? That's some "plain reading"!! :chuckle:


Indeed, this is suggested by the parallel verse in Luke 4:5 -

The devil led him up to a high place, and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.

But again, why does this have to happen on top of not just any mountain, but one that is specifically described as being "exceedingly high"?


Note that even on a flat earth, a high mountain would be a very poor place to observe the kingdoms of the world "in their glory."

Not if you thought the world consisted of the region around you.


Furthermore, if Matthew was implying that a mountain existed from which all the world was visible, then obviously, the mountain would be visible from all parts of the world. It is ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed.

See above.

jeffblue101
October 6th, 2015, 11:17 AM
Matthew 4 describes the temptation of Christ, and Matthew 4:8 describes how Satan took Jesus to the top of an "exceedingly high mountain" and "showed him all the kingdoms of the world".

Under a "plain reading", this would seem to depict a flat earth. Otherwise, why point out that the mountain was "exceedingly high?

under your version of a "plain reading" this would be just as impossible in an Earth that is flat or round.

Jose Fly
October 6th, 2015, 11:26 AM
under your version of a "plain reading" this would be just as impossible in an Earth that is flat or round.

Not if one's idea of the world didn't include N. America, S. America, Australia, or anywhere else outside of the region.

jeffblue101
October 6th, 2015, 11:47 AM
Not if one's idea of the world didn't include N. America, S. America, Australia, or anywhere else outside of the region.

again not possible even under a "regions approach", according to livescience (www.livescience.com/32111-how-far-away-is-the-horizon.html) the farthest someone could see out from atop of the tallest mountain Everest is about 230 miles, none of those mountains in the Judea region are even close that height but yet Egypt in that time was well over 200 miles in distance from any mountain in that region. Your "plain reading" depicts zero notion of a flat earth.

jamie
October 6th, 2015, 11:53 AM
Not if one's idea of the world didn't include N. America, S. America, Australia, or anywhere else outside of the region.


Isaiah referred to the earth as being a circle... (Isaiah 40:22 NKJV)

genuineoriginal
October 6th, 2015, 12:01 PM
Matthew 4 describes the temptation of Christ, and Matthew 4:8 describes how Satan took Jesus to the top of an "exceedingly high mountain" and "showed him all the kingdoms of the world".


You obviously have thoughts about the verse that are different than what you believe the plain reading states.

But, instead of asking about those thoughts, you just ask about the plain reading.

The plain reading is simple: Satan takes Jesus up to an exceedingly high mountain and shows him all the kingdoms of the world.

What you seem to be complaining about is your lack of ability to explain how Jesus could see all the kingdoms of the world from an exceedingly high mountain.

But, you are not asking for an explanation of how this is possible, you just keep asking what the plain reading of the verse is, even though the plain reading is plain if you read the verse.


Under a "plain reading", this would seem to depict a flat earth. Otherwise, why point out that the mountain was "exceedingly high?
A "plain reading" would depict a vision, which would explain the "exceedingly high" mountain.

For proof, see this other verse where something similar happens:

Revelation 21:10
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Jose Fly
October 6th, 2015, 12:04 PM
again not possible even under a "regions approach", according to livescience (www.livescience.com/32111-how-far-away-is-the-horizon.html) the farthest someone could see out from atop of the tallest mountain Everest is about 230 miles, none of those mountains in the Judea region are even close that height but yet Egypt in that time was well over 200 miles in distance from any mountain in that region.

And the author of Matthew knew that? So what was the reason for specifically pointing out that the mountain was "exceedingly high"?


Your "plain reading" depicts zero notion of a flat earth.

Martin Luther seemed to think the Bible depicted a flat earth.

Jose Fly
October 6th, 2015, 12:05 PM
Isaiah referred to the earth as being a circle... (Isaiah 40:22 NKJV)

Yes, circles are flat (think of a dinner plate or CD).

Aimiel
October 6th, 2015, 12:15 PM
The 'circle' of the earth is actually time, which travels it's circuit from eternity back to eternity, as God has opened this tiny little 'temporal' realm for His Creation to exist in. God is above the circle of time. He is eternal, without temporal limits.

When considering that Jesus was described as being taken to an exceeding high mountain, one must also consider that it was a spiritual journey and Jesus used that description for the disciple's understanding.

Jose Fly
October 6th, 2015, 12:16 PM
You obviously have thoughts about the verse that are different than what you believe the plain reading states.

It reads to me like Satan wanted to show Jesus the kingdoms of the world, so he took him up to a really, really tall mountain to do so. IOW, "If we're going to see it all, we need to get up really high".


The plain reading is simple: Satan takes Jesus up to an exceedingly high mountain and shows him all the kingdoms of the world.

Exactly.


But, you are not asking for an explanation of how this is possible, you just keep asking what the plain reading of the verse is, even though the plain reading is plain if you read the verse.

Fundamentalists keep insisting that we must read the Bible for what it says and not impose additional meanings or other things on to it. That's what I'm doing.


A "plain reading" would depict a vision, which would explain the "exceedingly high" mountain.

Sorry, but the word "vision" isn't in the text.


For proof, see this other verse where something similar happens:

Revelation 21:10
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Right. The Bible authors believed heaven was just on the other side of the clouds/sky. That's why Jesus ascended (went up) into heaven, Jesus described his return as descending from the sky, Elijah was "taken up to heaven in a whirlwind", "manna from heaven" is described as falling from the sky, and in your verse, in order to see something "descending out of heaven", you have to go up to a high mountain (the "descending" part is important).

genuineoriginal
October 6th, 2015, 12:25 PM
It reads to me like Satan wanted to show Jesus the kingdoms of the world, so he took him up to a really, really tall mountain to do so. IOW, "If we're going to see it all, we need to get up really high".



Exactly.



Fundamentalists keep insisting that we must read the Bible for what it says and not impose additional meanings or other things on to it. That's what I'm doing.
You are imposing additional meanings and other things to the text.

Sorry, but the word "vision" isn't in the text.
A vision is implied by the words of the verse to anyone that actually reads the Bible.


Ezekiel 40:2
2 In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.

jeffblue101
October 6th, 2015, 12:34 PM
And the author of Matthew knew that? So what was the reason for specifically pointing out that the mountain was "exceedingly high"?
.
Unless Matthew had superman vision it would be obvious to anyone as a matter of fact that Egypt can't be seen from any mountain in the Judea region. You seem to be ignoring this part from Holding, which also applies to your "known regions approach" that you are advocating. "Furthermore, if Matthew was implying that a mountain existed from which all the world was visible, then obviously, the mountain would be visible from all parts of the world. It is ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed."

Jose Fly
October 6th, 2015, 12:40 PM
You are imposing additional meanings and other things to the text.

I don't think so. Seems pretty clear to me that it depicts a situation where, in order to see all the kingdoms of the world, they had to go to an exceedingly high mountain.


A vision is implied by the words of the verse to anyone that actually reads the Bible.


Ezekiel 40:2
2 In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.

Sure, but even the vision depicts a scenario where heaven is just above the clouds/sky.

Jose Fly
October 6th, 2015, 12:46 PM
Unless Matthew had superman vision it would be obvious to anyone as a matter of fact that Egypt can't be seen from any mountain in the Judea region.

IOW, the height of the mountain is irrelevant. So why point out that it was "exceedingly high"?


"Furthermore, if Matthew was implying that a mountain existed from which all the world was visible, then obviously, the mountain would be visible from all parts of the world. It is ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed."

I tend to doubt that the author thought through the physics that much. Could it be that it's just a story?

Spitfire
October 6th, 2015, 12:52 PM
It's kind of like the scene in the Lion King where Mufasa tells Simba that he will one day inherit the kingdom.

They can only see so far, but a lot more is implied.

The plain reading is that Satan tempted Jesus and Jesus rejected Satan's offer.

Lon
October 6th, 2015, 12:57 PM
Matthew 4 describes the temptation of Christ, and Matthew 4:8 describes how Satan took Jesus to the top of an "exceedingly high mountain" and "showed him all the kingdoms of the world".

Under a "plain reading", this would seem to depict a flat earth. Otherwise, why point out that the mountain was "exceedingly high?
What did your wife tell you? Your thinking is two-dimensional, so your complaints are of the same material. "har" is a mountain, "oros" is a high position and not necessarily physical. IOW, the 'translator' thought "mountain." Jose, I know you think you are intelligent, but you do not search a thing out and don't care to, which is why I'm often opposed to your agenda on TOL, thus your presence. It is a thin, mindless, veneer of mockery with little actual thought. Why? Hate speech. There is no other reason for this kind of poor-thinking attack. Any attack on another part of the human race like this, is simple-minded low-brow and back-woods (simple-minded prejudice).


It's kind of like the scene in the Lion King where Mufasa tells Simba that he will one day inherit the kingdom.

They can only see so far, but a lot more is implied.

The plain reading is that Satan tempted Jesus and Jesus rejected Satan's offer.

Yep, but I don't think he was looking for a 'reasoned/reasonable' answer. :(

jeffblue101
October 6th, 2015, 12:58 PM
I tend to doubt that the author thought through the physics that much. Could it be that it's just a story?
Holding addressed your atheistic view of Scripture in that comment, even if it were a "story" it would still be "ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed", that can be seen from all the world or "known world".

Jose Fly
October 6th, 2015, 01:10 PM
"har" is a mountain, "oros" is a high position and not necessarily physical. IOW, the 'translator' thought "mountain."

That doesn't make any sense at all.


Jose, I know you think you are intelligent, but you do not search a thing out and don't care to, which is why I'm often opposed to your agenda on TOL, thus your presence. It is a thin, mindless, veneer of mockery with little actual thought. Why? Hate speech. There is no other reason for this kind of poor-thinking attack. Any attack on another part of the human race like this, is simple-minded low-brow and back-woods (simple-minded prejudice).

Oh brother....:rolleyes: If you don't like my posts, don't read them.

Jose Fly
October 6th, 2015, 01:14 PM
Holding addressed your atheistic view of Scripture in that comment, even if it were a "story" it would still be "ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed", that can be seen from all the world or "known world".

Again, it's not ludicrous if the author was telling a story and thus didn't bother to think through the physics of it all. Then he just writes "Satan took Jesus to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world". Done. Neat story.

But if we're to read it as not a story, but a description of an actual event, that raises some obvious questions, the first being, why the need to point out that the mountain was "exceedingly high"? And if it was some sort of supernatural vision, why isn't that written and why go to a mountain to do it?

Given those two options, it seems the former is the most parsimonious.

Lon
October 6th, 2015, 01:19 PM
Oh brother....:rolleyes: If you don't like my posts, don't read them.
I don't like your posts, however, I will take a moment to point out your uncritical thinking and ask you to wise-up.


That doesn't make any sense at all.

Sad. Sadder? You are too opinionated to have asked, just give commentary 'as-if' it is my fault. It isn't. You are ignorant and worse, don't want an answer. The fault isn't in the answer, it is with you, being ignorant of what you instead choose to mock.

You haven't the foggiest idea, and will remain there :(

WizardofOz
October 6th, 2015, 01:19 PM
It's kind of like the scene in the Lion King where Mufasa tells Simba that he will one day inherit the kingdom.

They can only see so far, but a lot more is implied.

The plain reading is that Satan tempted Jesus and Jesus rejected Satan's offer.

But unless they could see the entire kingdom then the movie The Lion King was never actually made :noid:

serpentdove
October 6th, 2015, 01:20 PM
...[W]hy point out that the mountain was "exceedingly high?


J.P. Holding refuted this and many other flat earth accusations thrown against Scripture.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.php

:listen: He's exceedingly high. http://archive.f2bbs.com/images/smileys/afrosmoke.gif

serpentdove
October 6th, 2015, 01:24 PM
...[T]he temptation of Christ...

Heb. 2:18

jeffblue101
October 6th, 2015, 01:37 PM
Again, it's not ludicrous if the author was telling a story and thus didn't bother to think through the physics of it all. Then he just writes "Satan took Jesus to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world". Done. Neat story.


stop contradicting yourself in your atheistic view, If Matthew wasn't "thinking through the physics of it all" then he certainly wasn't thinking that the world is flat disc therefore we can see all the kingdoms from it. you can't have it both ways in your mindset.

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 01:50 PM
So many problems come when we try to force a literal historical fact type reading of the bible. It can't be read that way as it makes it silly and not true. The bible is analogy, parable, metaphor and symbolism.

Stuff like Genesis didn't literally happen. They impart a moral. Hence the saying the moral of the story. That is the only sane way to read the bible.

patrick jane
October 6th, 2015, 01:54 PM
So many problems come when we try to force a literal historical fact type reading of the bible. It can't be read that way as it makes it silly and not true. The bible is analogy, parable, metaphor and symbolism.

Stuff like Genesis didn't literally happen. They impart a moral. Hence the saying the moral of the story. That is the only sane way to read the bible.

EVERY word in the Bible is true. Literally

serpentdove
October 6th, 2015, 01:54 PM
Stuff like Genesis didn't literally happen.

"If you don't believe Genesis 1:1, don't bother reading the rest of the bible." ~ Dennis Prager

Lon
October 6th, 2015, 01:55 PM
So many problems come when we try to force a literal historical fact type reading of the bible. It can't be read that way as it makes it silly and not true. The bible is analogy, parable, metaphor and symbolism.

Stuff like Genesis didn't literally happen. They impart a moral. Hence the saying the moral of the story. That is the only sane way to read the bible.
:nono: This too, is thin two-dimensional thinking. Simpleton answers aren't 'rational' answers, they are 'settling without research' answers.

▼▼

EVERY word in the Bible is true. Literally
"If you don't believe Genesis 1:1, don't bother reading the rest of the bible." ~ Dennis PragerThis is 'why' liberal theology is shunned here. It is seen as 'creative-thinking' despite facts.

"har" is a mountain, "oros" is a high position and not necessarily physical.

And you too, probably won't get this, but it is one of several solid answers that one doesn't need to 'symbolize' the verse in order to accept. That is the lazy theologian 'creative' theologian answer and it is flat liberal and flat wrong, being the irresponsible conjecture that it is. IOW, it is a horrible, irresponsible, liberal guess passed off as something more substantial and arrogant than what it is: a bad guess (supposed common sense or intuition not-with-standing).

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 01:58 PM
:nono: This too, is thin two-dimensional thinking. Simpleton answers aren't 'rational' answers, they are 'settling without research' answers.

This is 'why' liberal theology is shunned here. It is seen as 'creative-thinking' despite facts.

Understanding that snakes and donkies can't talk isn't simplton. It is rational.

Knowing that there was no world wide flood with a giant boat is rational.

Knowing that Jesus taught us how to behave and that is what is important is rational. We didn't get any special forgiveness because of his animal body blood.

We need rationality to understand the bible. Not blind bible literalism worship. Sensible interpretation is best.

When I hear to literalists debating the bible it is like kids arguing over the specifics of Harry Potter. Did dumbledor do this specifically or this. If he cast this then bla bla bla would happen.

You miss the whole point and beauty of the book with such literalism.

Bright Raven
October 6th, 2015, 02:03 PM
Understanding that snakes and donkies can't talk isn't simplton. It is rational.

Knowing that there was no world wide flood with a giant boat is rational.

Knowing that Jesus taught us how to behave and that is what is important is rational. We didn't get any special forgiveness because of his animal body blood.

We need rationality to understand the bible. Not blind bible literalism worship. Sensible interpretation is best.
Do you believe that the donkey spoke with Baalem?
Do you believe in the great flood and Noah?

Seems as though you don't but I would rather hear it from you?

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 02:09 PM
Do you believe that the donkey spoke with Baalem?
Do you believe in the great flood and Noah?

Seems as though you don't but I would rather hear it from you?

They are figurative stories to impart a moral. They are not literal history. That is the only rational reading of those stories.

patrick jane
October 6th, 2015, 02:11 PM
Understanding that snakes and donkies can't talk isn't simplton. It is rational.

Knowing that there was no world wide flood with a giant boat is rational.

Knowing that Jesus taught us how to behave and that is what is important is rational. We didn't get any special forgiveness because of his animal body blood.

We need rationality to understand the bible. Not blind bible literalism worship. Sensible interpretation is best.

When I hear to literalists debating the bible it is like kids arguing over the specifics of Harry Potter. Did dumbledor do this specifically or this. If he cast this then bla bla bla would happen.

You miss the whole point and beauty of the book with such literalism.

The book ?

Blasphemy about Jesus' Blood

Bright Raven
October 6th, 2015, 02:15 PM
They are figurative stories to impart a moral. They are not literal history. That is the only rational reading of those stories.

Hmmm. So you don't believe the words of Jesus?

Matthew 24:38 New King James Version (NKJV)

38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 02:18 PM
Hmmm. So you don't believe the words of Jesus?

Matthew 24:38 New King James Version (NKJV)

38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

He was imparting a message to simple people using a figurative story.

There is no other sane or rational interpretation of the bible than figurative. None. Literalism is the promotion of delusion. There are no talking snakes. There never were. The earth is not 6,000 years old. The whole population of the earth didn't die out 3,500 years ago in a flood. We know that because people were living then in China and Africa and Europe and they are still here.

Lon
October 6th, 2015, 02:22 PM
Understanding that snakes and donkies can't talk isn't simplton. It is rational.
Then you aren't a Christian, but in some desired name only (for whatever odd reason). If your God is not supernatural, then you don't believe there is a God. You are 'finite.' Hate to tell you that, but it also means you 'brain' is finite and limited thus "rationalization" is finite and limited. It cannot possibly be the whole picture. You and I aren't the actualizers of truth, we are the viewers of it.


Knowing that there was no world wide flood with a giant boat is rational.
You DON'T know that...

Knowing that Jesus taught us how to behave and that is what is important is rational. We didn't get any special forgiveness because of his animal body blood.
You DON'T know this either, you are finite and limited (as am I) thus incapable of actualization. We observe 2+2=4, we do not actualize it.

We need rationality to understand the bible. Not blind bible literalism worship. Sensible interpretation is best.
Your 'sensible' interpretation is finite as is mine. If there is no standard, given by God (and there is) then we'd be lost in random and differing finite opinion.

When I hear to literalists debating the bible it is like kids arguing over the specifics of Harry Potter. Did dumbledor do this specifically or this. If he cast this then bla bla bla would happen.
At least they are 'critically' thinking instead of coming up with 'creative' and simpleton answers of the imagination.

You miss the whole point and beauty of the book with such literalism.:nono: Just the opposite, in point of fact.

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 02:26 PM
Then you aren't a Christian, but in some desired name only (for whatever odd reason). If your God is not supernatural, then you don't believe there is a God. You are 'finite.' Hate to tell you that, but it also means you 'brain' is finite and limited thus "rationalization" is finite and limited. It cannot possibly be the whole picture. You and I aren't the actualizers of truth, we are the viewers of it.


You DON'T know that...

You DON'T know this either, you are finite and limited (as am I) thus incapable of actualization. We observe 2+2=4, we do not actualize it.

Your 'sensible' interpretation is finite as is mine. If there is no standard, given by God (and there is) then we'd be lost in random and differing finite opinion.

At least they are 'critically' thinking instead of coming up with 'creative answers' of imagination.
:nono: Just the opposite, in point of fact.

I am sorry, but anything other than a figurative reading of the bible is delusion. It is fantasy. There never has been or will be a talking snake. The earth did not have a world wide flood 3,500 years ago that destroyed 99.9% of all life. It just didn't happen. There were actual cultures of people back then in China for example and they are still here.

We all didn't speak one language and we weren't' all the same race until the tower of bable. That is kids stuff and not rational in any sense.

We need sane and rational Christianity. Not magic and superstition.

Danoh
October 6th, 2015, 02:29 PM
Understanding that snakes and donkies can't talk isn't simplton. It is rational.

Knowing that there was no world wide flood with a giant boat is rational.

Knowing that Jesus taught us how to behave and that is what is important is rational. We didn't get any special forgiveness because of his animal body blood.

We need rationality to understand the bible. Not blind bible literalism worship. Sensible interpretation is best.

When I hear to literalists debating the bible it is like kids arguing over the specifics of Harry Potter. Did dumbledor do this specifically or this. If he cast this then bla bla bla would happen.

You miss the whole point and beauty of the book with such literalism.

Your post says much that is sound.

I say that while holding to an Acts 9 Dispensational (aka Mid-Acts, or MAD) Literalism, in its actual sense.

The Literal via the Literal, the Literal via the Figurative.

In short, to allow yourself to "one size fits all" all "Literalists," is to have allowed yourself to have fallen into the same error you are lamenting, even as you lament it.

Bright Raven
October 6th, 2015, 02:30 PM
He was imparting a message to simple people using a figurative story.

There is no other sane or rational interpretation of the bible than figurative. None. Literalism is the promotion of delusion. There are no talking snakes. There never were. The earth is not 6,000 years old. The whole population of the earth didn't die out 3,500 years ago in a flood. We know that because people were living then in China and Africa and Europe and they are still here.
OK, then all these scriptures allude to a fictious story. If it isn't true, why is it there? I'd ask your pastor to see if he thinks its true or not.

Matthew 24:37-38 New King James Version (NKJV)

37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

Luke 17:26-27New King James Version (NKJV)

26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

Hebrews 11:7 New King James Version (NKJV)

7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

1 Peter 3:20 New King James Version (NKJV)

20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited[a] in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.


2 Peter 2:5 New King James Version (NKJV)

5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 02:35 PM
OK, then all these scriptures allude to a fictious story. If it isn't true, why is it there? I'd ask your pastor to see if he thinks its true or not.

Matthew 24:37-38 New King James Version (NKJV)

37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

Luke 17:26-27New King James Version (NKJV)

26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

Hebrews 11:7 New King James Version (NKJV)

7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

1 Peter 3:20 New King James Version (NKJV)

20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited[a] in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.


2 Peter 2:5 New King James Version (NKJV)

5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;

Don't read the bible like a recipe book to quote mine. It doesn't work for any literature and only makes one seem like a kids debating Harry Potter intricacies or Dungeons and Dragons. It is a figurative work meant to impart a moral.

It is impossible that we all were one race with one language until the tower of bable. There were people here speaking different languages. So that story isn't literal. It is impossible. To deny reality is illness and delusion. That isn't what God wants.

We have a brain to use it. We need to use it like rational adults.

Also, figurative literature isn't bad. Just because the bible is figurative doesn't' mean it is wrong. There are morals to the story we are supposed to pay attention to. You miss the forest for the trees.

Danoh
October 6th, 2015, 02:38 PM
I am sorry, but anything other than a figurative reading of the bible is delusion. It is fantasy. There never has been or will be a talking snake. The earth did not have a world wide flood 3,500 years ago that destroyed 99.9% of all life. It just didn't happen. There were actual cultures of people back then in China for example and they are still here.

We all didn't speak one language and we weren't' all the same race until the tower of bable. That is kids stuff and not rational in any sense.

We need sane and rational Christianity. Not magic and superstition.

In Genesis 3 "the serpent" is also refereed to as "beast of the field."

"Serpent" is in the sense of a shining being. Guess what "beast" is a reference to?

You are confusing your going against a thing because it does not makes sense to you, with its being off because you do not agree with it, because it does not make sense to you.

Ironic given the OP - you are taking what is clearly your own "circular" reasoning, as sound reasoning, because you think it is.

LOL, now I'm stuck in my own, about yours :chuckle:

Bright Raven
October 6th, 2015, 02:41 PM
Don't read the bible like a recipe book to quote mine. It doesn't work for any literature and only makes one seem like a kids debating Harry Potter intricacies or Dungeons and Dragons. It is a figurative work meant to impart a moral.

It is impossible that we all were one race with one language until the tower of babel. There were people here speaking different languages. So that story isn't literal. It is impossible. To deny reality is illness and delusion. That isn't what God wants.

We have a brain to use it. We need to use it like rational adults.

Raising the dead is not rational. Jesus healing all the sick that were brought to him is not rational. The resurrection is not . None of these are rational. Do you believe them?

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 02:42 PM
In Genesis 3 "the serpent" is also refereed to as "beast of the field."

"Serpent" is in the sense of a shining being. Guess what "beast" is a reference to?

You are confusing your going against a thing because it does not makes sense to you, with its being off because you do not agree with it, because it does not make sense to you.

Ironic given the OP - you are taking what is clearly your own "circular" reasoning, as sound reasoning, because you think it is.

LOL, now I'm stuck in my own, about yours :chuckle:

Impossible things are impossible. 2,500 years ago People were already in China speaking a language. Therefor it is impossible for them to be invented as a race and language because of a tower.

3,500 years ago 99.9% of all life didn't die. It simply didn't happen.

To believe in things that a demonstratively false and outlandish like talking snakes and what not is childish and not what God wants.

We have brains to use. Not discard for magic fairy tale kids stories.

genuineoriginal
October 6th, 2015, 03:18 PM
Understanding that snakes and donkies can't talk isn't simplton. It is rational.

Knowing that there was no world wide flood with a giant boat is rational.

Knowing that Jesus taught us how to behave and that is what is important is rational. We didn't get any special forgiveness because of his animal body blood.

We need rationality to understand the bible. Not blind bible literalism worship. Sensible interpretation is best.

When I hear to literalists debating the bible it is like kids arguing over the specifics of Harry Potter. Did dumbledor do this specifically or this. If he cast this then bla bla bla would happen.

You miss the whole point and beauty of the book with such literalism.

If you do not believe that God created the world in six days and then rested on the seventh day, then you have missed the whole point of the book.

genuineoriginal
October 6th, 2015, 03:26 PM
Impossible things are impossible. 2,500 years ago People were already in China speaking a language.
2,500 years ago the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem.
500 years before that was the Exodus.

Maybe you should fix your timeline.

Jose Fly
October 6th, 2015, 03:28 PM
stop contradicting yourself in your atheistic view

Stop being so stereotypically tribal in your thinking.


If Matthew wasn't "thinking through the physics of it all" then he certainly wasn't thinking that the world is flat disc therefore we can see all the kingdoms from it. you can't have it both ways in your mindset.

No. If the typical Hebrew at the time thought of the world as flat and relatively small, then we would expect that to be reflected in their writings, even in passages that aren't specifically about the nature of the earth.

So, if the author of Matthew believed the world to be flat and relatively small, when he writes the story of Satan tempting Jesus by showing, and offering him all the kingdoms of the world, he would depict that temptation as occurring from the top of not just any mountain, but an "exceedingly high" mountain.

IOW, the belief in a flat, relatively small world is reflected in how the author described the setting. We see this all the time in literature.

Also, keep in mind the context of how this point was raised. In another thread, we were told that the Bible is to be read as is, in its "plain reading". When it says 6 days, it means 6 days. Thus according to the same interpretive framework, when Matthew 4:8 says Satan took Jesus to a very high mountain from which they could see all the kingdoms of the world, that means there is a mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen.

Danoh
October 6th, 2015, 03:37 PM
Impossible things are impossible. 2,500 years ago People were already in China speaking a language. Therefor it is impossible for them to be invented as a race and language because of a tower.

3,500 years ago 99.9% of all life didn't die. It simply didn't happen.

To believe in things that a demonstratively false and outlandish like talking snakes and what not is childish and not what God wants.

We have brains to use. Not discard for magic fairy tale kids stories.

There is only one race, meant to result in and comprise various nations.

Acts 17:

26. And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

While, in Genesis 11: 1 thru 9, which is also Romans 1: 18 thru 32, the issue in both references is that of one, collective mind, against God.

Acts 17:

29. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to
repent:
31. Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Romans 1:

21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Again, the issue in both references is that of one, collective mind, against God.

Acts 1:

4. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Does that mean its time for, "well, what makes sense to me is such and so, therefore..." or that its time for "...what saith the Scripture?" Gal. 4:30.

Acts 2 continues with...

6. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8. And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

What is this one language?

1 Corinthians 1:

10. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

In this, are there people in China and Taiwan who apparently "speak the same thing" as to Christ that some of us do, and yet, not in English, or what have you, but in Mandarin?

Jose Fly
October 6th, 2015, 03:41 PM
For context, here's the image that was in Martin Luther's Bible...

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=429&pictureid=5057

I wonder where he got the idea that that's how the earth is? :think:

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 04:06 PM
Raising the dead is not rational. Jesus healing all the sick that were brought to him is not rational. The resurrection is not . None of these are rational. Do you believe them?

I get you petulantly want to believe in magic like a child, however you are an adult and should find a way to communicate like one. If you have evidence for magic show it.

Otherwise like a rational person and sane adult I will continue to know magic isn't real.

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 04:07 PM
If you do not believe that God created the world in six days and then rested on the seventh day, then you have missed the whole point of the book.

That is just silly.

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 04:08 PM
2,500 years ago the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem.
500 years before that was the Exodus.

Maybe you should fix your timeline.


It is a kids story. There was no spreading people or one language before the tower. It is figurative.

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 04:10 PM
There is only one race, meant to result in and comprise various nations.

Acts 17:

26. And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

While, in Genesis 11: 1 thru 9, which is also Romans 1: 18 thru 32, the issue in both references is that of one, collective mind, against God.

Acts 17:

29. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to
repent:
31. Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Romans 1:

21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Again, the issue in both references is that of one, collective mind, against God.

Acts 1:

4. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Does that mean its time for, "well, what makes sense to me is such and so, therefore..." or that its time for "...what saith the Scripture?" Gal. 4:30.

Acts 2 continues with...

6. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8. And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

What is this one language?

1 Corinthians 1:

10. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

In this, are there people in China and Taiwan who apparently "speak the same thing" as to Christ that some of us do, and yet, not in English, or what have you, but in Mandarin?

Could you paraphrase the point you were trying to make because that was undecipherable.

bybee
October 6th, 2015, 04:10 PM
I get you petulantly want to believe in magic like a child, however you are an adult and should find a way to communicate like one. If you have evidence for magic show it.

Otherwise like a rational person and sane adult I will continue to know magic isn't real.

You will continue to give your opinion. It is no more valid nor invalid than anyone else's opinion.

6days
October 6th, 2015, 04:13 PM
That is just silly.
Silly that God created everything like He tells us?
Or is it silly to believe that nothing caused everything and that life came from non life?

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 04:17 PM
You will continue to give your opinion. It is no more valid nor invalid than anyone else's opinion.

Oh magic being not real isn't an opinion. It is sane reality. If you have evidence of magic demonstrate it. Otherwise like any other outlandish claims I just scoff. Time to grow up and deal with reality Christianity.

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 04:18 PM
Silly that God created everything like He tells us?
Or is it silly to believe that nothing caused everything and that life came from non life?

Who says nothing caused everything? I sure didn't. Magic still isn't real.

Grosnick Marowbe
October 6th, 2015, 04:49 PM
So many problems come when we try to force a literal historical fact type reading of the bible. It can't be read that way as it makes it silly and not true. The bible is analogy, parable, metaphor and symbolism.

Stuff like Genesis didn't literally happen. They impart a moral. Hence the saying the moral of the story. That is the only sane way to read the bible.

Your church has you on an, "Un-Spiritual" diet, evidently. The Bible is
a "Spiritual Book." In order to understand it, it takes, Spiritual
Discernment and the leading of the Holy Spirit. During the "miracle
signs and wonders" period, God was dealing with mankind one way.

Today, He sent/uses The Holy Spirit, and His holy inspired Word
(The Bible) to speak to the hearts and minds of man. Faith pleases
God. If God says He created a "Special fish" to swallow up Jonah,
then, that's to be taken "literally." If He says He mixed the languages
at the Tower of Babel, that's to be taken literally. However, in order
to accept the truths of Scripture, one must be indwelt by the Holy Spirit,
and have the Holy Spirit's guidance. Otherwise, one will look
at the Scriptures and see, contradictions, confusion, metaphors,
falsity, etc.

Are you a member of the "Body of Christ?" Are you a "Child of God?"
Can you testify how you became such?

steko
October 6th, 2015, 04:55 PM
Uh, oh!
This thread is very revealing. :noid:

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 05:02 PM
Your church has you on an, "Un-Spiritual" diet, evidently. The Bible is
a "Spiritual Book." In order to understand it, it takes, Spiritual
Discernment and the leading of the Holy Spirit. During the "miracle
signs and wonders" period, God was dealing with mankind one way.

Today, He sent/uses The Holy Spirit, and His holy inspired Word
(The Bible) to speak to the hearts and minds of man. Faith pleases
God. If God says He created a "Special fish" to swallow up Jonah,
then, that's to be taken "literally." If He says He mixed the languages
at the Tower of Babel, that's to be taken literally. However, in order
to accept the truths of Scripture, one must be indwelt by the Holy Spirit,
and have the Holy Spirit's guidance. Otherwise, one will look
at the Scriptures and see, contradictions, confusion, metaphors,
falsity, etc.

Are you a member of the "Body of Christ?" Are you a "Child of God?"
Can you testify how you became such?

If the holy spirit gives the interpretation and not the individual then where are there so many interpretations?

Also, if it is just a literal fact book there is no interpretation needed. It is to be read like a car manual. Which it obviously is not.

Literalism is a tool to control. Churches that use this tool are cults.

6days
October 6th, 2015, 05:03 PM
Who says nothing caused everything? I sure didn't. Magic still isn't real.

Magic is not real. We agree.
Everything that had ever begun to exist has a cause.
God's Word explains that He is the cause.

Aimiel
October 6th, 2015, 05:09 PM
So many problems come when we try to force a literal historical fact type reading of the bible. It can't be read that way as it makes it silly and not true. The bible is analogy, parable, metaphor and symbolism.

Stuff like Genesis didn't literally happen. They impart a moral. Hence the saying the moral of the story. That is the only sane way to read the bible.Sane? Sounds insane to me, since not one single historic fact stated in Scripture has ever been disproved, not one single scientific fact has ever been disproved and certainly not one spiritual Truth related there has ever been proven in error. Sorry, but one who takes Scripture as purely symbolic doesn't understand Truth. You need to read your Bible more and pray for understanding. Yours is darkened.

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 05:09 PM
Magic is not real. We agree.
Everything that had ever begun to exist has a cause.
God's Word explains that He is the cause.

It explains it figuratively not literally though. There is a big difference. Science doesn't dispute a cause. It just doesn't know what it is. It is silent on cause.

What caused the big bang? Science doesn't know. Doesn't even pretend to know.

Bright Raven
October 6th, 2015, 05:11 PM
It explains it figuratively not literally though. There is a big difference. Science doesn't dispute a cause. It just doesn't know what it is. It is silent on cause.

What caused the big bang? Science doesn't know. Doesn't even pretend to know.

Interesting, was there a big bang?

Ktoyou
October 6th, 2015, 05:27 PM
As a kid, I got a big bang out of cherry bombs. Is that the big bang?

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 05:30 PM
Interesting, was there a big bang?

There may have been. The big bang theory contends their was. Now whether that was the ultimate beginning is not known.

Bright Raven
October 6th, 2015, 05:31 PM
There may have been. The big bang theory contends their was. Now whether that was the ultimate beginning is not known.

That is true since it is just a theory.

drbrumley
October 6th, 2015, 05:31 PM
Matthew 4 describes the temptation of Christ, and Matthew 4:8 describes how Satan took Jesus to the top of an "exceedingly high mountain" and "showed him all the kingdoms of the world".

Under a "plain reading", this would seem to depict a flat earth. Otherwise, why point out that the mountain was "exceedingly high?

:rotfl: another attempt to mock those who follow Christ.

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 05:34 PM
That is true since it is just a theory.

It is a theory. There are more than one. There are many unknowns in cosmology and physics.

However, magic still isn't real.

6days
October 6th, 2015, 05:44 PM
That is true since it is just a theory.
I think you arw confusing a tv show with the Big Bang belief system? :)
One of those is real..... the other is a psuedoscientific belief.

bybee
October 6th, 2015, 05:49 PM
Oh magic being not real isn't an opinion. It is sane reality. If you have evidence of magic demonstrate it. Otherwise like any other outlandish claims I just scoff. Time to grow up and deal with reality Christianity.

And your scoffing is somehow meant to be important to me?

Aimiel
October 6th, 2015, 05:50 PM
One of those is real..... the other is a psuedoscientific belief.In case you've just joined us, the norm is for people (yes, even scientists) to accept pseudo-scientific beliefs as fact, even though they don't even qualify as a theory. :thumb:

Bright Raven
October 6th, 2015, 05:50 PM
I think you arw confusing a tv show with the Big Bang belief system? :)
One of those is real..... the other is a psuedoscientific belief.

Nope! The origin of the earth through a Big Bang is THEORY only! Prove it to be scientific fact.

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 05:52 PM
And your scoffing is somehow meant to be important to me?

I scoff at superstition and magic as a substitution for rational though. If you believe in magic then show some magic. I have never seen any and I have been in churches my whole life.

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 05:53 PM
Nope! The origin of the earth through a Big Bang is THEORY only! Prove it to be scientific fact.

Proof only exists in mathematics. Science deals with evidence. You don't even have a basic understanding of the physics, chemistry or what you are talking about obviously.

Just saying magic isn't rational or good. It is lazy.

Bright Raven
October 6th, 2015, 05:58 PM
Proof only exists in mathematics. Science deals with evidence. You don't even have a basic understanding of the physics, chemistry or what you are talking about obviously.

Just saying magic isn't rational or good. It is lazy.

Who said anything about magic except for you?

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 06:06 PM
Who said anything about magic except for you?

The fundamentalist creation account is filled with nothing but magic. It goes against observable reality. That is bad. It is willful ignorance and worship of magic. Not reality.

You said theory in a way that demonstrates you don't even understand the definition of theory. I am sure people have explained it to you, but you prefer to continue in willful ignorance. That is ok, but it isn't a demonstration of any true faith. It is simply petulance.

Science doesn't deal in proof. Only math deals with proof. Science deals with evidence.

If you have a reason to dispute a particular theory of cosmology go ahead. However, just filling in the parts you are ignorant of with things that a particular branch of science doesn't even say is intellectual dishonesty. If you have to be intellectually dishonest you don't have truth on your side.

The universe is not 6,000 years old and physics is real. Magic is not.

Grosnick Marowbe
October 6th, 2015, 06:08 PM
If the holy spirit gives the interpretation and not the individual then where are there so many interpretations?

Also, if it is just a literal fact book there is no interpretation needed. It is to be read like a car manual. Which it obviously is not.

Literalism is a tool to control. Churches that use this tool are cults.

Your "church" teaches you these things? Or, are you just a run of mill anti-Christian?
You're very transparent. Have you been on TOL under another name?

Grosnick Marowbe
October 6th, 2015, 06:11 PM
OM, I doubt you'll last long on here, so, unload your "blasphemy" while
you still have time.

Bright Raven
October 6th, 2015, 06:12 PM
The fundamentalist creation account is filled with nothing but magic. It goes against observable reality. That is bad. It is willful ignorance and worship of magic. Not reality.

You said theory in a way that demonstrates you don't even understand the definition of theory. I am sure people have explained it to you, but you prefer to continue in willful ignorance. That is ok, but it isn't a demonstration of any true faith. It is simply petulance.

Science doesn't deal in proof. Only math deals with proof. Science deals with evidence.

If you have a reason to dispute a particular theory of cosmology go ahead. However, just filling in the parts you are ignorant of with things that a particular branch of science doesn't even say is intellectual dishonesty. If you have to be intellectually dishonest you don't have truth on your side.

The universe is not 6,000 years old and physics is real. Magic is not.

Were the heavens and the earth created in 6 days? And you think the earth is how old? Thank you, I'll stick with the biblical view of creation.

Grosnick Marowbe
October 6th, 2015, 06:13 PM
I doubt "om" goes to church?

Grosnick Marowbe
October 6th, 2015, 06:15 PM
Om, get it out of your system. Tick-tock.

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 06:16 PM
OM, I doubt you'll last long on here, so, unload your "blasphemy" while
you still have time.

Believing in reality isn't blasphemy. Cult thinking doesn't define Christianity. That is something fundamentalists don't get. You don't own the word.

I am a rational person and Christian. Magic isn't real.

Grosnick Marowbe
October 6th, 2015, 06:17 PM
Believing in reality isn't blasphemy. Cult thinking doesn't define Christianity. That is something fundamentalists don't get. You don't own the word.

I am a rational person and Christian. Magic isn't real.

You're neither.

OliviaM
October 6th, 2015, 06:17 PM
Were the heavens and the earth created in 6 days? And you think the earth is how old? Thank you, I'll stick with the biblical view of creation.

Your view isn't biblical. It is just a story. The bible is a figurative work to impart a morality. Not a science book. Petulance and willful ignorance are not true faith.

Faith is accepting reality and still believing.

Grosnick Marowbe
October 6th, 2015, 06:17 PM
Hurry!

Grosnick Marowbe
October 6th, 2015, 06:21 PM
Bye om

Bright Raven
October 6th, 2015, 06:38 PM
Your view isn't biblical. It is just a story. The bible is a figurative work to impart a morality. Not a science book. Petulance and willful ignorance are not true faith.

Faith is accepting reality and still believing.

:blabla: :blabla: :blabla:

musterion
October 6th, 2015, 06:42 PM
Well, on the upside, at least Olivia brought slightly better arguments and grammar to the table than TOL's atheist regulars do.

Aimiel
October 6th, 2015, 06:51 PM
The Oasis of Love doesn't teach the blasphemy she's spouting. They believe Scripture.

Aimiel
October 6th, 2015, 06:53 PM
There are morals to the story we are supposed to pay attention to. Yeppers: don't post blasphemy on TOL or you'll get banned. :duh:

Interplanner
October 6th, 2015, 08:19 PM
The fundamentalist creation account is filled with nothing but magic. It goes against observable reality. That is bad. It is willful ignorance and worship of magic. Not reality.

You said theory in a way that demonstrates you don't even understand the definition of theory. I am sure people have explained it to you, but you prefer to continue in willful ignorance. That is ok, but it isn't a demonstration of any true faith. It is simply petulance.

Science doesn't deal in proof. Only math deals with proof. Science deals with evidence.

If you have a reason to dispute a particular theory of cosmology go ahead. However, just filling in the parts you are ignorant of with things that a particular branch of science doesn't even say is intellectual dishonesty. If you have to be intellectually dishonest you don't have truth on your side.

The universe is not 6,000 years old and physics is real. Magic is not.



I don't know about the universe; there are some biblical reasons to think it is as old as you are thinking, but there is evidence for the recent creation of the earth in this form, and especially for the flood.

The largest evidence for the global flood (by volume) is the sheer fact of massive sedimentary terrigenous rock on top of the underlaying on up to 75% of continent space. A new school of Australian geologists, for ex., are hammering out the Centralia theory, which is grappling with the fact that 80% of the surface of Australia, the center, is rapidly deposited sedimentary. How much water force does it take to get sediment that far inland to bury Ayers?

This is coupled with the newest material on vertical tectonics, which is astounding. A researcher in London's geological society, Clemens, has shown that granitic magmaism must be completely rewritten because domes like Yosemite's could form in 5 hours in vertical fractures and shafts from vertical movement. And it is magma causing it. Silvestru's Geology and Deep Time is a good place to start.

Uniformitarianism was slopped together when geology was very naive.

Interplanner
October 6th, 2015, 08:27 PM
The fundamentalist creation account is filled with nothing but magic. It goes against observable reality. That is bad. It is willful ignorance and worship of magic. Not reality.

You said theory in a way that demonstrates you don't even understand the definition of theory. I am sure people have explained it to you, but you prefer to continue in willful ignorance. That is ok, but it isn't a demonstration of any true faith. It is simply petulance.

Science doesn't deal in proof. Only math deals with proof. Science deals with evidence.

If you have a reason to dispute a particular theory of cosmology go ahead. However, just filling in the parts you are ignorant of with things that a particular branch of science doesn't even say is intellectual dishonesty. If you have to be intellectually dishonest you don't have truth on your side.

The universe is not 6,000 years old and physics is real. Magic is not.



The other thing I notice about this post is that if magic means God did certain things instantly that otherwise appear to take a long time, then yes there is magic. OTOH, there are mathematicians about mutations like Sternberg (see LIVING WATERS) who show that it would take 100M years for just 2 mutations to occur, and that won't cut it as far as whale evolution is supposed to go. So if magic means adopting horrifying mathematical positions (like the above) then there is a lot of magic going on. The whale is so complex, even the reproductive system has a cooling system that appears to have been designed at BMW. It's very obvious that it started that way. And that is just one of 8 remarkable systems that have to have been seriously remodeled by 100M-year chances to have what we see today. Not a chance. Just people who have taken magical positions instead of an infinite designer and Creator.

Uniformitarianism was slopped together when geology was very naive.

Lon
October 6th, 2015, 11:11 PM
I am sorry, but anything other than a figurative reading of the bible is delusion.
So no resurrection from the dead, no literal person called Jesus Christ...

I'm sorry, but 1 Corinthians 15:17 ... if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.



It is fantasy. There never has been or will be a talking snake. No point in a talking God either then. Liking Christian morals, pick and choose, is not Christianity. Worse, "liking" them is meaningless and arbitrary. I am, however, glad you were here for a short time. ALL liberal theology, ultimately, is this absurd in thinking. It is the illogical conclusion of liberal theologians.



The earth did not have a world wide flood 3,500 years ago that destroyed 99.9% of all life. It just didn't happen. There were actual cultures of people back then in China for example and they are still here.A LOT of assumptions there. "Denying the existence of" is the absurd as the first response. We seek out the truth of a matter, not dismiss such first off, that is the absurd.


We all didn't speak one language and we weren't' all the same race until the tower of bable. That is kids stuff and not rational in any sense.
Er, even science points to diversity happening from unity. Your objection is odd.


We need sane and rational Christianity.
No, you want a Christianity that fits you, and the rest of us to give in to your expectations.


Not magic and superstition.
That's not what we are talking about. Not even a little bit.


Don't read the bible like a recipe book to quote mine. It doesn't work for any literature and only makes one seem like a kids debating Harry Potter intricacies or Dungeons and Dragons. It is a figurative work meant to impart a moral.
:doh: If you can't follow its directions, you can't get to where it is at. There are actual directions and even recipes in scripture. :sigh:


It is impossible that we all were one race with one language until the tower of bable. There were people here speaking different languages. So that story isn't literal. It is impossible. To deny reality is illness and delusion. That isn't what God wants.
This is wrong on so many levels. For man to exist, even if by evolution, it would require a same place and language. Separate nations didn't spontaneously generate at the same time. THAT would be magic. :doh:

We have a brain to use it. We need to use it like rational adults.
That's not rationality, it is skepticism. You confuse the two. In your mind, if you 'doubt it' that is 'rational' confusing initial skepticism as if it were a virtue. Some things seem impossible, but I've 'seen' the impossible. Rational is fine. Overt skepticism is a self-fulfilling prophecy on a path to nowhere.


Also, figurative literature isn't bad. Just because the bible is figurative doesn't' mean it is wrong.
It 'contains' figurative passages, but no, it is not figurative.

There are morals to the story we are supposed to pay attention to. You miss the forest for the trees.
True of both fiction and nonfiction.

musterion
October 7th, 2015, 05:01 AM
You guys realize you're probably replying to the troll once known as Kdall? As big a waste of time as trying to reason with Meshak, but have fun if that's your thing.

Interplanner
October 7th, 2015, 08:25 AM
re Olivia on the flood,
The geologic and cultural evidence of a worldwide flood is greater than ever, but I can understand an objection to the death of everyone at that time. What we do know is that there are seemingly pointless details that confirm the flood in cultures all over the place--a sub-Mayan tribe that says one family of 8 that survived it but with the name of TocToc or similar. They even have a date for the amount of time between creation and the flood, and while I don't know about Mayan futurism, they were quite accurate about the past.

Interplanner
October 11th, 2015, 03:22 PM
two notes on the plain meaning. It can take some work to get there. Once it is worked out the Bible will have a more intriguing meaning than we thought.

1, "he leads me beside still waters." It has usually been thought that this was about the shepherd finding still pools of water for his sheep. It's a nice image--if sheep in a desert had trouble drinking from moving water. They don't. But the verse from Ps 23 has nothing to do with this image. Instead "beside" is actually "past" and "still" is actually "brackish" or "toxic." The verse means that the shepherd pushes his flock past a water source that he knows will kill them.

2, "women will be saved through childbirth," thought to be a naive or mysogynist line by Paul. We have to remember how different something can sound to those who first heard it. This line was not originally addressed in the modern age of obstetrics, or of anesthesiology. Nor even of 'natural' midwifery: "That's not pain" said the local Port Wenn midwife to Louisa, when she heard the 'natural' childbirth mother screaming horribly. "That's the woman taking charge of her labor." Louisa was not convinced!

It did not mean these "Christian" women would be saved if they just prayed a lot, and ignored modern medicine or midwives both.

It did not mean these women were not Christians until they had had kids.

All those things are horrible readings of the passage, as though Paul was out of his depth and expertise.

The women Timothy lived around kept "Diana" talis(wo)men to protect them with superstitions through childbirth. Diana in 1st century Asia Minor was a cult. It was a nature religion. It was a fertility religion, too, so these poor women were emotionally invested in her, whether married or not. If they were pregnant, it was because of Diana; if they were afraid of childbirth, they were too adore Diana and keep the manifold-breasted icon of her nearby or hold it during birth.

All Paul meant was that, now that these ladies were Christians, they did not need to 'trust' in Diana about childbirth. They would be kept as safe as they could be apart from all that, by having faith in God, and growing in love, holiness and discreetness.

This follows a historical reminder that the woman Eve let herself be deceived. The Diana cult put women on a pedestal as much as the women put it on a pedestal. Paul meant that the Christian women should cease practicing any superstition that had to do with Diana, because God is the giver and protector of life. The restrictions Paul put on women apply more in such a case than anywhere else. And the followers of the lesbian cult were not that far away either.

"Be kept safe..." is the best rendering; no common sense medical practice that would make either mother or child safe would have been ignored.

Livelystone
October 11th, 2015, 04:43 PM
Matthew 4 describes the temptation of Christ, and Matthew 4:8 describes how Satan took Jesus to the top of an "exceedingly high mountain" and "showed him all the kingdoms of the world".

Under a "plain reading", this would seem to depict a flat earth. Otherwise, why point out that the mountain was "exceedingly high?

Not a physical mountain and Satan was showing Jesus the spiritual kingdoms of the spirit and soul of all of mankind that authority over was given to satan when God passed judgement on all who were part of the fall in the garden

Power over them that he said had been given to him for him to give to who ever he wished was what he was trying to tempt Jesus with

Interplanner
October 11th, 2015, 07:38 PM
Not a physical mountain and Satan was showing Jesus the spiritual kingdoms of the spirit and soul of all of mankind that authority over was given to satan when God passed judgement on all who were part of the fall in the garden

Power over them that he said had been given to him for him to give to who ever he wished was what he was trying to tempt Jesus with



The whole world in that period and locale often meant the Roman empire and anything bordering it.

Livelystone
October 11th, 2015, 07:44 PM
The whole world in that period and locale often meant the Roman empire and anything bordering it.

Whole world is whole world

Kingdoms is plural. Roman empire is singular

Meanwhile if we are going to change the meaning of words in the Bible we might as well just throw it out and take up studying Moby Dick

Interplanner
October 11th, 2015, 08:00 PM
Nope. You go with the historical meaning unless clearly shown otherwise. Acts 2:5 is every nation under heaven but there was no one there from Argentina or Tanzania. You have to go with the historical sense or meaning unless shown otherwise.

there were other kingdoms next to Rome's perimeter, so other kingdoms would have been seen. If it took place in Judea, they would have seen Idumea and Nabatea in addition to Rome. Maybe Egypt, too.

Livelystone
October 11th, 2015, 09:43 PM
Nope. You go with the historical meaning unless clearly shown otherwise. Acts 2:5 is every nation under heaven but there was no one there from Argentina or Tanzania. You have to go with the historical sense or meaning unless shown otherwise.

Baloney, God is spirit with a soul, God's Word is spirit and food for the seed that is Christ in us to grow into the image and likeness of God, and because we are called to worship Him in spirit and in truth

As far as what I have highlighted of your words in red you have absolutely no scripture to support your case ,,,,,,,,,,,,, Zilch as in nada !!!



there were other kingdoms next to Rome's perimeter, so other kingdoms would have been seen. If it took place in Judea, they would have seen Idumea and Nabatea in addition to Rome. Maybe Egypt, too.


The Horizion is 20 milles on a good day and more from altitude but no where near the distance of other counties mentioned in Israel's History....... for sure if you are looking at Damascus you cannot see either Bayblon or Egypt let alone Ethopia

You are continually trying to bend the Bible to fit your personal doctrines that are against the truth in God'd Word........ you need to cease from doing this or pay the penalty for any you lead astray

Furthermore, if you had half the knowledge you think you have you would be twice as smart as you are

Fair enough?

MrDeets
October 12th, 2015, 07:32 AM
I'm aware most of y'all are literal YEC's, but I'd still be interested on what you folks think of Hugh Ross and his view of the universe and Bible. I can start another thread if you'd like, but I'll test the water here. :wave:

Jose Fly
October 12th, 2015, 09:50 AM
Not a physical mountain and Satan was showing Jesus the spiritual kingdoms of the spirit and soul of all of mankind that authority over was given to satan when God passed judgement on all who were part of the fall in the garden

Power over them that he said had been given to him for him to give to who ever he wished was what he was trying to tempt Jesus with

So it was a metaphor?

musterion
October 12th, 2015, 01:53 PM
I'm aware most of y'all are literal YEC's, but I'd still be interested on what you folks think of Hugh Ross and his view of the universe and Bible. I can start another thread if you'd like, but I'll test the water here. :wave:

His view is simply a means to try to make the purported billions of years of evolution compatible with the Bible, in order to somehow make Christianity more appealing. My opinion.