Questions for Jesus-Freak

jesus_freak said:
I would have to go through and look at each verse or verses individualy. Are you trying to get at Genesis is not to be taken litteraly or what? Im confused.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do think this leads to the point that many parts of the bible, including Genesis cannot be read literally. The Ecclesiastes quote is as follows (KJV):

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

If you read that literally, the sun is running around all over the place. If you can agree that parts of the bible should not be taken as a literal description of the universe, how do you determine which parts are true, and which are "artistic license" or merely descriptive? For example, do you agree that the 6 days of creation can be read in an interpretive mode, rather than literally?
 
Sorry, you were posting at the same time.

Anyway, yes, today we do use the terms "sun comes up" and "sun goes down" in a non-literal manner. Do you know the writer of the bible meant it the same way? How can you tell which parts are simply a "turn of phrase" rather than literal truth?
 
Hokulele said:
Yes, I do think this leads to the point that many parts of the bible, including Genesis cannot be read literally. The Ecclesiastes quote is as follows (KJV):

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

If you read that literally, the sun is running around all over the place. If you can agree that parts of the bible should not be taken as a literal description of the universe, how do you determine which parts are true, and which are "artistic license" or merely descriptive? For example, do you agree that the 6 days of creation can be read in an interpretive mode, rather than literally?
Click to expand...

Uhh, no Christian believes that poetic devices should be read literally, that is not what they mean by literal. They mean simply that the words mean what the words say, obviously we must understand figures of speech and poetry to be as such, but the other is always making a real and literal point. In this case the author of Ecclesiastes is saying in a roundabout poetic way that the sun rises and sets cyclically. A non-literal reading would be saying something allegorical like "Hmmm I think here that sun stands for happiness and that happiness comes and goes." That is a non-literal reading. When Christians say they read the bible literally they do not mean every single word, they merely mean that the author is making a point and we should not assume allegory or poetry when there is none. No Christian thinks Jesus was literally calling himself a door, and to pretend that such statements are in opposition to literal reading of the text is buffoonery.
 
Anyway, yes, today we do use the terms "sun comes up" and "sun goes down" in a non-literal manner. Do you know the writer of the bible meant it the same way? How can you tell which parts are simply a "turn of phrase" rather than literal truth?
Click to expand...
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one...When I say "what time does the sun rise? I litteraly mean what time does the sun rise over the Eastern horizon...I don't know what greek word is used or its meaning.
 
JF:

The church can make mistakes, but the Bible is literal truth, right? Why?

The church MADE the Bible. Or do you disagree?
 
RationalReverend said:
Uhh, no Christian believes that poetic devices should be read literally, that is not what they mean by literal. They mean simply that the words mean what the words say, obviously we must understand figures of speech and poetry to be as such, but the other is always making a real and literal point. In this case the author of Ecclesiastes is saying in a roundabout poetic way that the sun rises and sets cyclically. A non-literal reading would be saying something allegorical like "Hmmm I think here that sun stands for happiness and that happiness comes and goes." That is a non-literal reading. When Christians say they read the bible literally they do not mean every single word, they merely mean that the author is making a point and we should not assume allegory or poetry when there is none. No Christian thinks Jesus was literally calling himself a door, and to pretend that such statements are in opposition to literal reading of the text is buffoonery.
Click to expand...

jesus_freak said:
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one...When I say "what time does the sun rise? I litteraly mean what time does the sun rise over the Eastern horizon...I don't know what greek word is used or its meaning.
Click to expand...

I guess my point here is how do we know which ones are "figures of speech" and which ones are literally true? Some of the "sun stood still" quotes are in Joshua, which surely isn't poetry. Could the passage describing creation be called a "figure of speech"? If you claim it cannot be read this way, how do you know?
 
The church MADE the Bible. Or do you disagree?
Click to expand...
Not sure what your next point is but yes I disagree. I beleive that every word in the Bible was inspired by God and he used the "authors" of the Bible the same way that we would use a pen.
 
temporalillusion said:
But wouldn't that make God intentionally deceptive? To what end? Or if not, why not?
Click to expand...
I brought up this idea), not JF, as a possible way that Bible-believers could reconcile Genesis with the apparent scientific fact.
(the idea is described in my posts above.)

I think your questions might be a reason why a Bible-believer might reject that option. (I have wondered what objections they might have against that idea.) You raised it from the science side, but I also think it could be raised from the Bible side. They might argue that God would NOT be deceptive, so therefore science MUST be wrong and carbon dating conclusions MUST be flawed etc. Perhaps there are Bible verses that could be used to say that God would NOT be deceptive.

My thinking (as a non-Bible believer and non-Bible expert) is that humans don't have the knowledge to second-guess why God would do something. There are verses in Job where God asks Job where he was when the earth was created and does he know the details about the natural universe. To me it seems like you could make an argument for the fact that a Christian can't assume he or she can guess how God would have created things. So you can't assume that a young earth with the appearance of age is meant to be deceptive.

I think you can argue either way - that a young earth can't have the appearance of age because God wouldn't deceive or that you don't have the information to say that creating a young earth with the appearance of age was meant to deceive.


(I'm not sure whether it is a useful idea. I'm trying to figure out a way that people who absolutely will not give up a literal belief in Genesis can be convinced to stop trying to degrade and distort science. This seemed like one way.)
 
Last edited:
Lonewulf said:
JF:

The church can make mistakes, but the Bible is literal truth, right? Why?

The church MADE the Bible. Or do you disagree?
Click to expand...

The Bible is truth because it is Revelation, it is the communication of God to men.

As for the Church made the Bible, yes and no. Apostles under the guidance of the Spirit of God wrote the New Testament that is true, but such error as is common in the church has no place in the scriptures because of the aforementioned guidance. If you are trying to steer this towards a canon debate, then speak plainly.
 
jesus_freak said:
Not sure what your next point is but yes I disagree. I beleive that every word in the Bible was inspired by God and he used the "authors" of the Bible the same way that we would use a pen.
Click to expand...

Every word was inspired by God. Okay. I can't demand evidence for this because there is none, naturally. You have to make that darn "leap of faith" thing.

Okay, then. Humans make mistakes, the Church makes mistakes. The Bible was writ by human hands. Yet, you think that the Bible (of all sources available) was writ indirectly by God, and thus it's infallible. Fine, fine.

What secondary sources have been directed by God? Dante's Inferno, for instance?
 
jesus_freak said:
Mules, zeedonks and zorses

[qimg]http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/images/v22/i3/p33_zonkey.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/images/v22/i3/p32_zorse.jpg[/qimg]
Zonkeys are the result of a cross between a Zebra and a Donkey (left above). ‘Tigger’ (above ), belongs to Camilla Maluotoga, from New Mexico in the USA, and is the name she gave to this cross between a Horse and a Zebra, known as a Zorse.


Crossing a male ass (donkey — Equus asinus) and a horse (Equus caballus) produces a mule (the reverse is called a hinny). Hybrids between zebras and horses (zorse) and zebras and donkeys (zeedonk, zonkey, zebrass) also readily occur. Some creationists have reasoned that because these hybrids are sterile, the horse, ass and zebra must be separate created kinds. However, not only does this go beyond the biblical text, it is overwhelmingly likely that horses, asses and zebras (six species of Equus) are the descendants of the one created kind which left the Ark. Hybridization itself suggests this, not whether the offspring are fertile or not. Infertility in offspring can be due to rearrangements of chromosomes in the different species — changes such that the various species have the same DNA information but the chromosomes of the different species no longer match up properly to allow the offspring to be fertile. Such (non-evolutionary) changes within a kind can cause sterility in hybrids.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp
Click to expand...
Please tell us how different the DNA of donkeys, zebras and horses is?

Or put another way: If they were different kinds, in the AnswersInGenesis sense, how can they produce offspring at all?
 
Hokulele said:
I guess my point here is how do we know which ones are "figures of speech" and which ones are literally true? Some of the "sun stood still" quotes are in Joshua, which surely isn't poetry. Could the passage describing creation be called a "figure of speech"? If you claim it cannot be read this way, how do you know?
Click to expand...

Well, they tend to be pretty obvious. If you read the Joshua passage in context he can continue fighting because the sun is still up. It is painful obvious that it is meant literally. In Ecclesiastes the way it is written makes it obvious that it is a poetic device. If you cannot see the difference you are being willfully ignorant. But since that probably won't satisfy you, let me also say that even if it weren't just obvious, the study of it in the original Hebrew, as well as general knowledge of the text itself would help greatly. For example, Ecclesiastes is in the style of Wisdom literature and it is given over to poetic devices. Ta-dah!
 
I guess my point here is how do we know which ones are "figures of speech" and which ones are literally true? Some of the "sun stood still" quotes are in Joshua, which surely isn't poetry. Could the passage describing creation be called a "figure of speech"? If you claim it cannot be read this way, how do you know?
Click to expand...
I don't know. All I know is that God could make it appear that the sun stopped moving, or seem like he stoped the sun from moving...I think by reading the whole Bible I realized it is true, and most non beleivers like to take verses out of context or try and focus on a few verses that if read a certain way seem to be wrong. I just continue to study the Word and go from there.
 
Lonewulf said:
Every word was inspired by God. Okay. I can't demand evidence for this because there is none, naturally. You have to make that darn "leap of faith" thing.

Okay, then. Humans make mistakes, the Church makes mistakes. The Bible was writ by human hands. Yet, you think that the Bible (of all sources available) was writ indirectly by God, and thus it's infallible. Fine, fine.

What secondary sources have been directed by God? Dante's Inferno, for instance?
Click to expand...

None. I bet I know where this is leading.
 
jesus_freak said:
I don't know. All I know is that God could make it appear that the sun stopped moving, or seem like he stoped the sun from moving...I think by reading the whole Bible I realized it is true, and most non beleivers like to take verses out of context or try and focus on a few verses that if read a certain way seem to be wrong. I just continue to study the Word and go from there.
Click to expand...

And this is what is defined as being "willfully ignorant". When you don't question, just assume, and then move on without questioning.
 
RationalReverend said:
None. I bet I know where this is leading.
Click to expand...

None at all?

None, period?

No matter how many others wrote down about God, or claimed to be prophets or to have revelations? What about the Qu'ran? Mohamad claimed to be a prophet of God. Why do you doubt him, but not doubt, say, Jesus' apostles?

Is there some form you have to fill out to be a "true" Revealer, or is there some kind of sign somewhere?
 
Zep said:
Please tell us how different the DNA of donkeys, zebras and horses is?

Or put another way: If they were different kinds, in the AnswersInGenesis sense, how can they produce offspring at all?
Click to expand...
I think these questions are answered in that article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom