Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Religious Catch-All Thread Of Stray Posts
#1
Using turkey would be a better, more healthful alternative to pork. Turkey can be flavored to taste like ham, bacon, and sausage, and is sold in those forms commercially at all the major stores, like Kroger. Not only does pork have far more saturated fat and cholesterol than turkey, pork was condemned by God as an "unclean" meat not fit for human consumption, in Leviticus 11:7 and Deuteronomy 14:8. God must have had some reason for this--He was not just being arbitrary. Pigs are notorious for eating anything--they are scavengers, and have very powerful immune systems so that what they eat does not immediately kill them, even though it might kill us. Add to that all the parasites and diseases known to infect pigs, and I think it is safest to avoid eating swine's flesh. I for one do not think I am such a superman that I dare ignore God's imminently sensible dietary guidelines, especially this one.
Reply
#2
There is also the issue of cholesterol and fats in general. Only animal foods have cholesterol--no vegetable or fruit or grain has cholesterol. But if you do eat animal flesh, there are still good choices you can make. Pork is high in fat, poultry much less so (especially if you do not eat the skins). Fish actually has HDL cholesterol, which is said to be the good kind, that we need. Most other meats and egg yolks contain mostly the bad LDL cholesterol.

Let me point out again that most of the animals deemed unclean as food in Leviticus were scavengers or predators, which tend to concentrate any toxins or other contaminants in the food chain. Pigs are rather unique in that they will eat anything. They relish garbage. Catfish also are classed as unclean in Leviticus--because they do not have scales (the text does not mention them by name, but the guideline given is: "...whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers--that you may eat."--Lev. 11:9. We are told to regard any other kind of fish as an "abomination.") Catfish are scavengers, that often are used to keep aquariums clean. They're like little vacuum cleaners. If there is any mercury or other heavy metals in the water, they will take it up and concentrate it in their flesh. Same for shellfish.

The people who lived in that time did not have sufficiently advanced knowledge of chemistry to be aware of these things. Only the Creator could issue a guideline like requiring that fish used for food must have both fins and scales. Nor did people in those days know the germ theory of disease, which could be passed along in the food, or the harmful effects of heavy metals.
Reply
#3
Mankind in ancient times did not avoid pork. It was as popular then as it is now. Because it tastes good. Of course, it was usually the wealthier classes and royalty that could afford pork.

There were no pre-Biblical times, at least on earth. Genesis was the beginning of life on earth. Hence the name.
Reply
#4
The books of the Bible were written at specific times. Some of the same texts that appeared in the old testament were already established in other religions. The main difference in new-found Judaic beliefs was God as Patriarch - not Matriarch. The Earth Mother idea was in effect in the Stone age, as exemplified by the Venus of Willendorf, made over 25,000 years ago.. Studying history through art gives a clear understanding of cultural growth.
Reply
#5
No one is certain how old the traditional accounts were from which Moses took much of Genesis. He seems to have used two sources for the Creation account.

However, if you look at the fourth commandment (the Sabbath commandment), you will notice that God Himself, writing with His own finger on tablets of stone, affirmed the Genesis account of Creation in six days, with the seventh being set aside as the Sabbath. "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11)
Reply
#6
"Gunnen4U Wrote:"Also, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. There can be no disputing this."

I do dispute the idea that the earth is vastly old on scientific grounds. I charge that the science supporting this idea of earth being billions of years old is poor and provably invalid science, using age dating methods that are dependent upon the prior assumptions made. Physical, scientific, laboratory evidence that shows the earth cannot be that old is available--such as the amount of radiogenic helium yet to diffuse out of granitic zirconium compared to the measured rate of diffusion--which indicates an age for earth's granite of around 12,000 years.

In the cosmos, telescopes find many nebulae formed from explosions of a single star at a single point. In no case has any telescope ever found a nebula that has been spreading for more than 12,000 years.

For decades prior to the first manned lunar landing, almost all scientists believed the moon might have dust accumulated on its surface over billions of years that might be as much as a hundred feet deep. This was suggested as a reason why some of the early unmanned spacecraft went silent after landing on the moon. This was taken seriously enough that the first Apollo lunar lander had large snowshoe-like feet at the ends of its landing struts. I have previously posted NASA photos that show this. Then the Apollo astronauts found that the dust layer on the lunar surface is only one-half to three-fourths of an inch deep.

Real science honestly considers contrary evidence. But where the "sacred" assumptions of uniformitarian, gradualist geology is concerned, minds are steadfastly closed. Such scientists are no better than the ignorant people who think that irradiating food must be somehow contaminating the food with radioactivity.
Reply
#7
This tread is where all of the religious references, which have no real connection to nonreligious topics, will be placed in the future. I'm doing this because we are beginning to experience a problem and some members are complaining, rightly so, that most topics do not need to be turned into a religious sermon.

If this offends anyone I apologize, but there is indeed a time and place for everything. And most members are interested in talking about secular topics in a non-religious manner.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#8
Stick Thread
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#9
So strictly factual, scientific evidence that proves something the Bible happens to teach, is religion and not science? You see what kind of determined, closed-minded, sheer prejudice we creationists have to put up with. We aren't even allowed to argue the scientific merits of the issues involved.

What if God really does exist? What if the Creator really did inspire the Bible? How scientific is it to refuse even to consider this as a possibility? Does secular and non-religious have to equal being willfully stupid?
Reply
#10
Ron, no offense personally, but after awhile it gets to the point where you eat, sleep, drink, and talk about nothing but holy scriptures. And everything in the universe is based upon nothing but Creationist thinking. It appears in almost everything you post. Want to talk about some recipe, doesn't matter what? Well there is a certain scripture in Revelations that covers it.

Look, I'm stuck in a bind here. My job is to have a forum that attracts people and promotes discussion on all sorts of issues. I have to walk a fine line in order to do this. And I pretty much let people post as they wish.

Do I like Tait's regular use of vulgarity, and cynicism? No: I'd much rather have him make civil posts, and work his way out of his negative attitude on life. It really concerns me.

Do I like Bill's need to be right on everything, and always have to have the last word on any discussion? No, but he is civil and a good sport about things.

Do I like even my own biased opinions and tend to become too heavy handed on some of them? I really need to work on it, believe me. I love Individual Liberty above all else. But I know this tendency to become overbearing, so I keep trying.

Do you go overboard on this Creationist stuff. Trust me, you really, really, really do. You consume it and spit it out all the time. You are more than a True Believer on this. But you are the only one here that goes for it. Believe me, you are the only one. Patrick is about as close as anyone comes to the Hard Rock bible thumping Christian here, and he too doesn't go for all this. And he is able to turn off his religious passion and just talk like a regular person under regular circumstances.

I'm a True Believer in the Baby Jesus. But I know that the bible was written by humans, who were religiously inspired, and put these things down in writing as they viewed things. They were not directed by the Creator to write, word for word, the holy scriptures. Why would the Creator take the time going through different channels, when he/she/it could just do it for us. After all, he created the universe, and everything in it, in just seven twenty-four hour cycles,......right? Come on Ron, why shake and bake something when you are eternal and not under time constraint? Why force things, when you can just let time take its natural course?

Ron, people would pay attention to you more, and read your posts more, if you would just talk like a regular person. I don't read your posts; almost nobody does. But I have to skim over them because I'm responsible for the forum. And it gets tiring to have to see the same thing, day in and day out. It's Boring! And it doesn't sway others one bit. This Fundamentalism doesn't sway me any either. Because I know better.

Look Ron, Tait's complaint is just one of many, publicly and privately. But everyone knows you are not really "in your face" about it. But its still a constant drumbeat, that never stops. After a while it becomes very bothersome. Just try to be a regular guy, posting regular information, in a regular manner. You don't have to keep proselytizing your SDA fundamentalism to everyone. Ai-Jane is not the place for preaching the official line. There are all sorts of forums strictly devoted to all that, and there are members who are attracted to it for that reason.

As I said above, I want to attract members who are comfortable with others, and willing to discuss many different topics. But we all have to help each other, and discuss the things that others find interesting. And except for Patrick, your constant fundamentalist drumbeat doesn't attract others to the discussion, other than perhaps your brother, who is just clarifying minor sticking points for you.

Again, we just want you to try being one of the guys, discussing thing like one of the guys. And I'm not even going to go into debating you on the science, because its a waste of my time. And when I talk science I am not addressing you because I Know you are in a different ideological universe. I'd love to see you participate in science discussions, but your idea of science is totally alien to everyone else. I'm sorry Ron, but it makes no logical sense at all. And throwing around scriptures at every turn does just the opposite of what you are trying to convey.

Tell you what, why don't you start a thread, incorporating a poll, asking the member's opinion on what they think of it all? Give it a go, but put it in the Religion Section.

Ron, there is more to the universe than non-stop fundamentalism, 24/7. I'm serious here. Everyone knows where you are coming from. Everyone knows what you think. Everyone knows you are a True Believer. But everyone would be happier if you would just lighten up and try acting like one of the guys. And cut out quoting the scriptures non-stop. How many people do you think actually looks them up when you put them out there? That should also be a question in your poll. Does anyone follow up on them? I'll bet you they don't.

I'm sorry Ron, but I must insist that you keep your scripture quoting to the Religion Section, and allow the other sections to be used for something else. I'm trying to attract new members, and when they see all the scripture quotes, all over the place, I don't want them to be turned off by it. And this is no lie, I have had some members tell me that they have stayed away because they don't want to have to wade through all that. "Q" was an exception to the rule.

Now go forth and sin no more, ok? I love you Brother, but you just go overboard, and you are not going to get me to swallow the Fundy line. And I don't apologize for that either.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#11
(12-31-2012, 02:13 AM)Ron Lambert Wrote: So strictly factual, scientific evidence that proves something the Bible happens to teach, is religion and not science? You see what kind of determined, closed-minded, sheer prejudice we creationists have to put up with. We aren't even allowed to argue the scientific merits of the issues involved.

What if God really does exist? What if the Creator really did inspire the Bible? How scientific is it to refuse even to consider this as a possibility? Does secular and non-religious have to equal being willfully stupid?

One other thing. your written opining has nothing to do with the facts. There is no question as to whether or not G-d exists, at least amongst the overwhelming majority. Also inspiration, and dictation, are entirely different animals. You are preaching the 'dictation' aspect, and calling it inspiration. They are two different animals.

And as for the 'scientific' aspect, science is based on proving a hypothesis. And so far there is no scientific proof to the Creationist line. Get REAL evidence, and then we can discuss this rationally.

But as for your last sentence, "Does secular and non-religious have to equal being willfully stupid?" you are Projecting here. Turn it around and ask yourself the same question, before you hurl those accusations at others. Apply it to yourself first.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#12
My 2c:

(12-31-2012, 02:13 AM)Ron Lambert Wrote: What if God really does exist?

no problem here

Quote: What if the Creator really did inspire the Bible?

no problem here either: but it is important that Ron says "inspire", not "dictate".

Quote:How scientific is it to refuse even to consider this as a possibility?

not scientific at all: clearly the Creator inspired the Bible, as well as the Koran, the Kapital, Mein Kampf and Star Wars...

Quote:Does secular and non-religious have to equal being willfully stupid?

Now, this is the interesting one terminologically: the alleged "secular and non-religious" are in truth the most indoctrinated religiously and their dirty habits of citing the higher authority of "science" is the ultimate delegation of authority.

The "secular" are actually a polytheistic religion with the central Creator figure replaced by The Randomness (really another name of the Satan) with a scope of lesser saints (Darwin, Mann, De Sade, Keynes, etc etc). And as typical for polytheists there is no insistence on worshiping every lesser god and the very list of these gods is mutable... thus we see a number of borderline pathologies (individuals that worship some of the lesser gods, say Darwin, and reject some others, say Keynes, and revert to opposites on something else, say replace global warming with global cooling)....no different from shamanism where a tribe could reject the spirits of the trees but worship the spirits of the bushes....

S2

Oh.... and this magic 4.6 number... I recall it is actually 3.14159*sqrt(2), typical secular numerology.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#13
I believe I have stated several times throughout the years that I do not believe in verbal inspiration of the Bible. I believe the writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. While God may have dictated a few passages, as a rule He does not dictate word for word what He wanted His prophets to write.

But I do also believe that the Bible is a valid source of information, equally as reliable as anything in the physical realm. Some of us refer to "the Book of Nature." But that book becomes even more meaningful and relevant when we take it together with the Book of Revelation. My purpose is to show the methods of valid Bible interpretation, especially of prophecy, and also to show how this is not in disharmony with the Book of Nature. When someone comes along and claims that there is essential disharmony--and the Bible absolutely cannot be held to be a source of truth if evolution is believed--then I must speak up and challenge the faulty logic that has led to such conclusions. Likewise I must speak up when someone egregiously misrepresents what the Bible teaches, usually in the effort to build a straw man that can be easily refuted.

I have nothing else to say apart from this. If someone cannot bear to hear what I have to say, that is their problem, for being close-minded and intolerant.

I am willing to debate ANYONE ON EARTH, NOW OR WHO HAS EVER LIVED, on the scientific merits of evolution and creation, and on the PROVABLE age of the earth, ANY TIME, ANY WHERE (limited by what I can afford for travel). I have yet to find any proponents of evolution and vast ages for the earth and universe who have the guts to face me in debate. Once I cite just a few of the things like I did in my previous posts here, they just throw their hands over their ears and run away, yelling. So don't tell me I am just like them. I am not. Despite their claims, they are not truly honest, intellectually. I truly am. That is why I have confidence. I know I can answer the nonsense that evolutionists and uniformitarians keep putting out. They just won't let me. They don't dare.
Reply
#14
This thread may be achieving its purpose already!
Reply
#15
I'm going to divide this into a couple of parts, in order to make my point.

(12-31-2012, 06:39 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote: But I do also believe that the Bible is a valid source of information, equally as reliable as anything in the physical realm. Some of us refer to "the Book of Nature." But that book becomes even more meaningful and relevant when we take it together with the Book of Revelation.

Why does it have to tie in with other books of the bible? Why can't Genesis stand on its own? I personally don't see any problem with this. And while I agree with the general idea, I don't agree with the literal specifics. After all, the writers of the bible were not trained scientists, and view the universe differently. That should be taken into consideration.

Ron, convinced his point is the Gosple, Wrote:My purpose is to show the methods of valid Bible interpretation, especially of prophecy, and also to show how this is not in disharmony with the Book of Nature. When someone comes along and claims that there is essential disharmony--and the Bible absolutely cannot be held to be a source of truth if evolution is believed--then I must speak up and challenge the faulty logic that has led to such conclusions. Likewise I must speak up when someone egregiously misrepresents what the Bible teaches, usually in the effort to build a straw man that can be easily refuted.

What makes you think that your opinion is the absolutely correct opinion, and others is not? I believe there is a word for that, and its called Hubris. You are not even willing to look at the other point from a logical approach. Its your(the Creationist view) or the Highway. Only yours is the politically correct view.

But fortunately, yours is not the majority view amongst biblical scholars. That's right, it's not, so don't even bother trying to argue this. And while it may be the majority opinion of the crowd you hang around with, it is still not the majority opinion in Christiandom. Get used to it. But that is a Fact!

The problem is that Creationalists have made so much noise that it just looks like their view is the majority one. And that is why Christianity has such a bad name of late. But the majority of we Christians, tend to view science and religion as complimenting each other, not the other way around.

Look, you are entitled to your opinion Ron, but your's is not the only one of import. So quit attempting to act as though it is the ONLY one.

And personally, I have no desire debating you on any issue, because your mind is totally closed. If I showed you a fossil, and we took it to be radio-carbon dated, you would not believe it could possibly have a date of 45,000 years before present, plus or minus "X" amount of years. We could take more samples, and run the tests again, time after time, and unless it showed within the time period you wanted it to show, it would not be valid to your mind. So how could I even begin to argue scientific technique to you if you are totally unwilling to believe anything other than what you have made up in your mind?

Its just not worth the time and effort on my part.


But the main point here is that you are more than entitled to your POV. My only point is that if you are going to quote scriptures, including book, chapter, and verse, it belongs in the Religion section. I'm sorry if you don't like this, but you already have a thread where you debate all this already. Why don't more members here argue it with you?

Please go back to that thread and start arguing your point again. You are free to quote all the scriptures you wish. Its just not in the Science Section, which has you vexed. But I'm sorry because you are trying to make it a religious issue, rather than a scientific one.

Look Ron, you are placing me in a real bind here. I hate to do this, but you are not the only member here. And I have to take others into consideration too. If you can't separate the religion from the science, then I am left with no choice. I'm sorry, I really am. But I have a responsibility to the forum as a whole.

Well, enough said. Its a "Lose-Lose" situation for me. I lose any way I do this. So think positive, you don't have to please anyone but yourself, whereas I must please the majority. Pray for me, ok? Now, is that spoken like a good Christian? I'm serious. Pray for me.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#16
Genesis does have to tie in with the rest of the Bible, because it is referred to as factual throughout the Bible, even by Jesus Himself. The theology of salvation as believed by most Christians requires that there be a first Adam who sinned and brought the whole human race into a need for a Savior, and as the Apostle Paul makes clear, Jesus became our Savior by becoming the New Adam. If Genesis is not true, then neither is any other Christian teaching.

My methods of interpreting the Bible are not arbitrary. They are the only methods that could possibly be non-arbitrary, especially where prophecy is concerned. For example, the first rule I follow: define all prophetic symbols solely by the way that they are defined elsewhere in Scripture. Second: Apply the prophecies to the time period the text indicates they are to be applied. Third: Use common sense and regular literary analysis to determine if any passage in Scripture is to be taken as literal or symbolic.

Interpreted by these means, Scripture does indeed yield only one meaning. The problem with others who misinterpret Scripture is that they disobey the Apostle Peter, when he declared: "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20, 21; NKJV) I am certainly willing to discuss interpretations with anyone willing to abide by what Peter said. So many people think that the interpretation of Bible Prophecy or anything else in the Bible is some sort of competition to see who can dream up the most imaginative private interpretations. It is not that, nor is it a matter of majority vote. No Bible scholar who does not follow Peter's requirement is worthy to be considered as having any say in interpretation.

I deny that you know what science is, if you think there is no place in it for discussion of the impact of the Bible on any given scientific subject. Science that refuses truth is not science. Scientists who refuse even to consider the testimony of the Creator are not fit to be called scientists, no matter how many people unwisely honor them. The Creator knows what He is talking about. They do not.

As for carbon 14 testing, I thought I had discussed this a few years ago. It is based upon premises that are necessarily invalidated if the Genesis account is correct, that the way the earth was originally created, there was a layer of water in some form above the atmosphere. (See Genesis 1:6, 7.) Carbon 14, the radioactive isotope of carbon (which normally has only 12 particles in the nucleus) is formed in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays strike nitrogen atoms in the upper atomosphere, kicking out a proton, and leaving six protons with eight neutrons. This unstable radiocarbon is then brought down to the lower atmosphere and ground by rain. Age-dating involves making assumptions about the ratio of C14 to C12 present in the specimen. The less C14, the older it is assumed to be, because it is assumed that there is less C14 because it decayed through many half-lives over thousands or millions of years.

This watery shield which would have blocked cosmic rays was lost during the Flood of Genesis. The logical, inescapable, necessary implication of this is that before the Flood, there was little or no Carbon 14 being introduced into earth's biosphere because (1) carbon 14 was not being formed prior to the Flood, and (2) carbon 14 was not being brought down to the lower atmosphere and ground because it did not rain before the Flood. The earth was watered by a mist that arose from the ground. Genesis 2:5, 6 explicitly states these two things. So do not cite the results of carbon 14 testing to me as "proof" of the evolutionist, uniformitarian views of the age of the earth.

Coal and petroleum are supposed to have formed so long ago that all their carbon 14 has broken down through radioactive decay. Since none of it is found there. And yet organic remains such as fossils have frequently been found in coal seams. They are arbitrarily dismissed, because they do not fit in with the sacrosanct theory of evolution and the supposed age of the earth.

Carbon 14 analysis of mammoths frozen in the ice have yielded the incredible results of one part of the creature being tens of thousands of years older than other parts of the same body. This is well known, and has been well-reported. And not very well explained. Only the Genesis account of the Flood can explain it. During the Flood, when the waters above the earth were crashing down, is when the mammoths were quick-frozen. Different parts of the body would take up different concentrations of carbon 14, because the carbon to which the animal was exposed was part of a chaotic mixture.

You just don't want to believe the things I have been proving to you. But I have been PROVING them whether you want to admit it or not. If my arguments are dismissed out of hand, and the evidence I cite is ignored, then how else can I debate these issues? If you refuse to admit that what I have been saying is absolutely sound science, then what more can I say?

I guess I will just have to wait for God Himself to intervene.
Reply
#17
C14 dating is of course a joke, meant only to gratify sexually obsessed anthropologists, so let's not go there.... As for Genesis

Ron Wrote:Genesis does have to tie in with the rest of the Bible, because it is referred to as factual throughout the Bible, even by Jesus Himself. The theology of salvation as believed by most Christians requires that there be a first Adam who sinned and brought the whole human race into a need for a Savior, and as the Apostle Paul makes clear, Jesus became our Savior by becoming the New Adam. If Genesis is not true, then neither is any other Christian teaching.

I would not be so sure here. Quite clearly Genesis is sliced together from multiple sources, and the creation account in Genesis comes from some untraceable Iraqi Arabs... not a source one should take too literally. In fact here is a syllogism: if you consider Genesis to be a serious source, then consider what it says seriously: by offering two conflicting creation accounts it tells you not to go literal on either!
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#18
MV, just because Moses (for example) drew on two creation narratives, does not mean what he wrote was not divinely inspired, and therefore authoritative. Could not the Holy Spirit direct Moses' selection of which words and passages to include, and which to exclude? As the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (1 Timothy 3:16, 17; NASB) If you are not willing to accept the authority of the Bible when it declares that it is entirely inspired, then you have no business claiming to believe the Bible. If humans get to pick and choose which parts they will regard as inspired and having the authority of the Creator behind them, then it is humans in charge of the Word, not God. It becomes man's word, not God's Word. I am talking about simple, logical consistency here.

In what way do the two Genesis creation narratives conflict? One says that the animals came into the ark, male and female. The other specifies more precisely that the animals came in by twos if unclean, and by sevens if clean (allowed for food)--three mated pairs, with a seventh that was used by Noah as a sacrifice following the Flood, and for food, until the earth should provide more food. This makes perfect sense to me. One expands on the other. I see no contradiction. Please point out specifically what you mean when you say there are contradictions.

Nothing could be more basic to Christianity than the doctrine of salvation. If the Genesis narrative is not literally true, then how could humanity be a fallen, sinful race, in need of a Savior? Take away sin, take away the need for a Savior, and what is left of Christianity? Here is how the Apostle Paul set forth his theology of salvation: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive....The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven." (1 Corinthians 5:22, 47; NKJV) In Romans chapter six, the first six verses, Paul set forth the teaching that Christ bore in Himself our "old man," and that when He died, our old man nature was executed (the entire race of Adam), in full satisfaction of divine justice. But also since we remain in Christ, when He was raised from the dead, so were we--to constitute a new human race with Christ as its Head. Thus God upheld His justice at the same time He provided mercy for us.

Jesus Himself appealed to the Genesis narrative as authoritative when questioned about marriage: "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning `made them male and female,' and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matthew 19:4-6; NKJV) Notice that Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. What human scholar knows better than the Son of God how to interpret properly His own Word?
Reply
#19
Ron,

the choice of which sacred books are to be included into the Bible and in which version was the human choice -- and we know that some books caused disagreements and discussions, book of Revelations being a good case study here.

As for the conflicting accounts; I was referring to the Creation story, where two accounts are obvious.

Genesis 1:25-27:
Quote:And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.
(this is Animals, then Man)

Genesis 2:18-19:
Quote:And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

(this is Man, then Animals)

having these two accounts shows that one cannot take the act of creation literally, and thus any age of Earth computation based on this is not to taken literally. QED.

And yes, Flood story is also problematic albeit not as crucially.... and not as badly as the crazy stuff about sudden filling up of the Black Sea via Bosporus...
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#20
Ron, go back and review your last post. This is why it is relegated to the religion section. Its chock full of book, chapter, and verses, of all things biblical. It never ends.

Why can't you just make a couple of open references and let go at that, and then explain something without the need to keep quoting all things scripture? People will not, I say again Will Not read your post, because its the same old thing, over and over, and.................

As long as you keep doing this, it will automatically be moved to the Religion section. I'm sorry about this, but that's the way it has to be. If you are going to throw in religion all over the place, it belongs in the Religion Section. What else can I tell you?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)