Tristen

Hey Scott, I haven’t followed the conversation – and so am only responding to the OP. My apologies if I repeat ideas that have already been discussed. You said, “The Bible is intended to be theological messaging. Using the Bible as a source for empirical scientific research is misappropriating the purpose of God's written Word and distracting from the message of Jesus' eminent return” “The Bible” is God’s highest and most authoritative communication to humanity; it is truth delivered to a deceived world. It is light in the darkness. As truth, we should accept God’s word as truth in every aspect – including claims about the natural world. To suggest otherwise is to undermine the credibility of scripture as a whole. As a matter of hermeneutics, the suggestion that we can simply wave away disagreeable aspects of God’s word as “poetic” distractions is incredibly disconcerting. “I would say simply the creation story as a message, that God created in an orderly series of graduated peaceful steps, expressed poetically in a way we can understand” So then, if God’s Word disagrees with a supposedly scientific idea, we have the authority to dismiss that part of God’s Word as nothing more than a pretty, poetic lie? Even though scientific ideas are subject to constant change and upgrade (by design), we are to attribute more credibility to those changeable human ideas, than to God’s own words? “The reason natural science and the Bible seem to differ is that the Bible is not an encyclopedia of modern knowledge” Natural science and the Bible do not “differ” in any objective measure. There are some subjective aspects of science (interpretations and speculations) that disagree with scripture. Nevertheless, all of the (objective) facts can be interpreted to fit very neatly into the Biblical model of reality. A failure to recognize this distinction between subjective and objective aspects of “natural science” speaks to confirmation bias - i.e. being conditioned to give higher credence to the secular interpretation of the facts than is warranted by the investigation process. “Many scriptures on these matters are catering to a Bronze Age audience and poetic in nature, making it difficult to analyze using modern standards that are still very limited, leading to mostly personal interpretations.” If you are concerned about “personal interpretations”, maybe stick to the actual words God used to convey His message – rather than making the substantial assumption that our ancestors were morons that God had to lie to – so they could understand. There is no evidence that our ancestors lacked the intelligence to understand that the creation could be very old, or that our ancestors were animals. And the evidence from the Genesis text (i.e. the grammatical context) overwhelmingly speaks to an historical narrative (a series of subsequent real events). Your attempt to wave away the details of Genesis as merely “poetic in nature” notwithstanding. “Everyone, both Christians and Scientist have a partial picture of nature and history, together they make a bigger partial picture that is far from adequate. Only after Jesus returns will the Body of Christ have the faculties to understand the true workings of nature” Sure – but that doesn’t mean we get to reinterpret God’s words to suit modern sensibilities. The world constantly bombards us with new ideas that disagree with the Bible. Therefore, according to your reasoning, we should accept the worldly ideas, and reject the plainest reading of the Bible – setting aside the disagreeable scriptures as merely “poetic” – because after all, we don’t know everything and will only know “after Jesus returns”. Alternatively, (and my preferred approach), we to choose to believe that God’s Word has the highest claim on truth – and be more skeptical about the world’s ideas. “Now, we can only spin our wheels in the air without any traction toward the absolute truth, except for our understanding of Jesus Christ. Be blessed with humility. So as not to present the stories hand in hand with our beloved Gospel” If you are embarrassed by what the Bible actually says, that is on you. Far from “humility”, the epitome of arrogance would be for me to presume the right to set aside and/or reinterpret God’s words away from their plainest meaning – merely because I had become convinced that I am somehow intellectually obligated to a human idea that disagrees with that part of scripture. “Creationist fanaticism appears to the world as always angry, promoting hated in God's name, while putting a wall up before non-believers going to the Gospel” This is a series of irrational statements (technically Adhominem and Unsupported Assertions). My position would commonly be described as Young Earth Creationism (YEC). I have a heart-felt, well-reasoned, thoroughly-studied position (including attaining postgraduate scientific credentials). Why is my position suddenly being characterized as “fanaticism”? What is “angry” or hateful about me holding this position? This is all empty rhetorical bluster. Furthermore, I anecdotally find many “non-believers” respect the fact that I have answers reconciling the facts to the Biblical model of reality. It frustrates others, and even makes some angry – but that is between them and God. Furthermore, I find my allegiance to scripture (as written) encourages the faith of other believers – in the knowledge that one can trust scripture without intellectual compromise (despite the deceptive rhetoric suggesting otherwise). “"Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens!" - Psalm 148:4. Today, we call it "space", a concept unattainable to people of the Iron Age” I’m not sure why you have such a low opinion of your ancestor’s intellectual capacities. Why would the “concept” of “space” be “unattainable to people of the Iron Age”? I can explain that concept to a five-year-old. It’s not all that hard to understand the “concept”. You seem to think they were all idiots. Job 26:7 tells us that God “stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing”. It is therefore plausible that early Hebrews had a fairly sophisticated understanding of cosmology. But yes, Psalms are self-evidently lyrical – thus providing plenty of scope (or context) for assuming poetic expression. You therefore have to justify making that same assumption for the early chapters of Genesis. You don’t get to decide God’s words are “poetic” – merely because you disagree with the plain meaning of the text. Furthermore, “poetic” does not mean dismissible. In your example, “space” is poetically characterized as “the heavens”. But in your “poetic” interpretation of Genesis, you are dismissing most of the textual details in favor of a handful of vague, generalized ideas. And then I would wonder – at what point do your hermeneutics of Genesis permit a switch from the text being dismissible “poetry”, and start being a trustworthy recording of genuine history? “Many early writers thought that there was a dome of water above them, based on their literal interpretations of several passages in the Bible. This shows the level of misunderstanding we can achieve.” Regardless of what supposedly “early writers thought”, the Bible does not state that there is “a dome of water above” us. This is neither a “literal”, nor “poetic” claim of the Bible. The relevant passages do employ rare uses of certain Hebrew words. Nevertheless, your supposed “literal” interpretation requires reading assumptions into the text, as-well-as relying on very narrow definitions of Hebrew words (and that on top of ignoring the contextual, lyrical aspect of context). But again – just because the Bible uses “poetic” language in one context does not mean we can arbitrarily decide that the Bible is using “poetic” language in any context where we find ourselves uncomfortable with the plain meaning of the words. ““The pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them He has set the world” - 1 Samuel 2:8 A modern view would be something like the core and mantle of the Earth are the Lord's, and around it he has placed the biosphere.” This verse arguably has nothing to do with the “biosphere” or “core and mantle” of the earth. The statement self-evidently makes use of architectural analogy to convey the idea that God is all-powerful and in control of the events happening on earth. In-context, there is no reason to assume this is a statement about geology whatsoever – but rather, God’s sovereignty. Further to context, this statement is not a claim from God at all, but a recorded portion of Hannah’s prayer. “The Bible's words are beautiful and preferred, nurturing both mind and heart with epic poetic imagery” Except – the context reveals this statement is not a claim from God about geology at all – not even in the remotest poetic sense. “"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." - Ecclesiastes 1:5. the Sun does not travel around the Earth, failure to promotion our current knowledge. Scriptures are not going to cater to our modern understanding of science, except through End Time prophecy.” This scripture does not say that the sun travels “around the Earth”. In scientific reasoning, all momentum is an artifact of perspective (or a point of reference). You think you are stopped at a red light, but you only appear stationary from one perspective. In broader reality, you are on the surface of a spinning planet that is hurtling through space. Yet, it would not contradict science to claim you were stopped. Likewise, the sun absolutely rises in the eastern sky, then moves across the sky and sets in the west, only to return again to the eastern sky the following morning. Even though we now better understand the broader cosmological context, there is nothing scientifically untrue in this statement. “"Now our knowledge is partial and incomplete, and even the gift of prophecy reveals only part of the whole picture!" I Corinthians 13:9” This does not excuse unsound hermeneutics. The Bible says what it says. And we don’t get to arbitrarily decide that it means something else when we disagree with it. “The problem is that literal interpretation of the English translation presents an inconsistent hermeneutics” Very few people interpret the Bible as literally as you are suggesting. In fact, I have never met anyone who does so. My issue is, in terms of hermeneutics, you are deciding that you can dismiss details contained in God’s own words, in favor of a vague, generalized summary of the text – and all because a) there is a secular narrative that you feel obligated to, and b) we have imperfect knowledge. “This ancient Hebrew view of creation is consistent with Bible scripture as the literal interpretation dictates. A sound doctrine would not to pick and choose what it should believe. Leaving all this out of teaching causes doubt on the validity of the literal approach.” The YEC position does not apply this super-literalist “approach”. Trying to conflate this “literal approach” with YEC is either uninformed or dishonest. “The Genesis interpretation that makes the most sense. This illustrates how simple the language of Genesis might have to be toward it's targeted audience of Bronze Age society.” But it’s not what the Bible says. If the supposed dumb-dumbs “of Bronze Age society” added their own biases to the interpretation process, that is not God’s fault. If people go beyond the words that are written, that’s an error in their interpretation methodology. “Seven days of creation. Formation of the Solar System(time is relative to the observer):” And so we begin the process of dismantling God’s words. God said He created the universe in 6 days. But since “time is relative to the observer”, those days can mean anything except 24 hours as we experience days. Here we have the first detail of text we are now permitted to dismiss. By this argument, the plainly stated time-frame of creation can now be disregarded. The detail of seven numbered days with evenings and mornings is relegated into irrelevance. I wonder how many other words God wasted in Genesis on those Bronze age knuckleheads. “In the start of the creation story God is viewing the Earth as a potential contained within the formless mass at hand, only the mind of God can penetrate to this image. God seems to be viewing the ultimate potential of things in the story, not the actual process employed to achieve it. (The waters are a reference to the realm beyond sky, Psalm 148:4) 0) Nebula 1) Sun and planet formation(Earths mass forms umbra) 2) Atmospheric stratification(Moon formation caused Earth to temporarily have a thick expansive envelope exhibiting features of a gas planet) 3) Water world forming volcanic plates(algae/flora created, plate tectonics begin). 4) The clearing of the atmosphere(second light - carbon capture by algae and tectonics, carbon cycle begins) 5) Aquatic life and dinosaurs are created 6) Mammals/Mankind are created 7) The earth becomes God's completed work” Well, that is definitely one story of history. But that is very different story to the history spelled out in Genesis.

Your heavenly Father is always excited to hear from you. Always! God knew exactly what He was getting with you. He created you just the way He wanted you. And when you were broken and lost, He paid a very high price to get you back. We are all "always wrong about something". Learning and growing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is a privilege and a blessing. It's when you think you have all the answers that you should be concerned. 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong. Your best friend is your Lord. He suffered the humiliation of the cross so He could "be around" you forever. Hebrews 13:5 Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?

I think His rest comes through knowing that I don't have to figure all this out. If I sin, the Spirit convicts me, and I notice a depletion of my peace. If I do well, I walk in my Lord's peace and liberty (as He promised). If I am deceived, there is nothing I can do in my own efforts - except to trust that God will open my eyes where needed. If I forget how to behave, I need the Holy Spirit to remind me. There is an element of deception in the "struggle" - i.e. that we could ever do anything right apart from His grace. Therefore, all we can do is collapse ourselves entirely on His grace - trusting in His goodness (resting in His arms). Easier said than done sometimes - as I am acutely aware - given that I am one who also needs frequent re-reminding of this.

Another way to interpret the garden of Eden incident (and the subsequent failure of Law to perfect our actions) is that "rules" don't work to perfect us. We need something deeper and more abiding than a list of "rules" to follow. We need the indwelling Holy Spirit working out His fruit of righteousness through us. In this we have rest - as this removes the constant pressure of trying to live under the ever-present condemnation of a list of rules.

This happens quite a bit - we crush the faith of spiritual children with legalism. We invite outsiders into the fellowship of Christ; telling them God loves and accepts them as they are, that is, until they are saved - and we start pointing out their flaws and telling them how God is disappointed with them if they don't live up to this perfect picture of a Christian. I am reminded of the U2 lyric: "You ask me to enter, but then you make me crawl". We should, of course, be uncompromising concerning the truth of sin. Nevertheless, our response to sin should be to encourage the sinner to God's grace and restoration - rather than crushing their resolve through legalism. 2 Corinthians 3:6 ... for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

I think you could fairly infer that the "net" might be referring to the "Gospel" - in the sense that the "Gospel" is essentially an invitation to enter into "the kingdom of heaven". However, I don't think one could make that inference dogmatically - since 'using the Gospel as a net' is not the point of this particular parable.

To her own Master she stands or falls (see Romans 14).

I wouldn't say necessarily that there is "silence" on the topic of "holiness", but rather a focus on the grace that leads to "holiness". We have to find and teach the balance. Teaching grace without "holiness" deceives some into thinking grace gives one license to sin. Teaching "holiness" without grace can plunge people into self-condemnation, as well as coax people into the deception of legalism. In the 1970s, God had to remind the church about "holiness". Some portions of the church took the lesson too far - where Christians were no longer permitted to engage with the world at all; i.e. prohibiting dancing, and sports, and other forms of secular entertainment. That constant self-righteous, legalistic pressure killed the faith of many church-goers and gave the church a bad reputation to outsiders (hindering evangelism). My anecdotal impression is that, for the past 25 years (or so), The Holy Spirit has been emphasizing the grace aspect of the equation. But that too has a potential to get out-of-balance if we are not careful.

Thanks George, I appreciate your efforts here.

It doesn't matter to God how we decide to dispose of our bodies. God will give us new, incorruptible bodies. It would be impractical to have such a rule as many people over history have died in circumstances that gave them no choice about the manner in which their bodies were dealt with. Furthermore, there is no certainty that our will about what happens to our bodies after we are gone will be respected.

Lol. If only the logic improved as the font size increased. https://p3n9m3v6.stackpathcdn.com/uploads/emoticons/default_smile.png

I haven't heard the term used like this before, but I imagine from the context that flaming is something akin to trolling? That means, once again, you have decided to ignore what I said in favor of repeating a debunked claim. Like I said before, every single post you have addressed to me has incorporated some measure of dishonesty or mischaracterization. It is seemingly not in your capacity to consider the possibility that someone who challenges you might have a valid point - worthy of consideration. Rather, if they disagree with you, you default to assuming there must be something wrong with them - they must be deceived, or deceiving, or argumentative, or stalking, or flaming etc. And whilst you don't get to tell people when they can engage on this forum, I have come to the same conclusion that further discourse with you would be unfruitful. So thanks for the chat.

There is no point addressing the topic when one of the participants is determined to engage disingenuously. I have therefore addressed the manner in which you argue - which is a necessary first step - and therefore a perfectly valid point of discussion. If you insist you have the right to break the conventions of respectful discussion, then nothing can be achieved by addressing the topic. The conversation is a waste of time. It's more "sad" (i.e. pathetic) that you have to resort yet again to personal insinuations about me. Perhaps you would be less "sad" if you could learn to argue rationally - and thereby not give opponents an opportunity to challenge the manner of your arguments rather than their content. My intention to address the manner of your arguments has been self-evident throughout our discourse. Therefore, nothing has been "exposed" that wasn't already obvious to anyone reading my posts.

Doubling-down on fallacy is the opposite of clever. Choosing to repeat the same irrational claim only further exposes your own intellectual compromise. I haven't engaged you on any of these topics. I have only addressed the specious manner in which you present your position. That is both irrational and prideful. If someone disagrees with you, the proper way to conduct yourself is to subject their arguments to scrutiny, and present your own arguments for examination. Assuming that someone is being deceptive merely because they dare disagree with you is the height of arrogance. This inhibits your ability to be fair-minded in your consideration of arguments. Besides - motives are logically irrelevant to the truth (which is why Appeals to Motive is a recognized logic fallacy). Your position loses rational integrity the moment you start down this path. Insinuating that I am participating in deception because I dare challenge you - is yet more perfidy; in yet another failed, illogical attempt at rhetorical manipulation. If you had a valid argument, you would not need to resort to such strategies. Rather, every post you have addressed to me has employed some measure of spurious, dishonest argumentation. As such, you have lost credibility in my eyes - and therefore also lost the respect needed for me to even start to give your accusations credence.

This is a very good example of you trying your best to deceive. Instead of defending your position with a rational argument, you are pretending you have won the debate by casting an aspersion against my personal ability to "comprehend". That is not how an honest actor engages in sincere conversation.

Everyone who understands the English language knows that the phrase "trying their best to decieve you" means being intentionally deceptive - explicitly. Just because you can't adequately defend your position with rational arguments, doesn't mean you should resort to technically-irrational logic fallacies.

There is a fine line between discipline and Law. Law condemns and enslaves us. You'll know you are under Law if you feel condemned when you fail to perfectly follow one of the rules you have made for yourself. The things you listed are all good things to practice, but God does not want your fellowship with Him to be a chore to you. That is the danger of placing these actions under the "I must" category. I would humbly suggest the following change of perspective: - I want to read and study scripture because this is the main way that my heavenly Father communicates with me - teaching me to understand Himself and His truth (the truth). - Throughout my day, I want to remember that God is with me, and talk to Him often (including giving Him thanks) because He is my beloved Father who loves me, and is sincerely interested in every aspect of my life, and desires to personal fellowship with HIs children - including me.

This is nonsensical. To 'try one's best' is to do something intentionally - applying one's "best" effort to the stated outcome (i.e. to deceive). If someone is sincere in their own position, they may be wrong, but they are not 'trying their best to deceive'. That is a logically absurd use of words, and a patently unfair characterization. The purpose of sincere debate is to subject the various arguments to scrutiny and examination - and thereby (ideally) move all participants towards truth. In this endeavor, only arguments matter. Characterizing those who disagree with you as deceivers is logically weak (and technically fallacious) reasoning. There is no provision in your approach for you to be wrong (and therefore no provision for humility or correction or learning). You are simply here to lecture us from your ivory pulpit - and anyone who challenges you must therefore be a deceiver. That is not how sincere conversations (nor debates) work. You mean "learn" by surrendering my thoughts to the one and only person in all of Christendom who has access to 100% truth - the great and omniscient Shilohsfoal? Your use of Matthew 24 here is (ironically) deceptive. Your usage of this verse implies that I am denying the existence of deceivers. Yet I have not ever claimed the absence of deceivers. This verse does not address anything I've said. It is therefore not relevant to our conversation. There is nothing in Matthew 24:5 (nor the context) to suggest this is specifically about "the mark of the beast". Nor is there anything in this passage suggesting that the deceivers "don't know they are deceiving others". Matthew 24:4-14 4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. 9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. So now your suggestion is that those here who disagree with you are "evildoers and impostors"? This is yet another misuse of scripture.

That admonition to study scripture could be made without making negative insinuations against the motives of those who disagree with you. Now you insinuate my naiveté - Based on nothing more than the fact that I dared challenge the framing of your argument.

It is not "good" to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is "trying their very best to mislead you". That is how one becomes unteachable. 2 Timothy 2:24-25 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth

OK - this is different from the claim in your opening post - "that everyone in the land of Israel is going to be saved on the day Jesus comes simply because of their race.They need not repent or believe the gospel.They only need to be Jewish"

I have never heard any Christian put this view forward. I agree with you that this idea is inconsistent with scripture - but I'm sincerely not sure who you think you are correcting.

Add this to the list of dishonest rhetoric saturating your posts. At least this is on-topic. If Israel wanted to indiscriminately carpet bomb Gaza, they have the military assets to do so. Hamas has been firing copious rockets into Israel since (and before) they took power in Gaza. Israel has therefore had plenty of opportunity and justification to do what you are suggesting. But Israel is not doing this. Instead, they are targeting Hamas. Instead, Israeli forces have rules of engagement to limit non-combatant casualties. But in a war where your enemies routinely hide behind civilians, civilian casualties are inevitable. Are the civilian casualties Israel's fault for going after terrorists who kill Jewish civilians, OR is it perhaps the terrorist's fault for committing acts of terrorism, then running home to hide behind the civilians? Perhaps you think Israel is the only nation on earth that is not permitted to defend its people against such brutal aggression? By contrast, the terrorists unequivocally targeted unarmed Israeli civilians (including whole families with "infants") for murder, and torture, and rape, and kidnap. And the world is so thoroughly corrupted, that they use this inhumane terrorist attack against Israeli Jews as a motivation to garnish global condemnation against Israel. Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;

Lol. You are now lying about me lying. I did not "say" any of the things you are attributing to me. Perhaps you think applying a Tu Quoque fallacy is clever. It is not. Generally speaking, use of fallacy is the opposite of clever. I did not claim anything Jesus said to be a lie. Therefore, it is you who are once again being dishonest. Everything you have written to me in this thread has been dishonest or wrong on some level. There is nothing in your convoluted definition that would make the phrase "this generation" be inclusive of future generations. Your claim remains an obvious logical nonsense. Is the nation of Israel currently "killing all the disciples of Jesus in Israel"? If not, your point based on this passage is irrelevant to the conversation over who is to blame for the situation in Gaza. You are therefore misusing a passage scripture, that is irrelevant to the circumstance being discussed, to falsely attack Israel for defending itself against terrorism. The evil party in the situation is the terrorist organization. Israel is completely justified in hunting down those who commit terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians. That is true, regardless of whether or not the state of Israel will one day turn against Christians.

This is a vapid, unsupported, dishonest (repeated) statement. I have supported every claim I made about scripture with a hermeneutically sound consideration of context. By contrast, you have simply repeated this irrational (Adhominem) accusation against me without any form of supporting rebuttal argument. You are incapable of supporting your position with rational arguments, so you revert to making silly, puerile claims about me personally. That is not how words work. The phrase "this generation" is very specific to the generation being spoken to. It does not mean, 'this, and every subsequent, generation'. This is an overtly nonsense, and dishonest way to interpret any communication (but especially scripture). I have supported all my uses of scripture with a careful consideration of the context. You have made nebulous, unsupported claims about what you think scripture means - and empty insinuations against those who dare challenge you. All of this is a lie. I did not "claim "any of what you falsely attribute to me. You are therefore being intentionally dishonest (technically irrational Stawmanning). My claim is that Matthew 23 self-evidently, does not refer to the current state of Israel, nor is it related to the current conflict between Israel and Gaza (which is the topic of this thread).