Babylove

Sorry, I havn't read the other replies. I believe that we all inherited sin from the original sin, but it is not that sin that will determine where we will go after we die, but our willful sins caused by our thoughts and actions are what will determine that. This scripture is one reason why I believe we all inherited sin through the original sin, so therefore we are all techincally born sinners: Romans 5:12 "Sin came into the world through one man, and his sin brought death with it. As a result, death has spread to the whole human race because everyone has sinned"

Sorry, maybe I should have explained what I meant better. I wasn't talking about things in the bible that are obvious metaphores (well, Revelations still has me confused, and I was pretty sure that this book is not a literal account of what will happen) but things that may really be literal. For example, I know that in the above, Jesus didn't literally mean for us to cut off our hand, but he did literally say that. Also, I know his parables were not literal, but he did also literally say those as well. When I am asking if things are literal, I really mean the things that can be taken as being literal. For example, when Genesis speaks of everything on the earth being created in six days and God resting on the seventh, was that to mean seven literal, 24h days, or not? How about the book 'Song of Songs' is that supposed to literally be about (or maybe written by?) a newly wed couple writing love poems back and forth to each other? Was Noah's flood literally world-wide and did he literally have two of every animal on the ark with him? If some of these things were not literal, than how do we know that? The main reason I'm asking, is because right now, I am studying the story of creation. There are some people who believe when Moses wrote that God created everything in six days, it literally meant six actual days, and some people believe that it was not literal, and it really was six days to God, which could really have been thousands or even millions of years to us. I believe that, if God wanted this story included in the bible, it is because he thinks it is important for us to know how everything was created...otherwise he could have simply had Moses write something like 'God created everything from nothing and once everything was created, he created the first man' and then continue on from there...but instead he inspired Moses to write how everything was created, from the beginning of the desolate earth, to the formation of all life, stating clearly at what stage (day) each thing was created. The above was just an example, and I don't want this to turn into a debate as to whether everything was created in six literal days or not, but I am wondering if it is possible for things in the bible like the above to be figurative, not literal, and if so, how do we know that it is not literal?

Is everything in the bible supposed to be literal, or are some things supposed to be figurative? How do we know what is to be taken as literal or not? For example, was the bible supposed to be literal when stating that God created everything in six days? If not, then how do we know that? Also, if not, then is the story of Adam and Eve supposed to be literal? If the story of six days of creation and one day of rest is not supposed to be literal, but the story of Adam and Eve is, how can we determine that the story of Adam and Eve really is literal? How about the world-wide flood? How do we know if that was supposed to literally be a flood that covered the entire earth and really killed all land life aside from Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark? How about Revelations? Is what is described there supposed to be a literal account of what will happen, or not? If everything else in the bible is to be taken as literal except Revelations, why would Revelations be the only figurative book in the entire bible? Does anyone know what stories in the bible are supposed to be literal, and what ones are supposed to be figurative? How do you know this? Can you please let me know how you are sure that some stories are literal and some are figurative? Thank you

I'm not sure if it's different in Canada, but he can still enter and show the apartment. All he needs to do is to give a written 24h notice of entry. Also, where I live, the residental tenancy act states that, once a notice to vacate is given to the landlord in writing, that gives the landlord the right to show the apartment without giving 24h notice. Not many landlords actually will do this, but they do have the legal right to. In fact, Boardwalk has pre-made notices to give to tenants for different reasons, and one of the reasons listed on it that can be choosen is that 'we (landlord) entered your suite for the purpose of showing it.' it goes on to basically let the tenant know that, we wanted to show your apartment, you were not home, so we went in and showed it anyway. We were informed that the only reason this option was included on the notice was because legally, once a written notice to vacate has been received by the landlord, that landlord can enter the apartment without notice for the purpose of showing it to a prospective tenant, but they did not want us to ever use that option, and to always give 24h notice to a tenant before his/her apartment was viewed by a prospective tenant, because doing otherwise usually ended up in an argument from the tenant, so it was just easier to always give 24h notices.

I live in Canada so I'm not sure if it's the same, but here, if something is stated in the lease you signed which is not in agreement with the residential tenancy act, then the act prevails. I used to be the manager of one site working under the largest rental property across Canada (Boardwalk), and we even had written on the end of every lease that the residential tenancy act prevails over anything stated in the lease...in other words, if the residential tenancy act where you live states that you gave proper notice to move out, but the lease you signed states that you needed to give more notice than that, then the tenancy act prevails and you only have to give the amount of notice that act states, not the amount that your landlord states. If that is the case for you. From what I understand, if you sign any contract (ie a lease is a contract between a landlord and tenant) and in the contract something is stated that is against the law, that doesn't make it legal. For example, in Canada it is against the law to pay someone 'under the table' (pay them directly in cash without claiming anything on taxes) even if an employer did up a legal contract stating that the employee was going to be paid under the table, and the employee agreed to and signed it in a legal form, that doesn't make this clause in the contract legal because it goes against the law (sorry, bad example, but it was the only one I could think of). The residential tenancy act is the law governing landlords and tenants, and no matter what your landlord states, and no matter what is in your lease - whether you legally signed it or not - your landlord cannot do anything that is against the residential tenancy act. If it is the same where you live (and I would assume it is) and you gave proper notice to vacate as per the law where you live, there is nothing your landlord can do and if he tries to take you to court, he should loose. How much is five day's worth of rent for you? Just to let you know, the company that I used to work for used to threaten legal action for unpaid amounts all the time, but (from what I was told from someone higher up in the company) they never actually went through with taking a tenant to court for anything less than somewhere around $100. I'm not saying that your landlord will be the same as this, but I thought I would just let you know.

Oh yeah, that is exactly what I was doing. This is the main reason why I signed up for this forum...so I can receive help to understand the scriptures better. I was discussing things with someone and they pointed this scripture out to me. I havn't read all of Acts yet, so when I saw that they had written that we are not to eat blood, I didn't see how they could have meant anything else. It seemed pretty black-and-white to me, and I didn't realize there was more to it than that. I'm sure I will come up with more things that I read that seem black-and-white to me but really aren't, so I'm glad there is a place like this I can go to where I can get help to more fully understand what is written in the bible

Oh wow, thank you for those informative replies! I especially found these good: All of those things make perfect sense! I hope you don't mind if I ask, can someone please tell me where Paul discusses eating meat sacrificed to idols to Gentile Christians? I'm sure I can find it myself, but I think it may take a while. I'm pretty sure that Jesus also mentioned about eating meat sacrificed to idols as well? Or is the scripture you are talking about above the one I am thinking about? Well, as you can see, I do know SOME things about the bible, but not a whole lot, so it is very possible that I will continue to interperate things incorrectly as I continue my study...but it is places like this that will help to set me on the right path and to better understand what I am reading. Thank you to everyone who replied

Oh yes, I know I have to follow God and Jesus with all of my heart and have faith in them, etc, but there are also some rules that apply and I am trying to follow them. For example, just having faith and love isn't enough, we do have to follow rules, such as the ten commandments. From what I understand from what was said in the scritpure quoted in my previous post, a rule of God is that we do not eat blood, and that rule still applied in the new testiment after the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I know Jesus said that it isn't what goes in our mouth that is unclean but what comes out of it so therefore we can eat anything that used to be considered to be unclean, but, I also read somewhere that the reason we are not to eat blood isn't because it is unclean, but because it contains that animal's lifeforce. From what I understand, that doesn't mean Jesus is saying it is ok to eat blood, because he is stating that when he says what goes in our mouths doesn't matter he is referring to eating unclean animals or in an unclean manner, and somewhere in the bible (sorry, I can't remember where) it states that the reason we shouldn't eat blood is because it contains the lifeforce of the animal, not because it is unclean. It is very possible that I am interpreting this wrong, but if I am to change my life and not only have love and faith in God and Jesus but also follow his example, then I think it is important for me to follow all of the rules Jesus confirmed from the old testiment, all of the rules Jesus laid down for us, and all of the rules his disiples laid down for us on top of having love, faith, etc. I know I am a long way off of following all of the correct rules that Jesus and his disiples state we are to follow, so I am taking things one step at a time and learning about things one step at a time in the hopes that I can live a better life overall, and live as closly as possible to the life that I believe God and Jesus wants me to live. Edited to add: I don't mind that I am getting conflicting replies at all. I am trying to study the bible, and figure out how to interperate what is in the bible and what different scriptures mean, so one of the reasons I came here is so I can have help to find out how what I am interpreting may be wrong. I don't want to believe something just because that is what I think the bible means when it says *this* and *that* but rather, I want to hear the different views on what other people think certain scriptures of the bible mean, so I can study these different views and and make a better educated decision about what I believe to be true (ie I havn't actually started to not eat animal blood. I am going to continue to study the bible and what things I find through study of the bible on other sources - such as websites and this forum - and after I feel I have gathered as much information as I can possibly get, only then will I make a final decision which I hope will be one that is an educated decision)

my fiance and I quit smoking around two months ago, but I still find that I really want to take up smoking again. I know I shouldn't, and I am not going to, but I was just wondering, for those on this site who have quit smoking, how long after you quit did you still want to smoke? I don't mean just the occasional 'oh, this would be a nice time to have a cigarette' but almost everyday I think about smoking at least once.

Wow, that was fast Thanks a lot

I'm pretty sure that there's a passage that talks about God's followers going to war, and God ordered them not to take anything of value (gold, etc) but one man did take some gold out of a house of the people they battled against. God singled them out by dividing his followers into clans and groups, until he finally found this man. When he found the man, God ordered for him and his family to be stoned to death. I thought for sure I read a passage about this, but I am searching for it now and just can't find it. Does anyone else know what passage I'm referring to? Does anyone here know where I can find this story?

Oh, really. Do you have any idea how I can find the scripture that says that?

I was researching about whether the account of creation in the bible can be taken a literal or figerative, and I came across this link stating why it must have been literal: http://sg.geocities.com/saltandlight5/literal.html Some basic points it makes are: I'd like to see both sides of the story, though. Does anyone know of any sites I can visit that show scriptural support of how the seven days of creation may not have been literal?

I'm so sorry. I didn't mean for this post to become a debate. While I was searching the internet to learn more about creation, I found out that in the Hebrew text (original text the old testiment was written in) the use of the word 'day' in reference to those seven days can only possibly mean a literal 24h human day. I have always thought that the world really is millions (or billions, whatever it is supposed to be) of years old, and when the bible states that God made *this* one day and *that* another, it really meant one day in the life of God...and since God had no beginning and will have no end, one day to him may be the equivilent of hundreds of millions of years to us, which would seem to support that God created the earth through evolution, so therefore the theory of God creating the earth and evolution are both right. Then I found out the above (Hebrew word used for day can only literally mean one day) and I have been questioning and trying to find support that maybe the earth isn't really hundreds of millions of years old. It is possible that this isn't true, though, because I only read this on one website, and I know that not everything on the internet is actually true. Has anyone else heard that the Hebrew word used for 'day' during the creation can only possibly refer to seven literal human days? I have heard of another reason why some people think the earth really was created in seven literal days. I have heard of some people saying there was no death at all (ie nothing living including all animals and plants died) until Adam sinned. Does anyone know of any scriptures that will support this? I can't find where it says in the bible that no animals died before Adam sinned because: Genesis 3:22 "He (man) must not be allowed to take fruit from the tree that gives life, eat it, and live for ever" Genesis 1:29-30 "I have provided all kinds of grain and all kinds of fruit for you to eat; but for all the wild animals and for all the birds I have provided grass and leafy plants for food" To me, that means the only way Adam and Eve could live forever was by eating the fruit of life, and no animal would eat the fruit of life because fruit was only made for humans to eat, so I don't understand how there could have been no death at all until Adam and Eve sinned. So far, I have been able to find answers to support that it really is possible that the world was literally created in seven actual days (not saying it actually did happen this way, but it can be possible) but I just can't find an answer to the question in my original post. Something I did learn about carbon dating, is that every thing that is alive at the same time (ie everything that is living now) has exactly the same amount of carbon in them, and the age of a fossil can be determined by the carbon's half life (very crude I know, but I'm just touching on the basics right now) So, if it is true that the original text for the bible states that God created everything on the earth in seven literal days, every living thing that is alive at the same time has exactly the same amount of carbon in it, and dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans, it just doesn't make sense to me that there would not be even one example of a dinosaur fossil being carbon dated as living at the same time as even one human fossil. I know I could just say that this is the way God made things and blindly accept that it is true, but I believe that God does not want us to blindly follow him but to fully study and properly understand why we are believing what is in the bible. In this case, I might just have to accept the answer 'because that's what God said' because I'm pretty sure I am never going to find the answer to this question, but generally I like to find answers to my questions because (among other reasons) I find that I have always been able to find possible answers to my questions that can follow what the bible says, and finding these answers helps to strengthen my belief and better understand God's Word.

I'm going to ask a question here about the bible because it is something that has been bugging me for a while and I simply cannot find the answer to it anywhere. I understand, though, if this post is removed since I don't have the required 100 posts that will allow me to put this question in the correct forum. If God really did make the world in seven literal days, how do you account for carbon dating that states plants and animals lived hundreds of millions of years before the very first human? (this isn't my actual question, please bear with me, I am just using this to start what I have to say) I did some research on carbon dating, and a lot of sites do state that it is really not completely reliable, but, that still doesn't answer something. Even though it may not be completely reliable, why is it, then, that every single last dinasaur fossil can be carbon dated to be much, much older than every single last human fossil? If carbon dating is so unreliable that it can be dismissed, and in actual fact humans did exist when dinasaurs existed, then wouldn't there have been AT LEAST ONE instance where a dinasaur fossil wasn't carbon dated as being much, much older than a human fossil? I've tried searching for this and posting this in the spirituality section of another forum I am a member of, but I just can't find the answer. Every site I read says that 'carbon dating is inaccurate, dinosaurs did not really live millions of years before the first human but they actually lived at the same time as humans, and they are actually mentioned in the bible' but that still doesn't explain why ALL dinosaur fossils can be carbon dated as living millions of years before ALL human fossils. Thanks for any help. I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds by asking this question here before I have access to the proper forum.

Thank you How long do I have to soak it in salt water to remove all of the blood? Would overnight be good enough, or should it be something like at least 24h? Do I need to add a whole lot of salt, or is a moderate amount enough? Thanks again Edited to add: is there blood in pre-made hamburger patties (ie if I get a big mac from McDonald's, does that mean I am eating blood?)

Thanks for your reply I believe I shouldn't eat any blood because of what is written in Acts 16:20 "Instead we should write a letter telling them...not to eat any animal that has been strangled, or any blood" So, after Jesus' resurrection, the bible is clearly telling us we are not to eat any blood. Because of this, I want to make sure I am taking steps to follow this rule and I would like to find out if there is still some blood in the meat once it has been cooked. If so, I want to make sure to wash my meat every time before cooking it. (Oh, and I want to add that I'm not trying to say that anyone who eats blood is wrong, but simply that - based on this verse in the bible - I want to make sure to avoid eating any blood myself)

If I have a question about something, is there a place I can go to look up information about this site, or do I have to ask it here? For example, I can't post in the doctorial questions forum so I'm assuming that's because I need to accumulate so many posts before being allow to post in that forum. How can I find out if that is true and - if so - how many posts I need to accumulate before I can post in there? Also, is there a 'board help' forum, I couldn't seem to find one? If there isn't a 'board help' forum, is there any paticular forum I can go to where I can request help from a moderator when I am having a site-related problem? Thanks in advance

Sorry, I have to disagree with you, I personally don't like that commercial. You might think I am weird, though, but I do like that 'diamond shreddies' commercial. My fiance thinks I'm crazy for liking that one.

I always thought only the old testimant referred to it being important to not eat the blood of animals, and I thought it was because it was unclean so now it is ok to eat animal blood because of what Jesus said in Matthew 15:11, as well as some other books in the new testiment. I recently found out that I was wrong about that, there is another reason why we shouldn't eat blood, and it is mentioned in the new testiment after Jesus' resurrection that we should not eat the blood of any animal. Anyway, to my point. Because of what I believed, I have never taken care to make sure I am washing the blood out of any meat I eat. Lets say I am cooking a steak on the bbq. I will take it out of the package, put it on a plate, season it with different seasonings, and then put it on the bbq. There doesn't seem to be much blood in the meat to begin with, so is it possible that by doing this, any blood left in it will evaporate while it is cooking and I am not actually eating the animal's blood...or is there still blood in the meat and I really am eating it? (if it makes a difference, I never eat meat that is less than medium well to well done) If I wash the meat before cooking it, will that get rid of all of the blood? If I do have to wash it to get rid of all of the blood, how long and thoroughly should I wash it to make sure there is absolutely no blood left? Also, if you have to wash meat to make sure you don't eat any blood at all, how do you wash hamburger meat? Wouldn't it just fall apart if you hold it under the faucet? Thanks for any replies

Sorry, I didn't get to read the other replies because my son just woke up and I have to go up and get him, but I just wanted to add my two cents worth in if you don't mind. I always thought God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were seperate and one at the same time, kind of like how my son and I are seperate and one. We are one because he came from me and he is a part of me (he was made from a combination of MY egg which is a part of MY body, and df's sperm which is a part of his body), but we are seperate because we are two different people. Jesus made it clear that he is not equal to God, so he can't possibly BE God, but I believe he can be a part of God because he was made from God. But, even that brings on a question from me. If what I think is true (I'm not saying it is) how does that work? EVERYTHING was made by God, so wouldn't that mean that EVERYTHING is a part of God as well, not just Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Sorry, I guess this reply isn't that informative. I am questioning a lot of my own beliefs right now since I have started to seriously study the bible...but i do know that I have been told by a few people that there is no mention whatsoever of the Holy Trinity in the bible. ETA: (DS is down for a nap again so I'm back) I know Jesus said somewhere in the bible that he is not equal to God, but this one scripture has me confused: John 1:1 "Before the world was created the Word already existed: he was with God, and he was the same as God..." From what I understand here, 'the Word' is in reference to Jesus, so here they are saying that the Word (Jesus) is the same as God...so wouldn't that mean he is equal to God? There are other scriptures, though, that say that Jesus is not equal to God. For example Matthew 12:15 "When Jesus heard about the plot against him, he went away from that place; and large crowds followed him. He healed all those who were ill 16 and gave them orders not to tell others about him. 17 He did this so as to make what God had said through the prophet Isaiah come true: 18 "Here is my servant, whom I have chosen,..."' So, from what I understand from that scripture, Jesus is being referred to as God's servent, therefore meaning that he is not equal to God. Also John 5:30 "I can do nothing on my own authority; I judge only as God tells me, so my judgement is right, because I am not trying to do what I want, but only what he who sent me wants." so - to me - that means Jesus is saying he cannot judge on his own authority, but God can judge on his own authority, so I don't see how the two could be completely equal if God has the authority to judge and Jesus doesn't have the authority to judge...the only way Jesus can get authority to judge is through God's authority.

I thought the bible actually did state somewhere that we are to obey the laws of man unless they conflict with God's laws, but I couldn't find that scripture, but I did find one that may be fitting. Psalms 93:4"The Lord rules supreme in heaven, greater than the roar of the ocean, more powerful than the waves of the sea. 5 Your laws are eternal, Lord, and your Temple is holy indeed, for ever and ever" and since supreme means "highest in rank or authority; paramount; sovereign; chief." (dictionary.com) I would think that would mean that we always follow God's laws and rules, even if they conflict with man made laws.

I was wondering something about your 'trials and tribulations' section. I thought when Jesus came, God would no longer put any human through trials and tribulations, so if we do encounter trials and tribulations, it is never caused by God 'testing' us anymore. Sorry, I'm not as well versed in the bible as I should be (but I'm trying to change that), but that is what I thought. I'm sorry to hear what you are going through.