RedNick261

NO HE DOESN'T! You have yet to substantiate that claim with ANY proof AT ALL, yet you continue to claim it is as fact. Friend, I have shown you on EVERY Scripture you have quoted how it is not applicable in its context. I have quoted Scripture, but I do not find it necessary to quote the "chapter and verse" reference. In fact, some of what you have argued against is Scripture. However, you wouldn't know that, would you? Once again, when I see that you are somehow qualified to judge my spiritual state of being, I will respect your judgements. Until then, please leave the spiritual determinations to God and read something... preferably something other than AiG or John MacArthur.

First, let me say that I did not introduce this thread so that we could all pile-on to the Catholic Church. No, I am not Catholic (and I have some very strong reasons not to associate my membership with that church). However, this thread is neither about that or any other denomination.

The whole point here is that the "wisdom of the world" that is "foolishness" is self-serving. The whole point here is not that God is somehow less powerful. Nor does the concept of an old earth OR evolutionary science some demote God or make Him seem less powerful. The context of that verse completely invalidates its use in this discussion. We are not arguing for a somehow less powerful God or an emasculated Creator. Having a much older earth than you would presume or believing that any of the species today have evolved from "lower" evolutionary species does not, in any way, discredit, emasculate or invalidate God or his power. I am offended that you would use such Scriptures against an honest debate, especially since you take them out of context without a second thought.

Your standard of application is obviously tremendously different from any other rational human being's. Look at the statement to which you answered with that verse and please point out the application.

Hey, don't you bring your scientific withcraft into this! [/sarcasm] What do you think science is? Do you not believe that it is a gift from the very God who you claim to defend? Do you think that He gave us science so that we could better understand Him? The only things fragile in this discussion are: (a) the 6-day Creation myth, (b) the ancient Hebrews' scientific minds and, © your continued baseless argument and attempt at spiritual slander against those choose to think about what they believe. So, now that it is convenient to you, you change to use our terminology... for one sentence. Then you go on to assign the old-earth idea as one of Darwin, which it surely was not. Darwin taught evolution, not origin. Further, an old-earth is absolutely scientific and, by the way, the correct term is "extra-Biblical", not "unBiblical".

Which is not applicable to this situation at all... Once again, what does this have to do with the request I made of you? Ok, guys, we can all go home now. He caught us. He has foiled our plan to disassemble Christianity piece by piece by teaching that evolution, at least in some degree, and a much older earth are scientific fact. [/sarcasm] But that is NOT what the Bible says. The Bible clearly states, irrefutably, that the sun stood still. It did not qualify the statement by claiming that it was written as allegory for a scientific phenomena that would be difficult to understand for the audience of the text. You're obviously falling away from sound doctrine and piecing apart Christianity as we know of with your lies! [/devil's advocate]

Oh, right. That's right there in the Bible... let me find the reference... oh, wait... You've posted multiple Scriptures, all of which have been assessed and proven (within reasonable doubt) to have been taken out of context and/or misunderstood (or, as with Exodus 20, completely irrelevant). Also, the burden is on anyone who has a point to make to do so with evidence, fact and reason. You are one of only two consistent contributors to this discussion who've failed to do so. Also, seriously, where did Christ, Paul or anyone else in Scripture define or condemn liberalism? I'd love a chapter and verse reference for that. Actually, I called you on a statement you made that would fall under your own definition of "play[ing] with the Bible". You've not responded to that. Yet, you seem insistent upon calling me a liberal fool who misunderstands and tries to change or misrepresent Scripture. I'd ask that you maintain a consistent standard or kindly excuse yourself from mature discussion on serious issues. Once again, a vicious, unjustly judgemental attack with absolutely no substantiation of any claim that was made. If you can provide any justification from ANYWHERE other than your own apparently demented logic to justify what you've written, please share. Thanks.

Dude, first off, you've offended me. That's hard to do. Your own ignorance, however, is cause to question your assertion that I have somehow "lost" something. Nowhere has anyone shown a statement from Scripture that states that Genesis 1 (and/or 2) is/are literal. If you'd like to research it and show me where this has been done, I would be glad to read it and consider it. However, by your tone and the fact that you've resorted to disrespect and discourtesy, I will assume that you have no facts to present and simply are defending your insignificant faith with offensive attacks and unsubstantial arguments. Thanks for playing, though. If it isn't strictly Biblical, why do you believe it? Are you reading your own philosophy and superstition (numerology) into your interpretation of this issue? Do I smell a double standard? Anyhow, nice use of baseless attack to try to solidify your point. Yet another proof of an argument lacking substance. Welcome to the club! You took the words right out of my... keyboard.

Having just seen 'sweety-cakes''s response to the hominid thread, I'm afraid science will always conflict with someone's faith. Faith sems to create a sense of 'anti-science' in some, a complete rejection of science. It's definitely faith VS science, and will be until everyone here accepts evolution and an old Earth. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that faith will "always" conflict. Faith and science, in their truest senses, seek to answer different questions and, in fact, can benefit from one another when used in tandem. I do agree, however, that many use faith as an excuse by which to deny science. This is unfortunate because it not only devalues the perception of their faith, but also their own understanding of their faith!

Out of curiosity, is there a chance that the title of this sub-forum could be changed to something more appropriate? Perhaps, "Faith and Science" would be better? The title just seems to infer that faith and science are somehow at odds with one another, which is false. Maybe someone can second this idea?

Oh, John Wesley with your quadrilateral! What a heretic he must have been to say that there are other authorities in faith, with Scripture obviously being the first. Goodness gracious. [/sarcasm]

Horizon, I'm not going to waste my time responding to your entire post. I do, however want to ask you one question. Show me one Scripture that claims that the Genesis account is a literal history. You can't do that. But thanks for playing. You really have no idea what Darwin's studies produced, do you?

Anyone else care to join in this discussion?

so we can agree this passage is NOT allegorical? Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Why does the emphasized section of that verse necessarily speak to the literality of Genesis 1 (or 2)? Why would it do so, despite the evidence? Or, perhaps, since the 10 Commandments were directed at the Hebrew people, it would reference allegory to communicate a more important point? I guess, if you want to be incredibly nitpicky, you could say that I would say that the reference made in the commandment is to an allegory. Does that somehow negate the Commandments? Not at all. I do, also, find it interesting that the only of the 10 Commandments not observed by the disciples or apostles (or the first church, that we know of) and that was actually disobeyed by Christ himself would be your choice to reference here. Nice.

I've found liberals are never satisfied with evidence from the scripture, because they attempt to harmonize their idolatrous secular beliefs with the scripture like I said, Exodus 20...how can the 10 Commandments be "allegory"?? Have I ever claimed that the 10 commandments are allegorical? No, I have not. You haven't offered any Scriptural evidence. Were you to do so, I would consider it. If your use was within its context and intent, I would accept and admit defeat. However, that has yet to happen and will not happen for a combination of reasons that I shall refrain from discussing further. Also, dude, on a personal note, I'm FAR from a liberal.

Your lack of proof speaks volumes for your argument.

Friends, I have been reading through several threads and I have noticed a problem. One of the greatest discredits to Christians today and, in consequence, our faith and our ministries, is ignorance. There is a trend within the church to assign to Scripture something more than it is. Allow me to explain: Scripture is God's inspired word to us. It is a moral guidebook, a source of encouragement, rebuke, wisdom and even some history. However, Scripture does not claim to be "everything book". It does not claim to be a history book in its completion. Certain parts of it are history, but not the entirety. Scripture never claims to hold all of the answers. It gives us a guide, a standard for our moral and spiritual lives. It reveals to us the nature of God. It is good and right in everything that it says, however, not all of it is a narrative story. Most of it is teaching, which includes parable, proverb, allegory, preaching, sermons and many other forms of teaching. Why, as Christians, do we insist that Scripture somehow contains all of the answers? For instance, in some threads I have seen posters respond to something that doesn't require Scriptural justification with a post asking for Scriptural justification. In fact, most of these cases are regarding topics on which Scripture is silent! Why is this? I would like to have an honest discussion regarding the nature, authority and application of Scripture. I have stated my opinion in the original post (which I rarely do when I start a thread), but I do expect and anticipate that there will be disagreement. I only ask that we keep the discussion honest and charitable.

Scripture? Logic? ANYTHING to defend this statement? ...says absolutely NOTHING to defend your point. You won't find anything to defend your assertion because it is indefensible. You're saying that the characteristics of one subject must apply to all related subjects. In the same way that all Bible stories are Scripture, they are not all the same. They all have different intentions, audiences, authors, situations, genre... different characteristics. Much the same as we are all human beings, but we are not all assigned the same characteristics based on the characteristics of one. My example was simply an attempt to show you how absurd and illogical your assertion is that all Scripture must be discarded if one is not to take Genesis 1 (or 2) literally. Absolutely absurd and ignorant. And yet you've shown nothing to prove this. In fact, I think that you, by assigning the characteristic of truth to something unproven (and untrue), you are the one who doesn't believe the truth. And that, my friend, IS your problem.

I am Irish and German. That means that you, along with everyone else on this board, must be Irish and German. Your logic is flawed. You are attempting to assign qualities of one story to an assortment of others in different genre, contexts and situations. It fails, sorry. It's on a case by case basis. If I were a little thinner-skinned, I would take offense to that. Who are you to question anyone's faith? Who are you to say that there isn't a debate? In fact, there is so much of a debate that there is an entire sub-forum dedicated to such things on WB, ongoing debates (within the church and from outside)... it's far from settled. God never said, nor did any other Biblical character, that Genesis 1 and 2 were historical narrative. On what do you base these claims? Your final assertion would stand to reason. Of course what God does, God does and we have no control or authority over it. However, your reference to "speculative" faith, better termed "reflective", is horrendous. Why did Paul find it necessary to tell us to study that might find ourselves approved? Why was it so important that people study? Our questions do not damage our faith; rather, the questions strengthen our faith. That we are able to question our faith and remain in it is a testimony to the fact that our faith is strong... and that we are ever growing in knowledge of the Lord and His Creation! A word of advice: It is hardly appropriate or effective to sling mud on valid debate in order to satisfy your own inadequacy. Please, do not take offense to that, but rather form arguments based on facts and not on dogmatic rehearsals of ignorance.

Can you answer my point with a statement of fact, rather than an attempt to redirect the question to me and, at best, a marginal defense of a concept in question? But hey, when in doubt, avoid the issue and make claims that you can't back up.

First, I assume you mean that he taught the Genesis account as literal. Could you show me where? Secondly, I do believe that the Genesis account is true - that is not to say that it is to be understood as an exact transcript of what happened. Many respected theologians and Christian thinkers tend to give some credibility to the genre, context and situation in which the Genesis account was written. Obviously, no one (certainly not Moses, the accredited writer of the account) was around to witness the exact happenings of the Creation. The ancient Hebrews were hardly scientific people, so explaining anything to them in scientific terms would have been useless. The ancient Hebrews, in fact, used lore to teach lessons about everything. In other words, most of their stories weren't literally true, but the lessons they taught were true and good. As a text that happened pre-recorded history and was accounted no less than 2000 years later, it would be more than understandable (especially considering the audience to whom the text was written) that allegory would be the genre of the text, rather than history. Thirdly, it is incredibly dangerous to make such a bold claim as you did at the end of your post. You're suggesting throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That's not only unsafe for the Bible, but it's unsafe for yourself. If you were to come to an understanding such as that I and many other Bible scholars have, you would very quickly recant that statement or "toss out the rest of the Bible". I do not claim to be the ultimate authority on this matter. I do, however, claim that the logic and science that God has given us that we might understand Him more fully seems to contradict the idea that the first several books of Genesis were intended as literal transcriptions of history. Does this make them any less valid? No, it does not. It simply means that, in their original context, they were used to teach a lesson in God's power and man's depravity, not in literal history. Do you think Jesus would have spoken to people in language that they could understand? In Jesus' time, they were still the "ancient Hebrews". They still didn't have a scientific understanding of the world they lived in. Jesus had a point to get across. Would it make sense that He would use the same lore to teach such messages?