Understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal or non-literal

[Guest shiloh357]

Are you aware that "occult" simply refers to something that is hidden? Idol worship and other practices made towards other gods would fall under that broad umbrella of "occult practices". I was also not saying the tower was meant to physically reach heaven. It was a symbol - showing the intentions of those who built it - to supplant God as their own rulers.

I am fully aware of what

[Guest shiloh357]

The Bible actually says very little of heaven, beyond the fact that it exists and is the dwelling place of God, so it is a rather poor example to use to make your point.

(sigh) Again, you miss the point. Let me try again... If the Bible is a mixture of human and Divine influence and input, then how do you know what IS said about heaven is true? How do measure what is human influence, opinion, imagination and what is Divine truth when reading the Bible?

I therefore cannot say very much about its accuracy - most of the time it is only described in human terms (eg, parables), so I cannot say much about heaven at all. However, I do understand what you are trying to say and in the spirit of answering the intentions of your question, the existence of heaven is an essential doctrine of Christianity - that there is a place called heaven where God dwells and that all followers of Christ are heirs to this eternal Kingdom is something that cannot be put into a "non-essential" category.

If the Bible is a mixture of human and Divine thought then how do you KNOW that followers of Christ are heirs to the Kingdom? How do you know that this particular part YOU are willing to call

[Guest shiloh357]

I base whether a doctrine is

[ParanoidAndroid]

Thanks for the response, Shiloh. In keeping with my comments from my last post, I shall not be rehashing arguments that have already been given. It doesn't serve anyone to argue around in circles. Therefore I shall only be discussing here issues that have not yet been raised (or have not yet been adequately dealt with). Thanks to Shiloh for his participation in this debate

Everything I have said about Gould is completely true. Gould upholds the traditional, orthodox definition of evolution as impersonal and unguided. He maintains that the chance of man

[ParanoidAndroid]

Original sin does not mean that all mankind is guilty of the sin Adam committed. By the way, the Bible only holds Adam responsible, not Eve.

Original sin is the understanding based on Rom. 5:12-19 that the sinful condition resulting from Adam

[ParanoidAndroid]

I don

[Guest shiloh357]

Just to make sure everyone is certain with the concept of NOMA - Gould may very well hold a view of evolution as impersonal and unguided. As an agnostic, I would expect nothing else from him. For him, without any specific knowledge of a creator, the likelihood of man occurring again in another evolutionary chain would indeed be unlikely.

But does that make evolution as a specific alternative to God? By no means.

By ALL means. That

[Guest shiloh357]

So you think that the original authors all believed in a heliocentric universe?

The Bible does not tell us. I choose to stay silent where the Bible is silent. What I do know is that they did not make any geocentric statements in the Bible.

You are misunderstanding my point. I am not arguing that the Bible is geocentric.

You cited Scripture from Joshua to support the notion that the Bible was written from a geocentric standpoint. You cannot quote Scripture to prove the biblical authors were geocentric and then claim you are not saying the Bible is geocentric. Can you not see the internal inconsistency in that?

I was using these examples of people who "misinterpreted" the Bible as such to make a point - in several hundred years, are people going to be making the very same claims about the Creationists?

The problem is that you are comparing two different things. The Bible is explicit in how the world came into being. It is not a matter of

[Guest shiloh357]

I have no disagreements with your interpretations. I agree about Jesus

[Guest shiloh357]

Because if heaven were a made up concept then our entire understanding of God falls apart.

But if the Bible is a mixture of human and divine thought/influence, you would not know which statements in the Bible were from God and which parts were the product of men writing from their cultural/religious understanding of what heaven will be like.

I'm not just choosing essential doctrines willy nilly in accordance with what I want to rationalise away.

Based on your posts, it would appear that you have a VERY selective usage of your version