LouF95 Posted June 1, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 31 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/25/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted June 1, 2014 Genesis describes the firmament that divides the waters above from the waters below. A firmament is solid, correct? If Genesis is not allegory in any sense as you stated(I believe it's mostly allegory) then we should be able to observe the firmament and the waters above it. The firmament was not solid, but Genesis mentions it to be understood as a dividing layer between the air of the atmosphere, and space. It was composed of water vapor and this firmament collapsed during The Flood. This firmament is what caused rainfall, which had not occurred on the earth before the flood. The ecosystem was completely different pre-flood. So, no, this firmament could not be observed because it was destroyed during The Flood. It appears to me that the ancients viewed the firmament as a solid dome but I don't want to get bogged down with this because it will probably lead to a dead end with neither of us changing our minds. Let's just have the questions coming for now. I do take issue with your statement "It was composed of water vapor". I don't see the text supporting this. It's speculative. Firmament con notates firmness. I don't see water vapor as firm or being able to hold back the waters above it. This is an example of the inadequacy and limitations of words as a way to communicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Obviously someone had to be the first sinner but it wasn't Adam & Eve. The author of Genesis claims that man was created perfect but how can we ever prove that as fact? Because the person writing Genesis under the inspiration of an infallible God said that they were perfect? The Bible is the final authority, or, at least for a professing Christian, it is supposed to be. Not some scholar. Not a secular source. Nothing trumps the Bible. If the Bible says that Adam & Eve existed as real people and that original sin came from Adam, that is what it means, and that is the only position someone in Christ can or should take. A person taking any other position does so at their spiritual peril. It would seem that when the Bible proves your assertions wrong, you simply dismiss it. And if you are going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will and will not believe, why use it at all? Can you prove the bible was inspired or dictated by an infallible God? Can you prove His method of communicating with us mere and simple humans was not by allegory and storytelling in some cases? If you prove the reliability of the bible, I am open to reconsidering. I will ask you a series of questions shortly. They will not be in any particular order or strength. If you cannot trust parts of the Bible, then you could not trust any of it and therefore, you shouldn't be using it at all. You should not be using it to try and support your beliefs in any way. The Bible is not the type of book where you can use some of it but dismiss the rest. And people dismiss the parts they don't like, or don't agree with, but the book itself does not give one that option. If you don't believe part of it, you can't believe any of it. "If you cannot trust parts of the Bible" Once it is proven that the bible is 100% factual, then it is an issue of mistrust. "then you could not trust any of it and therefore, you shouldn't be using it at all." This is a false dilemma. Just because I view the bible as a mix of history and narrative, doesn't render the bible as useless and a revealer of spiritual truth. There is no false dilemma. The problem is that the Bible bases spiritual truth on the historical narratives it presents. The events in that occur in the Bible are presented as facts and spiritual lessons are drawn from those events. The spiritual truth of Scripture is rooted in historical and geographic fact. All of the lines of evidence are in a setting of real places, people and historical events. The Bible doesn't give us the option of deciding which parts to reject or accept. Besides, what spiritual truth could to show you? You subscribe to the debunked outdated myth called the "Document Hypothesis." The DH denies that the Bible is of divine origin and pretty much makes a human-based book. What spiritual truths can you get in a book about a bunch of stories you don't think are real?? Besides the Bible says that Jesus died for our sins and you say that Jesus did NOT die for our sins. So really, what good is the Bible to you? You don't even believe the spiritual truths it present like Jesus' sacrificial atonement for the sins of man. That is the heart of the Bible's truth and you deny it is true. So really, you can't even claim to believe that the Bible is a revealer of spiritual truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouF95 Posted June 2, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 31 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/25/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted June 2, 2014 Obviously someone had to be the first sinner but it wasn't Adam & Eve. The author of Genesis claims that man was created perfect but how can we ever prove that as fact? Because the person writing Genesis under the inspiration of an infallible God said that they were perfect? The Bible is the final authority, or, at least for a professing Christian, it is supposed to be. Not some scholar. Not a secular source. Nothing trumps the Bible. If the Bible says that Adam & Eve existed as real people and that original sin came from Adam, that is what it means, and that is the only position someone in Christ can or should take. A person taking any other position does so at their spiritual peril. It would seem that when the Bible proves your assertions wrong, you simply dismiss it. And if you are going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will and will not believe, why use it at all? Can you prove the bible was inspired or dictated by an infallible God? Can you prove His method of communicating with us mere and simple humans was not by allegory and storytelling in some cases? If you prove the reliability of the bible, I am open to reconsidering. I will ask you a series of questions shortly. They will not be in any particular order or strength. If you cannot trust parts of the Bible, then you could not trust any of it and therefore, you shouldn't be using it at all. You should not be using it to try and support your beliefs in any way. The Bible is not the type of book where you can use some of it but dismiss the rest. And people dismiss the parts they don't like, or don't agree with, but the book itself does not give one that option. If you don't believe part of it, you can't believe any of it. This is the best explanation I have come across for what the Adam & Eve story means: Man has moral autonomy and is free to disregard moral law but he must be prepared to suffer the consequences of his actions. Evil is the product of human behavior, not a principle inherent in the cosmos. Man's disobedience is the cause of the human predicament. Human freedom can be at the same time an omen for disaster and a challenge and opportunity. As an aside, I believe the snake was not the devil. It was a symbol for man's desire for sensation and experience. The Hebrew word used is "nahash" which translates to snake or serpent. Genesis 3:1 describes the snake as crafty, not evil. The snake doesn't display any magical powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouF95 Posted June 2, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 31 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/25/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted June 2, 2014 Obviously someone had to be the first sinner but it wasn't Adam & Eve. The author of Genesis claims that man was created perfect but how can we ever prove that as fact? Because the person writing Genesis under the inspiration of an infallible God said that they were perfect? The Bible is the final authority, or, at least for a professing Christian, it is supposed to be. Not some scholar. Not a secular source. Nothing trumps the Bible. If the Bible says that Adam & Eve existed as real people and that original sin came from Adam, that is what it means, and that is the only position someone in Christ can or should take. A person taking any other position does so at their spiritual peril. It would seem that when the Bible proves your assertions wrong, you simply dismiss it. And if you are going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will and will not believe, why use it at all? Can you prove the bible was inspired or dictated by an infallible God? Can you prove His method of communicating with us mere and simple humans was not by allegory and storytelling in some cases? If you prove the reliability of the bible, I am open to reconsidering. I will ask you a series of questions shortly. They will not be in any particular order or strength. If you cannot trust parts of the Bible, then you could not trust any of it and therefore, you shouldn't be using it at all. You should not be using it to try and support your beliefs in any way. The Bible is not the type of book where you can use some of it but dismiss the rest. And people dismiss the parts they don't like, or don't agree with, but the book itself does not give one that option. If you don't believe part of it, you can't believe any of it. Let's jump around the Torah a bit to see it's historical reliability. The census taken one year after the Exodus shows that in 3 generations, Manasseh had grown from a single person to a clan/tribe that had 32,200 makes over the age of 20. Levi's great grandsons were Moses & Aaron. Not long after the Exodus, the tribe of Levi numbered no less than 22,000 males. While the Israelites were fighting the Amalekites, Moses watched from the top of a mountain. When Moses kept his arm raised, the Israelites were winning. When Moses lowered his arm, the Amalekites were winning. Is this metaphor or history? To me it shouts metaphor. The author was trying to say something. The story of Isaac, Jacob and Esau closely correlates with the history of Judah & Edom. Also, can we reliably take the story of Jacob and Esau fighting in the womb as a historical occurrence? Has any new born baby show that level of consciousnesses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Let's jump around the Torah a bit to see it's historical reliability. The census taken one year after the Exodus shows that in 3 generations, Manasseh had grown from a single person to a clan/tribe that had 32,200 makes over the age of 20. Levi's great grandsons were Moses & Aaron. Not long after the Exodus, the tribe of Levi numbered no less than 22,000 males. The reason the children of Israel were put into slavery in Egypt in the first place was because they were inordinately fruitful. The Pharaoh at the time feared that if they got much larger, they would rise up and go to war with Egypt and take over the country. They had gone from just a single family of a few hundred to millions by the time of the Exodus, and evidently it was happening rapidly enough to cause alarm to the Pharaoh and precipitated a need on his part to take preemptive action against them to thin out the population and control their growth rate. Manasseh likely had multiple wives and his sons had multiple wives and the numbers can go rapidly under those conditions. So that really isn't a problem. While the Israelites were fighting the Amalekites, Moses watched from the top of a mountain. When Moses kept his arm raised, the Israelites were winning. When Moses lowered his arm, the Amalekites were winning. Is this metaphor or history? To me it shouts metaphor. The author was trying to say something. So what? That is your opinion. How does that story prove the Bible is historically inaccurate? The story of Isaac, Jacob and Esau closely correlates with the history of Judah & Edom. Also, can we reliably take the story of Jacob and Esau fighting in the womb as a historical occurrence? Has any new born baby show that level of consciousnesses? Again, same problem. Just because you don't accept the story as factual doesn't offer any substance to a claim that the Bible is historically inaccurate in relation to Jacob and Esau and the history of Judah and Edom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schouwenaars Posted June 9, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 153 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 44 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/04/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/05/1997 Share Posted June 9, 2014 i agree that this professor is very stupid. but he should not be generalised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 i agree that this professor is very stupid. but he should not be generalized. Beloved, These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. Jude 1:16 I For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12 Forgive Him Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. Matthew 15:14 But What Does God But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8 Think About For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 Him? I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Revelation 20:16-17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoneman-777 Posted June 11, 2014 Group: Seventh Day Adventist Followers: 1 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 177 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 35 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/08/2023 Status: Offline Share Posted June 11, 2014 Sad. I think it's proof that demonic forces are at work in the lives of atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts