Ted wrote: Charles:-6
You may be correct. However, I cannot say as anything that we say in this nature is purely speculative.
One must not forget that what we have in the Bible as far as the gospels go, is a developing tradition. Each of the evangelists wrote what the early Christians had come to believe about this Jesus. None of them are biographica but midrash and parable for the most part. There are a few kernels of history there but not that many.
One should not ask the question did it really happen this way but what did the writer mean?
Shalom
Ted:-6
i sometimes wonder what would have happened had history not gone as it did. how much was biographical and how much was accepted leaves much space in between for speculation. there are some things, though, that are being found which tend to substatiate certain information within the gospel account. i don't know if you are aware of this but here it comes.
based on scientific calculations, from information in the gospels, and using the information and what knowledge of the period is known, it would seem that jc was born in april 6 b.c. i didn't make this up. it was figured out by an astronomer who also studied the astrology available during the first century up to the years of his youth.
what would the churches have done had this been proven before the canon was accepted? if you have heard of this, woiuld you be more or less receptive to what is being put forth as truth by a church, or would you prefer the scientific approach?further, how much of what is written should we take as factual, or do we still have to find the writer's intent when he wrote something? i'm not taking any sides, but what comes next? the chicken or the egg? or in this case the fact or the intended meaning?:-4 :-4
The Second Coming
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
The Second Coming
Ted.
I'm glad you accepted my message in the spirit it was intended. I don't have anything more to say on that subject. I don't mind that you chose to answer without quoting me, but to the onlookers you present one side of a telephone conversation and I'm sure it makes them wonder what I said, and opens the possibility for some wrong conclusions.
The topics that have come up all seem to center on questions of Truth:
What we're talking about when we say, "Truth."
Whether Truth is eternal or whether it changes
Who determines how Truth changes
How God reveals Truth
Why God revealed the Truth
How people to whom Truth has been revealed should impart it to others
When the Truth can be fought for and when not.
What Truth has to do with the Second Coming of Christ
Here's what I believe about Truth:
What we're talking about when we say, "Truth."
When I say Truth with a capital "T," I mean truth about God and what describes the true religion that leads to eternal life.
Whether truth is eternal or whether it changes
God is eternal, God never changes, therefore Truth never changes
Who determines how Truth changes
If there were any change, it would be in the way God communicates His Truth to us, not in the Truth itself, because Truth never changes. Only God determines what, if anything changes. Only God knows the best way to teach people His Truth. For example, in Old Testament times He communicated through His dealings with Israel, and through a ceremonial system He designed to prophetically symbolize what it means to belong to Him, and how He saves people. In the New Testament, He communicates through His Son, Jesus. Though the Medium has changed, the Message, the Truth is not one iota different from Genesis to Revelation, from Eden to the end of this present world.
How God reveals Truth
God reveals Truth through the Holy Bible. It was written by men who were inspired by God and what selection of writings were included in the Bible (or not) were controlled supernaturally by God. The Truth comes out of the Bible the same way it went in. Only when people read it inspired by God, they get out of it what God put into it. Spiritual things are revealed by the Spirit. God can only inspire those who are open to having their lives transformed by the Truth. He reveals Himself only to those who seek to see Him as He really is, rather than for what they wish Him to be. He gives instruction only to those who will follow it.
Scholarship has a role in revealing Truth, but scholarship is valid only as far as it respects the unmatched and supreme authority of Scripture. Scholarship has a place only in clarifying the Truth by demonstrating it's consistency in the Bible. "Scholars" can be hired to process the Bible in inconsistent ways to make it say whatever men desire it to say.
How people to whom Truth has been revealed should impart it to others
People to whom the Truth must share the Truth in love, because the Truth is about God and God is love. They should be willing to make a stand for the Truth even if it is unpopular. If Truth changed with the popular thought and practice of society or culture, it wouldn't be the eternal, unchanging truth about God, but the wandering notions and fickle fashions of men. Therefore, the farther culture and society change from the standard of God, the more unpopular will be the bearers of Truth. Fact is, they have always been unpopular, because God's ways are as high above man's ways as the heavens are above the earth. So people who have the Truth have to put up with being constantly misunderstood and misrepresented. They have to be willing to take rejection. They still have to love all other people, because Christ died for them.
When the Truth can be fought for and when not.
There once was a time to fight politically or militarily for the Truth, but that time has long passed. Now the struggle for truth is the effort to win hearts, minds and souls to the truth, simply by revealing it. God never forces people to accept His Truth. In the days of the establishment of Israel, God ordered them to fight against the nations around them. He did not do this to force people to accept His truth. He did this because the survival of the Truth was threatened. The nations around them had already rejected the Truth, and would have destroyed or corrupted the bearers of the Truth. But now we live in the last days, where the Truth has been fully revealed and every soul has the opportunity to accept or reject it. Rather than giving supernatural victory to the bearers of Truth as He did in the age when Truth was emerging and needed to be nurtured and protected, God is now allowing the bearers of Truth to suffer defeat and persecution. When the rebellion against Truth has reached it's climax and the people with the Truth are nearly wiped off the earth, then God will intervene, and the world as we know it will come to an end, and the believers of the Truth of all ages will rise to live with God forever. The enemies of Truth of all time will sleep forever and be no more, because they voluntarily rejected the Truth who is the source of Life. Today if any group of people believe they have the Truth and try to use politics or force to make other people obey their concept of truth, it will be prima facie proof that they do not have the Truth, but instead are part of the rebellion.
What Truth has to do with the Second Coming of Christ
Which brings us back to the second coming of Christ. He is coming soon because the world has had ample opportunity these past six thousand years since creation to accept or reject the Truth, and soon the time will be full to separate the faithful from the faithless, all on how they accepted or rejected God, who is the Truth.
I'm glad you accepted my message in the spirit it was intended. I don't have anything more to say on that subject. I don't mind that you chose to answer without quoting me, but to the onlookers you present one side of a telephone conversation and I'm sure it makes them wonder what I said, and opens the possibility for some wrong conclusions.
The topics that have come up all seem to center on questions of Truth:
What we're talking about when we say, "Truth."
Whether Truth is eternal or whether it changes
Who determines how Truth changes
How God reveals Truth
Why God revealed the Truth
How people to whom Truth has been revealed should impart it to others
When the Truth can be fought for and when not.
What Truth has to do with the Second Coming of Christ
Here's what I believe about Truth:
What we're talking about when we say, "Truth."
When I say Truth with a capital "T," I mean truth about God and what describes the true religion that leads to eternal life.
Whether truth is eternal or whether it changes
God is eternal, God never changes, therefore Truth never changes
Who determines how Truth changes
If there were any change, it would be in the way God communicates His Truth to us, not in the Truth itself, because Truth never changes. Only God determines what, if anything changes. Only God knows the best way to teach people His Truth. For example, in Old Testament times He communicated through His dealings with Israel, and through a ceremonial system He designed to prophetically symbolize what it means to belong to Him, and how He saves people. In the New Testament, He communicates through His Son, Jesus. Though the Medium has changed, the Message, the Truth is not one iota different from Genesis to Revelation, from Eden to the end of this present world.
How God reveals Truth
God reveals Truth through the Holy Bible. It was written by men who were inspired by God and what selection of writings were included in the Bible (or not) were controlled supernaturally by God. The Truth comes out of the Bible the same way it went in. Only when people read it inspired by God, they get out of it what God put into it. Spiritual things are revealed by the Spirit. God can only inspire those who are open to having their lives transformed by the Truth. He reveals Himself only to those who seek to see Him as He really is, rather than for what they wish Him to be. He gives instruction only to those who will follow it.
Scholarship has a role in revealing Truth, but scholarship is valid only as far as it respects the unmatched and supreme authority of Scripture. Scholarship has a place only in clarifying the Truth by demonstrating it's consistency in the Bible. "Scholars" can be hired to process the Bible in inconsistent ways to make it say whatever men desire it to say.
How people to whom Truth has been revealed should impart it to others
People to whom the Truth must share the Truth in love, because the Truth is about God and God is love. They should be willing to make a stand for the Truth even if it is unpopular. If Truth changed with the popular thought and practice of society or culture, it wouldn't be the eternal, unchanging truth about God, but the wandering notions and fickle fashions of men. Therefore, the farther culture and society change from the standard of God, the more unpopular will be the bearers of Truth. Fact is, they have always been unpopular, because God's ways are as high above man's ways as the heavens are above the earth. So people who have the Truth have to put up with being constantly misunderstood and misrepresented. They have to be willing to take rejection. They still have to love all other people, because Christ died for them.
When the Truth can be fought for and when not.
There once was a time to fight politically or militarily for the Truth, but that time has long passed. Now the struggle for truth is the effort to win hearts, minds and souls to the truth, simply by revealing it. God never forces people to accept His Truth. In the days of the establishment of Israel, God ordered them to fight against the nations around them. He did not do this to force people to accept His truth. He did this because the survival of the Truth was threatened. The nations around them had already rejected the Truth, and would have destroyed or corrupted the bearers of the Truth. But now we live in the last days, where the Truth has been fully revealed and every soul has the opportunity to accept or reject it. Rather than giving supernatural victory to the bearers of Truth as He did in the age when Truth was emerging and needed to be nurtured and protected, God is now allowing the bearers of Truth to suffer defeat and persecution. When the rebellion against Truth has reached it's climax and the people with the Truth are nearly wiped off the earth, then God will intervene, and the world as we know it will come to an end, and the believers of the Truth of all ages will rise to live with God forever. The enemies of Truth of all time will sleep forever and be no more, because they voluntarily rejected the Truth who is the source of Life. Today if any group of people believe they have the Truth and try to use politics or force to make other people obey their concept of truth, it will be prima facie proof that they do not have the Truth, but instead are part of the rebellion.
What Truth has to do with the Second Coming of Christ
Which brings us back to the second coming of Christ. He is coming soon because the world has had ample opportunity these past six thousand years since creation to accept or reject the Truth, and soon the time will be full to separate the faithful from the faithless, all on how they accepted or rejected God, who is the Truth.
Look what the cat dragged in.
The Second Coming
tel:-6
"The unmatched and supreme authority of scripture" is simply not true. Yes the writers were inspired to write and so was Charles Dickens and a host of others. They were are inspired in the same way.
The unmatched and supreme authority is the God that we see manifest in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He is the word made flesh. The "Word of God" as a title belongs to him alone and none other and certainly not a book.
I could agree with the idea that God does not change and neither does His truth. However, what does change is our understanding of things. We know now that epilepsy is no longer caused by demon posession nor is illness caused because someone "sinned". Micropathology has shown us the causes of disease.
Shalom
Ted:-6
"The unmatched and supreme authority of scripture" is simply not true. Yes the writers were inspired to write and so was Charles Dickens and a host of others. They were are inspired in the same way.
The unmatched and supreme authority is the God that we see manifest in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He is the word made flesh. The "Word of God" as a title belongs to him alone and none other and certainly not a book.
I could agree with the idea that God does not change and neither does His truth. However, what does change is our understanding of things. We know now that epilepsy is no longer caused by demon posession nor is illness caused because someone "sinned". Micropathology has shown us the causes of disease.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Second Coming
Charles:-6
The Bible is a book of compiled writings. It is composed of myth, legend, folktale, poetry, short story, fiction, theology, philosophy and some kernels of history spread throughout. It was written in a style known as midrash or if you will parable. The profound truths presented in the Bible do not depend on historical accuracy.
Thus to assert that Jesus was born in 6 BCE is an interesting fact but is in no way crucial to the story. Neither is the fact that he was probably born in Nazareth and not Bethlehem.
History, science, and archaeology does not support the historical accuracy of the Bible. But that is not the important issue. The questions should not be "Did it actually happen this way?" but "What does it mean?" Once we get past this notion that unless something is historically accurate it is not true then we can get to the real truth of the matter.
I will give you an example. What in reality do we know about this Jesus? He was born probably in Nazareth to one named Mary and perhaps to a father named Joseph. This particular point is debatable. We know absolutely nothing about his life before he began his ministry. We know he was a teacher, a healer, a worker of miracles, an exocist etc. We also know that his ministry lasted between one and three years. That he was crucified is not in doubt. We know something of his message and his hopes for the Kingdom of God. What we have after that are faith issues and not provable by any historical method. This is not to deny the risen Lord but that too is a faith issue. Scholars think that they can fairly accurately list the sayings that go back to the historical Jesus as opposed to the things the evangelists put into Jesus mouth.
The gospels themselves are not biographies they are a reflection of the developing traditions of the church at the time of writing. They are what the church had come to believe about this Jesus of Nazareth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Bible is a book of compiled writings. It is composed of myth, legend, folktale, poetry, short story, fiction, theology, philosophy and some kernels of history spread throughout. It was written in a style known as midrash or if you will parable. The profound truths presented in the Bible do not depend on historical accuracy.
Thus to assert that Jesus was born in 6 BCE is an interesting fact but is in no way crucial to the story. Neither is the fact that he was probably born in Nazareth and not Bethlehem.
History, science, and archaeology does not support the historical accuracy of the Bible. But that is not the important issue. The questions should not be "Did it actually happen this way?" but "What does it mean?" Once we get past this notion that unless something is historically accurate it is not true then we can get to the real truth of the matter.
I will give you an example. What in reality do we know about this Jesus? He was born probably in Nazareth to one named Mary and perhaps to a father named Joseph. This particular point is debatable. We know absolutely nothing about his life before he began his ministry. We know he was a teacher, a healer, a worker of miracles, an exocist etc. We also know that his ministry lasted between one and three years. That he was crucified is not in doubt. We know something of his message and his hopes for the Kingdom of God. What we have after that are faith issues and not provable by any historical method. This is not to deny the risen Lord but that too is a faith issue. Scholars think that they can fairly accurately list the sayings that go back to the historical Jesus as opposed to the things the evangelists put into Jesus mouth.
The gospels themselves are not biographies they are a reflection of the developing traditions of the church at the time of writing. They are what the church had come to believe about this Jesus of Nazareth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Second Coming
tel:-6
I would add to that that historical accuracy is not even an important question. The history, science and archaeological research have clearly shown that the Bible is not historically accurate. Truth, however, does not need history to support it. Dickens in "Oliver Twist", which is a work of fiction, contains a great deal of truth about Dickens time and place.
Profound truths do not need the support of history, science or archaeology. What is important is what it means and not whether or not the story actually happened this way or that way.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I would add to that that historical accuracy is not even an important question. The history, science and archaeological research have clearly shown that the Bible is not historically accurate. Truth, however, does not need history to support it. Dickens in "Oliver Twist", which is a work of fiction, contains a great deal of truth about Dickens time and place.
Profound truths do not need the support of history, science or archaeology. What is important is what it means and not whether or not the story actually happened this way or that way.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: The unmatched and supreme authority is the God that we see manifest in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He is the word made flesh. The "Word of God" as a title belongs to him alone and none other and certainly not a book.I agree wholeheartedly, and if the "edit" button had not disappeared, that would definitely merit a re-write. Jesus is the Head of the Church, and the supreme Authority. However, we do not have Jesus with us in person anymore. We do have His word, and we have His promise of the Holy Spirit to help each individual Christian understand it.
Ted, thank you for your helpful observation, and based on your input, I would re-write the sections as follows (My changes are italicized):
How God Reveals Truth
Jesus is the fullest revelation of the Truth of God, because only Jesus is God manifest in human flesh. But Jesus has left this earth to begin a new phase of His saving ministry in heaven. Today, God reveals Truth through the power of the Holy Spirit, and the written medium of the Holy Bible. It was written by men who were inspired by God and what selection of writings were included in the Bible (or not) were controlled supernaturally by God. The Truth comes out of the Bible the same way it went in. Only when people read it inspired by God, they get out of it what God put into it. Spiritual things are revealed by the Spirit. God can only inspire those who are open to having their lives transformed by the Truth. He reveals Himself only to those who seek to see Him as He really is, rather than for what they wish Him to be. He gives instruction only to those who will follow it.
Scholarship has a role in revealing Truth, but scholarship is valid only as far as it respects the unmatched and supreme authority of Scripture over and above any other written or oral communication on Earth. Scholarship has a place only in clarifying the Truth by demonstrating it's consistency in the Bible. "Scholars" can be hired to process the Bible in inconsistent ways to make it say whatever men desire it to say.
Ted wrote: I could agree with the idea that God does not change and neither does His truth. However, what does change is our understanding of things. We know now that epilepsy is no longer caused by demon posession nor is illness caused because someone "sinned". Micropathology has shown us the causes of disease.
Shalom
Ted:-6I believe it is important to accept what Scripture says instead of second guessing it. I was not there, nor were any modern physicians, when Jesus cast demons out of people and they were made well. How do we know that the illnesses and behavior problems those people had were not due to demon posession? How do we know that the disease in this world is not due to the effects of sin? Just because the ancients did not understand the principles of modern medicine and public health doesn't mean they did not know what they were talking about. They were there- you and I were not. If the Bible says the demoniac was demon-posessed, he was demon-posessed. If the Bible says Jesus talked with Satan, then Jesus talked with Satan, and Satan is a real person.
I've never cast demons out of anyone, but I know people who have. I know that demon posession happens. I have never (that I was positively aware of) seen a demon-posessed person, but I have encountered a supernatural being, and I know from experience that they exist. I read in the Bible that there are supernatural beings called angels. The Bible tells me that most of the angels are loyal to God but that some of the angels rebelled and who were confined to this earth, and are everywhere, working through human agents, trying as hard as they can to deceive people. The Bible is the only solid foundation on which to build a faith that can serve as a bulwark of Truth against all the deceptions. In comparison, purely human scholarship and philosophy is much more susceptible to error, and is therefore an untrustworthy guide in spiritual things because it is not inspired as the Bible clearly is.
Only scholarship that respects the inspiration and authority of Scripture and lets the Bible say what it means and mean what it says is helpful scholarship.
Ted, thank you for your helpful observation, and based on your input, I would re-write the sections as follows (My changes are italicized):
How God Reveals Truth
Jesus is the fullest revelation of the Truth of God, because only Jesus is God manifest in human flesh. But Jesus has left this earth to begin a new phase of His saving ministry in heaven. Today, God reveals Truth through the power of the Holy Spirit, and the written medium of the Holy Bible. It was written by men who were inspired by God and what selection of writings were included in the Bible (or not) were controlled supernaturally by God. The Truth comes out of the Bible the same way it went in. Only when people read it inspired by God, they get out of it what God put into it. Spiritual things are revealed by the Spirit. God can only inspire those who are open to having their lives transformed by the Truth. He reveals Himself only to those who seek to see Him as He really is, rather than for what they wish Him to be. He gives instruction only to those who will follow it.
Scholarship has a role in revealing Truth, but scholarship is valid only as far as it respects the unmatched and supreme authority of Scripture over and above any other written or oral communication on Earth. Scholarship has a place only in clarifying the Truth by demonstrating it's consistency in the Bible. "Scholars" can be hired to process the Bible in inconsistent ways to make it say whatever men desire it to say.
Ted wrote: I could agree with the idea that God does not change and neither does His truth. However, what does change is our understanding of things. We know now that epilepsy is no longer caused by demon posession nor is illness caused because someone "sinned". Micropathology has shown us the causes of disease.
Shalom
Ted:-6I believe it is important to accept what Scripture says instead of second guessing it. I was not there, nor were any modern physicians, when Jesus cast demons out of people and they were made well. How do we know that the illnesses and behavior problems those people had were not due to demon posession? How do we know that the disease in this world is not due to the effects of sin? Just because the ancients did not understand the principles of modern medicine and public health doesn't mean they did not know what they were talking about. They were there- you and I were not. If the Bible says the demoniac was demon-posessed, he was demon-posessed. If the Bible says Jesus talked with Satan, then Jesus talked with Satan, and Satan is a real person.
I've never cast demons out of anyone, but I know people who have. I know that demon posession happens. I have never (that I was positively aware of) seen a demon-posessed person, but I have encountered a supernatural being, and I know from experience that they exist. I read in the Bible that there are supernatural beings called angels. The Bible tells me that most of the angels are loyal to God but that some of the angels rebelled and who were confined to this earth, and are everywhere, working through human agents, trying as hard as they can to deceive people. The Bible is the only solid foundation on which to build a faith that can serve as a bulwark of Truth against all the deceptions. In comparison, purely human scholarship and philosophy is much more susceptible to error, and is therefore an untrustworthy guide in spiritual things because it is not inspired as the Bible clearly is.
Only scholarship that respects the inspiration and authority of Scripture and lets the Bible say what it means and mean what it says is helpful scholarship.
Look what the cat dragged in.
The Second Coming
tel:-6
There is one thing to remember. Jesus said that "I am with you until the end of the age." Jesus is definitely with us as is the Holy Spirit.
As far as your issue of accepting the Bible verbatum goes, that is a faith issue and is not subject to provability or unprovability. What I don't think we should do is discount what science has shown us. After all God has given man the ability and the skill to make such discoveries. I find it hard to deny what God has permitted us to have and do. It is also my perception that one's faith ought not in any way contradict the reality we know. Those are, of course, my opinions.
Let us not forget "I am with you until the end of the age."
Shalom
Ted:-6
There is one thing to remember. Jesus said that "I am with you until the end of the age." Jesus is definitely with us as is the Holy Spirit.
As far as your issue of accepting the Bible verbatum goes, that is a faith issue and is not subject to provability or unprovability. What I don't think we should do is discount what science has shown us. After all God has given man the ability and the skill to make such discoveries. I find it hard to deny what God has permitted us to have and do. It is also my perception that one's faith ought not in any way contradict the reality we know. Those are, of course, my opinions.
Let us not forget "I am with you until the end of the age."
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Second Coming
tel:-6
There is one other thing that I think is important to keep in mind. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would come and continue to lead us into all truth because we were not ready at that time to receive it all. I believe that this same Holy Spirit continues to lead us. This is a very clear indication that the Bible is not the end product but only a stage along the "WAY". We have much yet to receive and learn and we will continue to do so.
Shalom
Ted:-6
There is one other thing that I think is important to keep in mind. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would come and continue to lead us into all truth because we were not ready at that time to receive it all. I believe that this same Holy Spirit continues to lead us. This is a very clear indication that the Bible is not the end product but only a stage along the "WAY". We have much yet to receive and learn and we will continue to do so.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: tel:-6
The history, science and archaeological research have clearly shown that the Bible is not historically accurate.
Hi. I'm a newbie on FG, and a Christian who has long had an interest in both the Bible and science.
I've heard of some archaological evidence of the events in the Bible. For example, they found a ring of one of Jeremiah's scribes who's mentioned by name in the OT. They also found on a steele (sp?) dated around 1300 BCE where the inhabitants of present-day Palestine wrote for help to their overseeing king in defending against a tribe of nomads who were invading them, which of course could correspond to Joshua leading the Israelites in conquering their Promised Land.
Would you mind citing a few examples of research that "clearly" shows the Bible is not historically accurate? If you already have, I missed it.
The history, science and archaeological research have clearly shown that the Bible is not historically accurate.
Hi. I'm a newbie on FG, and a Christian who has long had an interest in both the Bible and science.
I've heard of some archaological evidence of the events in the Bible. For example, they found a ring of one of Jeremiah's scribes who's mentioned by name in the OT. They also found on a steele (sp?) dated around 1300 BCE where the inhabitants of present-day Palestine wrote for help to their overseeing king in defending against a tribe of nomads who were invading them, which of course could correspond to Joshua leading the Israelites in conquering their Promised Land.
Would you mind citing a few examples of research that "clearly" shows the Bible is not historically accurate? If you already have, I missed it.
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
seekerw wrote: Hi. I'm a newbie on FG, and a Christian who has long had an interest in both the Bible and science.
I've heard of some archaological evidence of the events in the Bible. For example, they found a ring of one of Jeremiah's scribes who's mentioned by name in the OT. They also found on a steele (sp?) dated around 1300 BCE where the inhabitants of present-day Palestine wrote for help to their overseeing king in defending against a tribe of nomads who were invading them, which of course could correspond to Joshua leading the Israelites in conquering their Promised Land.
Would you mind citing a few examples of research that "clearly" shows the Bible is not historically accurate? If you already have, I missed it.
many places are actually located, however the descriptions of events at those places are often not supported by archeological evidence. for example, the walls of jericho fell. the bible claims it was miraculous. in fact a simple earthquake in the area (a highly earthquake prone area) is a more likely explanation and is supported by archeological evidence.
another is the 10 plagues of egypt. each one of the plagues can be explained by medical and archeological evidence and has a logical explanation, not a miraculous one.
just because something is claimed to have occurred, doesn't mean it happened in the manner described. no one claims to unjderstand the bible as not historical, but much of its contents have either a physical, logical explanation, or is meant to be taken as an allegorical statement designed to make a certain point.
halley's handbook of the bible is a very useful book for its explanation, in real terms, and not story form, of locations and events that are a logical and scientific explanation of much of what is in the bible and how science proves and disproves various events and locations mentioned therein.
faith is a wonderful thing, but knowledge is of greater value than faith when trying to understand the events portrayed in a book compiled over several centuries from oral traditions and stories.:driving: :-4 :-4
I've heard of some archaological evidence of the events in the Bible. For example, they found a ring of one of Jeremiah's scribes who's mentioned by name in the OT. They also found on a steele (sp?) dated around 1300 BCE where the inhabitants of present-day Palestine wrote for help to their overseeing king in defending against a tribe of nomads who were invading them, which of course could correspond to Joshua leading the Israelites in conquering their Promised Land.
Would you mind citing a few examples of research that "clearly" shows the Bible is not historically accurate? If you already have, I missed it.
many places are actually located, however the descriptions of events at those places are often not supported by archeological evidence. for example, the walls of jericho fell. the bible claims it was miraculous. in fact a simple earthquake in the area (a highly earthquake prone area) is a more likely explanation and is supported by archeological evidence.
another is the 10 plagues of egypt. each one of the plagues can be explained by medical and archeological evidence and has a logical explanation, not a miraculous one.
just because something is claimed to have occurred, doesn't mean it happened in the manner described. no one claims to unjderstand the bible as not historical, but much of its contents have either a physical, logical explanation, or is meant to be taken as an allegorical statement designed to make a certain point.
halley's handbook of the bible is a very useful book for its explanation, in real terms, and not story form, of locations and events that are a logical and scientific explanation of much of what is in the bible and how science proves and disproves various events and locations mentioned therein.
faith is a wonderful thing, but knowledge is of greater value than faith when trying to understand the events portrayed in a book compiled over several centuries from oral traditions and stories.:driving: :-4 :-4
The Second Coming
charles_r51 wrote: many places are actually located, however the descriptions of events at those places are often not supported by archeological evidence. for example, the walls of jericho fell. the bible claims it was miraculous. in fact a simple earthquake in the area (a highly earthquake prone area) is a more likely explanation and is supported by archeological evidence.
another is the 10 plagues of egypt. each one of the plagues can be explained by medical and archeological evidence and has a logical explanation, not a miraculous one.
Charles,
Who says that everything that God does has to be a miracle, or that God doesn't work through natural laws? The fact that a sufficiently strong earthquake occured outside Jericho just at the time the Israelites were beseiging it is a miracle in my book. It says that a wind blew all night before the Red Sea parted for the Israelites. I've heard that computer modeling predicts that could have caused the sea to part, but still, the fact that Moses spoke, and the wind obeyed in the matter is a miracle in my book.
As for the 10 plagues of Egypt, I don't doubt that many of them could have had a natural explanation. But how can all the firstborn in Egypt,except for the Israelites who put blood on their doorposts as directed by Moses, being smitten on the same night be explained medically or logically?
another is the 10 plagues of egypt. each one of the plagues can be explained by medical and archeological evidence and has a logical explanation, not a miraculous one.
Charles,
Who says that everything that God does has to be a miracle, or that God doesn't work through natural laws? The fact that a sufficiently strong earthquake occured outside Jericho just at the time the Israelites were beseiging it is a miracle in my book. It says that a wind blew all night before the Red Sea parted for the Israelites. I've heard that computer modeling predicts that could have caused the sea to part, but still, the fact that Moses spoke, and the wind obeyed in the matter is a miracle in my book.
As for the 10 plagues of Egypt, I don't doubt that many of them could have had a natural explanation. But how can all the firstborn in Egypt,except for the Israelites who put blood on their doorposts as directed by Moses, being smitten on the same night be explained medically or logically?
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
seekerw wrote: Charles,
Who says that everything that God does has to be a miracle, or that God doesn't work through natural laws? The fact that a sufficiently strong earthquake occured outside Jericho just at the time the Israelites were beseiging it is a miracle in my book. It says that a wind blew all night before the Red Sea parted for the Israelites. I've heard that computer modeling predicts that could have caused the sea to part, but still, the fact that Moses spoke, and the wind obeyed in the matter is a miracle in my book.
As for the 10 plagues of Egypt, I don't doubt that many of them could have had a natural explanation. But how can all the firstborn in Egypt,except for the Israelites who put blood on their doorposts as directed by Moses, being smitten on the same night be explained medically or logically?
many people would agree with you, i do not. as for the first born, which first born are you referring to? not the biblical explanation i hope. if you ever watch the history channel the first born has a meaning far different than the literal meaning. while you may accept some as actual, i don't make that mistake because what the word for first born in hebrew means is not as the literal interpretation states it to be, but i am unable to give you that meaning since i don't remember the exact meaning that was given on the show about the plagues. if you know about the hebrews situation, then you know that they were not in the region of the nile delta when the plagues occurred, but were in the land of goshen, an area east of the delta and not affected by any of the plagues let alone the one which brought death of so many people and animals of the nile area. don't assume i don't believe in miracles, but neither do i accept something without a great proponderance of evidence to support the contention that a miracle has occurred. you don't have to agree with my positioin, but just understand that i cannot accept any miracle without great proof of it having occurred. and the bible does not provide it, it only claims it. a claim is not proof and is definitely not any kind of evidence.:-4 :-4 :-4
Who says that everything that God does has to be a miracle, or that God doesn't work through natural laws? The fact that a sufficiently strong earthquake occured outside Jericho just at the time the Israelites were beseiging it is a miracle in my book. It says that a wind blew all night before the Red Sea parted for the Israelites. I've heard that computer modeling predicts that could have caused the sea to part, but still, the fact that Moses spoke, and the wind obeyed in the matter is a miracle in my book.
As for the 10 plagues of Egypt, I don't doubt that many of them could have had a natural explanation. But how can all the firstborn in Egypt,except for the Israelites who put blood on their doorposts as directed by Moses, being smitten on the same night be explained medically or logically?
many people would agree with you, i do not. as for the first born, which first born are you referring to? not the biblical explanation i hope. if you ever watch the history channel the first born has a meaning far different than the literal meaning. while you may accept some as actual, i don't make that mistake because what the word for first born in hebrew means is not as the literal interpretation states it to be, but i am unable to give you that meaning since i don't remember the exact meaning that was given on the show about the plagues. if you know about the hebrews situation, then you know that they were not in the region of the nile delta when the plagues occurred, but were in the land of goshen, an area east of the delta and not affected by any of the plagues let alone the one which brought death of so many people and animals of the nile area. don't assume i don't believe in miracles, but neither do i accept something without a great proponderance of evidence to support the contention that a miracle has occurred. you don't have to agree with my positioin, but just understand that i cannot accept any miracle without great proof of it having occurred. and the bible does not provide it, it only claims it. a claim is not proof and is definitely not any kind of evidence.:-4 :-4 :-4
The Second Coming
charles_r51 wrote: many people would agree with you, i do not. as for the first born, which first born are you referring to? not the biblical explanation i hope. if you ever watch the history channel the first born has a meaning far different than the literal meaning. while you may accept some as actual, i don't make that mistake because what the word for first born in hebrew means is not as the literal interpretation states it to be, but i am unable to give you that meaning since i don't remember the exact meaning that was given on the show about the plagues. if you know about the hebrews situation, then you know that they were not in the region of the nile delta when the plagues occurred, but were in the land of goshen, an area east of the delta and not affected by any of the plagues let alone the one which brought death of so many people and animals of the nile area. don't assume i don't believe in miracles, but neither do i accept something without a great proponderance of evidence to support the contention that a miracle has occurred. you don't have to agree with my positioin, but just understand that i cannot accept any miracle without great proof of it having occurred. and the bible does not provide it, it only claims it. a claim is not proof and is definitely not any kind of evidence.:-4 :-4 :-4
I have searched around and found that Hebrew or otherwise, first born means
"The child in a family who is born first". You could be 15, 50 or 90, if you were the first born to a woman, you are the first born. The first born killed in the bible included all born first to a woman and cows as well.....it didn't mention other animals. I personally cannot figure how God can kill one, two, ten, thousands at a time and then give a commandment "Thou shall not kill". It doesn't make sense to me. But I am not a bible study person. I just ignore the blood and gore that appears to come from God in the bible. When the bible doesn't make sense to me, I just have to leave it alone.
I have searched around and found that Hebrew or otherwise, first born means
"The child in a family who is born first". You could be 15, 50 or 90, if you were the first born to a woman, you are the first born. The first born killed in the bible included all born first to a woman and cows as well.....it didn't mention other animals. I personally cannot figure how God can kill one, two, ten, thousands at a time and then give a commandment "Thou shall not kill". It doesn't make sense to me. But I am not a bible study person. I just ignore the blood and gore that appears to come from God in the bible. When the bible doesn't make sense to me, I just have to leave it alone.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
The Second Coming
I think that life is a miracle. Science has not been able to go that deeply into it. But its very existence is a miracle which we conveniently take for granted.
We may know the process, but the birth of a child always astounds me. It is a miracle.
We may know the process, but the birth of a child always astounds me. It is a miracle.
The Second Coming
Miriam wrote: I personally cannot figure how God can kill one, two, ten, thousands at a time and then give a commandment "Thou shall not kill".
Miriam, it is the general concensus that God and God alone knows all and knows what is best for us. Killing is His domain only because we kill all for the wrong reasons. He can give and He can take away.
Miriam, it is the general concensus that God and God alone knows all and knows what is best for us. Killing is His domain only because we kill all for the wrong reasons. He can give and He can take away.
The Second Coming
OpenMind wrote: Miriam, it is the general concensus that God and God alone knows all and knows what is best for us. Killing is His domain only because we kill all for the wrong reasons. He can give and He can take away.
That sounds pretty good OpenMind but it doesn't really satisfy me. I am not totally sure that God did all the killing in the Old Testament. I am not saying that He didn't. No matter what, it doesn't sit well with me. It took me a long time to figure out that I had to be consistant with my children and that if I lied then it wasn't much sense to tell them to not lie. Oh I know, God knows best and He could zap me at this moment and He would be praised for doing the best thing. And sometimes I am not too sure, maybe it would be the best thing.:-5
That sounds pretty good OpenMind but it doesn't really satisfy me. I am not totally sure that God did all the killing in the Old Testament. I am not saying that He didn't. No matter what, it doesn't sit well with me. It took me a long time to figure out that I had to be consistant with my children and that if I lied then it wasn't much sense to tell them to not lie. Oh I know, God knows best and He could zap me at this moment and He would be praised for doing the best thing. And sometimes I am not too sure, maybe it would be the best thing.:-5
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
The Second Coming
miriam wrote: That sounds pretty good OpenMind but it doesn't really satisfy me. I am not totally sure that God did all the killing in the Old Testament. I am not saying that He didn't. No matter what, it doesn't sit well with me. It took me a long time to figure out that I had to be consistant with my children and that if I lied then it wasn't much sense to tell them to not lie. Oh I know, God knows best and He could zap me at this moment and He would be praised for doing the best thing. And sometimes I am not too sure, maybe it would be the best thing.:-5
We mustn't make the mistake of likening or comparing ourselves to God. While we have to set a good example to our children, we are expected to accept God's benevolence without question. This is done through faith. God is the source of love and He loved us enough to create us in the first place.
God does not like to kill and this is shown in His remorse following the Great Flood in Genesis. Ultimately, it is His desire that we place all our concerns in His hands. The philosophy is that He knows better than we do how best to deal with a situation.
I should add here that I do not follow the Christian faith. However, my own beliefs does allow for a God-like quality or force within the universe.
We mustn't make the mistake of likening or comparing ourselves to God. While we have to set a good example to our children, we are expected to accept God's benevolence without question. This is done through faith. God is the source of love and He loved us enough to create us in the first place.
God does not like to kill and this is shown in His remorse following the Great Flood in Genesis. Ultimately, it is His desire that we place all our concerns in His hands. The philosophy is that He knows better than we do how best to deal with a situation.
I should add here that I do not follow the Christian faith. However, my own beliefs does allow for a God-like quality or force within the universe.
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
miriam wrote: That sounds pretty good OpenMind but it doesn't really satisfy me. I am not totally sure that God did all the killing in the Old Testament. I am not saying that He didn't. No matter what, it doesn't sit well with me. It took me a long time to figure out that I had to be consistant with my children and that if I lied then it wasn't much sense to tell them to not lie. Oh I know, God knows best and He could zap me at this moment and He would be praised for doing the best thing. And sometimes I am not too sure, maybe it would be the best thing.:-5
what of plants, are they not also able to reproduce, thus have first born? and frogs? and lice? and all other animal life, regardless of family, or origin? the first born of egypt is a very broad statement and thence of a very broad interpretation. unless the statement was not to be taken literally, but metaphorically, more than one generation of life would have died. i suggest you learn what is meant, and not what is implied , from what is written. anyone can interpret meanings in multi-faceyted ways what is written, but not everyone is capable of und4rstanding the purpose of what was written, especially since what was written had its roots in verbal stories, not written texts at the time things occurred. besides, there is no absolute proof of who was pharoah at the time, other than being told it wqas ramses, who had over twenty wives, and fifty plus children. some research ijndicates that ramses was not pharoah, but that another some 100 years after ramses was the pharoah of wgypt at the time of exodus, and that the time of the exodus was 100 years later than previously thought.:-4 :-4
what of plants, are they not also able to reproduce, thus have first born? and frogs? and lice? and all other animal life, regardless of family, or origin? the first born of egypt is a very broad statement and thence of a very broad interpretation. unless the statement was not to be taken literally, but metaphorically, more than one generation of life would have died. i suggest you learn what is meant, and not what is implied , from what is written. anyone can interpret meanings in multi-faceyted ways what is written, but not everyone is capable of und4rstanding the purpose of what was written, especially since what was written had its roots in verbal stories, not written texts at the time things occurred. besides, there is no absolute proof of who was pharoah at the time, other than being told it wqas ramses, who had over twenty wives, and fifty plus children. some research ijndicates that ramses was not pharoah, but that another some 100 years after ramses was the pharoah of wgypt at the time of exodus, and that the time of the exodus was 100 years later than previously thought.:-4 :-4
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
OpenMind wrote: We mustn't make the mistake of likening or comparing ourselves to God. While we have to set a good example to our children, we are expected to accept God's benevolence without question. This is done through faith. God is the source of love and He loved us enough to create us in the first place.
God does not like to kill and this is shown in His remorse following the Great Flood in Genesis. Ultimately, it is His desire that we place all our concerns in His hands. The philosophy is that He knows better than we do how best to deal with a situation.
I should add here that I do not follow the Christian faith. However, my own beliefs does allow for a God-like quality or force within the universe.
and why shouldn't we compare ourselves to god? if we are made in his image, should we not seek to see him in ourselves. if god is beyond our comprehension, how can we claim that he felt remorse over anything he did. regardless of faith, god does whatever he does and we cannot second guess him or his actions just because someone said so. men make decisions, god accepts those decisions and does nothing to change them once made. he may lead you, if you allow it, but he doesn't decide for you. the total concept of freee will is his gift to all. if he made your decisions for you, then free will would not exist. he may show you the path he wants you to follow, but you don't have to if you choose not to.
as for the great flood, records from societies long before any biblical story was ever developed spoke of a flood, so don't assume the binle is the full story. it is only what was written after having been an oral history, long after it was a written one in other civilizations which predated the hebrew . that is proven in written tablets which are several millenia older.:-4 :-4
God does not like to kill and this is shown in His remorse following the Great Flood in Genesis. Ultimately, it is His desire that we place all our concerns in His hands. The philosophy is that He knows better than we do how best to deal with a situation.
I should add here that I do not follow the Christian faith. However, my own beliefs does allow for a God-like quality or force within the universe.
and why shouldn't we compare ourselves to god? if we are made in his image, should we not seek to see him in ourselves. if god is beyond our comprehension, how can we claim that he felt remorse over anything he did. regardless of faith, god does whatever he does and we cannot second guess him or his actions just because someone said so. men make decisions, god accepts those decisions and does nothing to change them once made. he may lead you, if you allow it, but he doesn't decide for you. the total concept of freee will is his gift to all. if he made your decisions for you, then free will would not exist. he may show you the path he wants you to follow, but you don't have to if you choose not to.
as for the great flood, records from societies long before any biblical story was ever developed spoke of a flood, so don't assume the binle is the full story. it is only what was written after having been an oral history, long after it was a written one in other civilizations which predated the hebrew . that is proven in written tablets which are several millenia older.:-4 :-4
The Second Coming
charles_r51 wrote: and why shouldn't we compare ourselves to god? if we are made in his image, should we not seek to see him in ourselves. if god is beyond our comprehension, how can we claim that he felt remorse over anything he did. regardless of faith, god does whatever he does and we cannot second guess him or his actions just because someone said so. men make decisions, god accepts those decisions and does nothing to change them once made. he may lead you, if you allow it, but he doesn't decide for you. the total concept of freee will is his gift to all. if he made your decisions for you, then free will would not exist. he may show you the path he wants you to follow, but you don't have to if you choose not to.
as for the great flood, records from societies long before any biblical story was ever developed spoke of a flood, so don't assume the binle is the full story. it is only what was written after having been an oral history, long after it was a written one in other civilizations which predated the hebrew . that is proven in written tablets which are several millenia older.:-4 :-4
The message of the Bible is more important than the story or its accuracy. We should attain to godliness as we were indeed made in his likeness. But we sinned and fell away from godliness. This is the message.
Evidence of a flood in Noah's time has not been proven. But it clearly states in Genesis 8:21 that God would not again destroy man and every living thing. He spoke this in his heart. Now, how does a man hear what God says in His heart? But there it is.
For that matter, there is evidence that a great flood ocurred in the region and beyond about the time that Adam would have existed. But none for when Noah existed.
Interpretation is mainly subjective. I interpret for myself and I am quite happy to debate this. I do not interpret for others, although I am happy to suggest interpretations.
Whatever you believe, I respect. So long as it is not a belief that sets you against people or even yourself.
as for the great flood, records from societies long before any biblical story was ever developed spoke of a flood, so don't assume the binle is the full story. it is only what was written after having been an oral history, long after it was a written one in other civilizations which predated the hebrew . that is proven in written tablets which are several millenia older.:-4 :-4
The message of the Bible is more important than the story or its accuracy. We should attain to godliness as we were indeed made in his likeness. But we sinned and fell away from godliness. This is the message.
Evidence of a flood in Noah's time has not been proven. But it clearly states in Genesis 8:21 that God would not again destroy man and every living thing. He spoke this in his heart. Now, how does a man hear what God says in His heart? But there it is.
For that matter, there is evidence that a great flood ocurred in the region and beyond about the time that Adam would have existed. But none for when Noah existed.
Interpretation is mainly subjective. I interpret for myself and I am quite happy to debate this. I do not interpret for others, although I am happy to suggest interpretations.
Whatever you believe, I respect. So long as it is not a belief that sets you against people or even yourself.
The Second Coming
OpenMind wrote: We mustn't make the mistake of likening or comparing ourselves to God. While we have to set a good example to our children, we are expected to accept God's benevolence without question. This is done through faith. God is the source of love and He loved us enough to create us in the first place.
God does not like to kill and this is shown in His remorse following the Great Flood in Genesis. Ultimately, it is His desire that we place all our concerns in His hands. The philosophy is that He knows better than we do how best to deal with a situation.
I should add here that I do not follow the Christian faith. However, my own beliefs does allow for a God-like quality or force within the universe.
I accept God's benevolence OpenMind, but not without question. I always accepted everything without question and I never grew and I never learned. Basically, I existed. And then I started questioning my religion and then other religions and then I began to allow myself to wonder about the feeling I had inside that there is something wrong with killing and all the other stuff said that they say God does and then tells us not to kill. I follow the ten Commandments and all . If we are expected to simply accept God's benevolence without question, that is like being robots and I don't think God want's us to be robots. There is no real way to talk about it......you are there and I am here. I have not got the words to make you understand me and you are at do as you are told and don't ask questions.....maybe you aren't there, it just seems like it to me. I just don't buy expected to accept God's benevolence. There's a lot more.....maybe later.
God does not like to kill and this is shown in His remorse following the Great Flood in Genesis. Ultimately, it is His desire that we place all our concerns in His hands. The philosophy is that He knows better than we do how best to deal with a situation.
I should add here that I do not follow the Christian faith. However, my own beliefs does allow for a God-like quality or force within the universe.
I accept God's benevolence OpenMind, but not without question. I always accepted everything without question and I never grew and I never learned. Basically, I existed. And then I started questioning my religion and then other religions and then I began to allow myself to wonder about the feeling I had inside that there is something wrong with killing and all the other stuff said that they say God does and then tells us not to kill. I follow the ten Commandments and all . If we are expected to simply accept God's benevolence without question, that is like being robots and I don't think God want's us to be robots. There is no real way to talk about it......you are there and I am here. I have not got the words to make you understand me and you are at do as you are told and don't ask questions.....maybe you aren't there, it just seems like it to me. I just don't buy expected to accept God's benevolence. There's a lot more.....maybe later.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
The Second Coming
charles_r51 wrote: what of plants, are they not also able to reproduce, thus have first born? and frogs? and lice? and all other animal life, regardless of family, or origin? the first born of egypt is a very broad statement and thence of a very broad interpretation. unless the statement was not to be taken literally, but metaphorically, more than one generation of life would have died. i suggest you learn what is meant, and not what is implied , from what is written. anyone can interpret meanings in multi-faceyted ways what is written, but not everyone is capable of und4rstanding the purpose of what was written, especially since what was written had its roots in verbal stories, not written texts at the time things occurred. besides, there is no absolute proof of who was pharoah at the time, other than being told it wqas ramses, who had over twenty wives, and fifty plus children. some research ijndicates that ramses was not pharoah, but that another some 100 years after ramses was the pharoah of wgypt at the time of exodus, and that the time of the exodus was 100 years later than previously thought.:-4 :-4
Here it is from the bible.............Exodus 11
5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
but there is nothing about flora, plants perhaps because plants reproduce in a different way by throwing seeds and the first born seed(oh well that sounds funny anyway).
Here it is from the bible.............Exodus 11
5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
but there is nothing about flora, plants perhaps because plants reproduce in a different way by throwing seeds and the first born seed(oh well that sounds funny anyway).
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
The Second Coming
miriam wrote: I accept God's benevolence OpenMind, but not without question. I always accepted everything without question and I never grew and I never learned. Basically, I existed. And then I started questioning my religion and then other religions and then I began to allow myself to wonder about the feeling I had inside that there is something wrong with killing and all the other stuff said that they say God does and then tells us not to kill. I follow the ten Commandments and all . If we are expected to simply accept God's benevolence without question, that is like being robots and I don't think God want's us to be robots. There is no real way to talk about it......you are there and I am here. I have not got the words to make you understand me and you are at do as you are told and don't ask questions.....maybe you aren't there, it just seems like it to me. I just don't buy expected to accept God's benevolence. There's a lot more.....maybe later.
If we look into Genesis, it would appear to me, IMO, that God wanted us to take care of the Garden of Eden. Other than this, we were to be happy and enjoy ourselves. But, what we see around us now is the result of man's choice to think for himself. This is the essence of the original sin, to question God's intentions.
Notwithstanding, a lot of the creation account in Genesis is metaphorical. And yet, a lot of our life lessons show us that we need to let go and go with the flow. The best we can do is to make decisions, preferably informed decisions. But how much information do we have, or how much information do we need to make a truly informed decision. Quite often, we make our decisions based upon the info we have and pray that we've got it right. Other than that, we decide according to our emotions.
If we look into Genesis, it would appear to me, IMO, that God wanted us to take care of the Garden of Eden. Other than this, we were to be happy and enjoy ourselves. But, what we see around us now is the result of man's choice to think for himself. This is the essence of the original sin, to question God's intentions.
Notwithstanding, a lot of the creation account in Genesis is metaphorical. And yet, a lot of our life lessons show us that we need to let go and go with the flow. The best we can do is to make decisions, preferably informed decisions. But how much information do we have, or how much information do we need to make a truly informed decision. Quite often, we make our decisions based upon the info we have and pray that we've got it right. Other than that, we decide according to our emotions.
The Second Coming
OpenMind wrote: If we look into Genesis, it would appear to me, IMO, that God wanted us to take care of the Garden of Eden. Other than this, we were to be happy and enjoy ourselves. But, what we see around us now is the result of man's choice to think for himself. This is the essence of the original sin, to question God's intentions.
Notwithstanding, a lot of the creation account in Genesis is metaphorical. And yet, a lot of our life lessons show us that we need to let go and go with the flow. The best we can do is to make decisions, preferably informed decisions. But how much information do we have, or how much information do we need to make a truly informed decision. Quite often, we make our decisions based upon the info we have and pray that we've got it right. Other than that, we decide according to our emotions.
Thank you OM
You just brought forward a thought that I haven't had until now. It is not that I question the benevolence of God. I don't think I can explain to you. I don't question the benevolence of God. I don't just be expected to accept the benevolence of God. God is everything to me. There is something that I heard. We need to be thankful for all the good things in life. What I heard was that we need also to be thankful for the horrid things in our life. And I am thankful for the horrid things in my life because they brought me to where I am now and I love where I am now. But I have not mastered being on my knees and thanking God for the miserable things that happened to me. Some people do though.
That has nothing with expected acceptance of God's benevolence. There is something rolling around inside of me that a lot in the Old Testament, or at least some, might not be exactly as read.
Also, it has nothing to do with what you speak of making good decisions. I guess we just do the best we can.
Notwithstanding, a lot of the creation account in Genesis is metaphorical. And yet, a lot of our life lessons show us that we need to let go and go with the flow. The best we can do is to make decisions, preferably informed decisions. But how much information do we have, or how much information do we need to make a truly informed decision. Quite often, we make our decisions based upon the info we have and pray that we've got it right. Other than that, we decide according to our emotions.
Thank you OM
You just brought forward a thought that I haven't had until now. It is not that I question the benevolence of God. I don't think I can explain to you. I don't question the benevolence of God. I don't just be expected to accept the benevolence of God. God is everything to me. There is something that I heard. We need to be thankful for all the good things in life. What I heard was that we need also to be thankful for the horrid things in our life. And I am thankful for the horrid things in my life because they brought me to where I am now and I love where I am now. But I have not mastered being on my knees and thanking God for the miserable things that happened to me. Some people do though.
That has nothing with expected acceptance of God's benevolence. There is something rolling around inside of me that a lot in the Old Testament, or at least some, might not be exactly as read.
Also, it has nothing to do with what you speak of making good decisions. I guess we just do the best we can.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
The Second Coming
miriam wrote: Thank you OM
You just brought forward a thought that I haven't had until now. It is not that I question the benevolence of God. I don't think I can explain to you. I don't question the benevolence of God. I don't just be expected to accept the benevolence of God. God is everything to me. There is something that I heard. We need to be thankful for all the good things in life. What I heard was that we need also to be thankful for the horrid things in our life. And I am thankful for the horrid things in my life because they brought me to where I am now and I love where I am now. But I have not mastered being on my knees and thanking God for the miserable things that happened to me. Some people do though.
That has nothing with expected acceptance of God's benevolence. There is something rolling around inside of me that a lot in the Old Testament, or at least some, might not be exactly as read.
Also, it has nothing to do with what you speak of making good decisions. I guess we just do the best we can.
Insofar as the creation account is metaphorical, it also shows that it is in our nature to 'question'. We learn in stages as we grow and the learning experience becomes more spiritual as we get older. Individual learning becomes social learning also and society as a whole advances from one generation to the next. But it is all relative.
The stories of the Old Testament have proved to be the hardest to confirm as true. So, in the end, it becomes a matter of choice. And we virtually make choices each and every day.
The human condition has not changed much. No matter how much we try to make our lives easier, we fail. There are clues throughout the Bible to show that the answer is to follow our instinct and intuition and this will provide us with happiness.
For myself, this has been difficult to do. I suppressed my instincts and intuition at a very early age. So much so that it became difficult for me to recognise them. Yet, these are our most important guidance systems. All creatures have them and generally do well to follow them. We have the added benefit of rationalisation. I have suffered considerably by not being able to connect to mine.
Happiness is the goal. Wisdom through life's lessons is the key. Love is the motivator. In a lot more words, this is also given in the Bible.
Every now and then, I come across individuals who are perpetually happy who deal with obstacles as though they were mere potholes on the road of life. Whenever I ask them how they can be happy all the time, they simply say that they prefer to be happy than miserable.
You just brought forward a thought that I haven't had until now. It is not that I question the benevolence of God. I don't think I can explain to you. I don't question the benevolence of God. I don't just be expected to accept the benevolence of God. God is everything to me. There is something that I heard. We need to be thankful for all the good things in life. What I heard was that we need also to be thankful for the horrid things in our life. And I am thankful for the horrid things in my life because they brought me to where I am now and I love where I am now. But I have not mastered being on my knees and thanking God for the miserable things that happened to me. Some people do though.
That has nothing with expected acceptance of God's benevolence. There is something rolling around inside of me that a lot in the Old Testament, or at least some, might not be exactly as read.
Also, it has nothing to do with what you speak of making good decisions. I guess we just do the best we can.
Insofar as the creation account is metaphorical, it also shows that it is in our nature to 'question'. We learn in stages as we grow and the learning experience becomes more spiritual as we get older. Individual learning becomes social learning also and society as a whole advances from one generation to the next. But it is all relative.
The stories of the Old Testament have proved to be the hardest to confirm as true. So, in the end, it becomes a matter of choice. And we virtually make choices each and every day.
The human condition has not changed much. No matter how much we try to make our lives easier, we fail. There are clues throughout the Bible to show that the answer is to follow our instinct and intuition and this will provide us with happiness.
For myself, this has been difficult to do. I suppressed my instincts and intuition at a very early age. So much so that it became difficult for me to recognise them. Yet, these are our most important guidance systems. All creatures have them and generally do well to follow them. We have the added benefit of rationalisation. I have suffered considerably by not being able to connect to mine.
Happiness is the goal. Wisdom through life's lessons is the key. Love is the motivator. In a lot more words, this is also given in the Bible.
Every now and then, I come across individuals who are perpetually happy who deal with obstacles as though they were mere potholes on the road of life. Whenever I ask them how they can be happy all the time, they simply say that they prefer to be happy than miserable.
The Second Coming
You make good posts OM
I can't see anything in there to argue with. It all makes good sense to me. The only thing that I can say is that I have learned in the last 13 years to go with my conscience, instincts. That is not an easy road either because nobody seems to want anybody to follow their instincts, conscience because it means going outside of the manmade rules and being true to self and for me that is being true to God since He is my whole life, my life is His, He is my conscience. I can't figure why people don't like that idea. Maybe you can tell me.
I can't see anything in there to argue with. It all makes good sense to me. The only thing that I can say is that I have learned in the last 13 years to go with my conscience, instincts. That is not an easy road either because nobody seems to want anybody to follow their instincts, conscience because it means going outside of the manmade rules and being true to self and for me that is being true to God since He is my whole life, my life is His, He is my conscience. I can't figure why people don't like that idea. Maybe you can tell me.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
The Second Coming
miriam wrote: You make good posts OM
I can't see anything in there to argue with. It all makes good sense to me. The only thing that I can say is that I have learned in the last 13 years to go with my conscience, instincts. That is not an easy road either because nobody seems to want anybody to follow their instincts, conscience because it means going outside of the manmade rules and being true to self and for me that is being true to God since He is my whole life, my life is His, He is my conscience. I can't figure why people don't like that idea. Maybe you can tell me.
There is more than one reason for this.
Those in power would prefer you not to have a conscience. They want you to do as they tell you and would prefer not to have people's consciences question their actions. This doesn't just relate to political leaders, it also applies to economical and religious leaders. Although there are exceptions to this rule.
The power position also concerns peer groups. In peer groups, there is always one or two together who need the group to back their ideas. It gives them a feeling of importance or superiority, etc.
Amongst those who care for you, they genuinely do care. Their own experiences may give them cause for concern. Whiloe it is good to pay heed to the people who care for and love you, you must always follow your own conscience, intuition and instincts. I have regretted those occasions that I have gone against my own.
I might add that when you do follow your own conscience and intuition, you are following God's lead.
I can't see anything in there to argue with. It all makes good sense to me. The only thing that I can say is that I have learned in the last 13 years to go with my conscience, instincts. That is not an easy road either because nobody seems to want anybody to follow their instincts, conscience because it means going outside of the manmade rules and being true to self and for me that is being true to God since He is my whole life, my life is His, He is my conscience. I can't figure why people don't like that idea. Maybe you can tell me.
There is more than one reason for this.
Those in power would prefer you not to have a conscience. They want you to do as they tell you and would prefer not to have people's consciences question their actions. This doesn't just relate to political leaders, it also applies to economical and religious leaders. Although there are exceptions to this rule.
The power position also concerns peer groups. In peer groups, there is always one or two together who need the group to back their ideas. It gives them a feeling of importance or superiority, etc.
Amongst those who care for you, they genuinely do care. Their own experiences may give them cause for concern. Whiloe it is good to pay heed to the people who care for and love you, you must always follow your own conscience, intuition and instincts. I have regretted those occasions that I have gone against my own.
I might add that when you do follow your own conscience and intuition, you are following God's lead.
The Second Coming
OpenMind wrote: There is more than one reason for this.
Those in power would prefer you not to have a conscience. They want you to do as they tell you and would prefer not to have people's consciences question their actions. This doesn't just relate to political leaders, it also applies to economical and religious leaders. Although there are exceptions to this rule.
The power position also concerns peer groups. In peer groups, there is always one or two together who need the group to back their ideas. It gives them a feeling of importance or superiority, etc.
Amongst those who care for you, they genuinely do care. Their own experiences may give them cause for concern. Whiloe it is good to pay heed to the people who care for and love you, you must always follow your own conscience, intuition and instincts. I have regretted those occasions that I have gone against my own.
I might add that when you do follow your own conscience and intuition, you are following God's lead.
I wish I had more like you around me OM
Most here follow the same lines, but I refer to people around me where I live. Perhaps sometimes forum life is a little easier, easier to love and let live. I did what I was told for so long that I am like a wild free spirit now.....sometimes that is not so good a thing and doesn't go over too well. You are good to know.:-4
Those in power would prefer you not to have a conscience. They want you to do as they tell you and would prefer not to have people's consciences question their actions. This doesn't just relate to political leaders, it also applies to economical and religious leaders. Although there are exceptions to this rule.
The power position also concerns peer groups. In peer groups, there is always one or two together who need the group to back their ideas. It gives them a feeling of importance or superiority, etc.
Amongst those who care for you, they genuinely do care. Their own experiences may give them cause for concern. Whiloe it is good to pay heed to the people who care for and love you, you must always follow your own conscience, intuition and instincts. I have regretted those occasions that I have gone against my own.
I might add that when you do follow your own conscience and intuition, you are following God's lead.
I wish I had more like you around me OM
Most here follow the same lines, but I refer to people around me where I live. Perhaps sometimes forum life is a little easier, easier to love and let live. I did what I was told for so long that I am like a wild free spirit now.....sometimes that is not so good a thing and doesn't go over too well. You are good to know.:-4
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
The Second Coming
Thank you, Miriam. May you walk with God always.
Perhaps we will have the opportunity to have more chats. I hope so.:-6:-4
Perhaps we will have the opportunity to have more chats. I hope so.:-6:-4
The Second Coming
OpenMind wrote: Thank you, Miriam. May you walk with God always.
Perhaps we will have the opportunity to have more chats. I hope so.:-6:-4
I am sure we will OM.
I like to walk with God and it sounds like you do too. Some faith subjects that aren't too deep, I will get into. I am not at all complicated so I have to do the thing they say "KISS" Keep it Short and Simple. And I see you in the rest of the forum where I can be as silly as the next person. I like being in Spiritual sometimes where I can unleash that part of me. I think you are about the first person who has ever given me a chance, or a second thought. I appreciate that. We'll be crossing paths. I like it here.:-6 :-4
Perhaps we will have the opportunity to have more chats. I hope so.:-6:-4
I am sure we will OM.
I like to walk with God and it sounds like you do too. Some faith subjects that aren't too deep, I will get into. I am not at all complicated so I have to do the thing they say "KISS" Keep it Short and Simple. And I see you in the rest of the forum where I can be as silly as the next person. I like being in Spiritual sometimes where I can unleash that part of me. I think you are about the first person who has ever given me a chance, or a second thought. I appreciate that. We'll be crossing paths. I like it here.:-6 :-4
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
The Second Coming
miriam wrote: I am sure we will OM.
I like to walk with God and it sounds like you do too. Some faith subjects that aren't too deep, I will get into. I am not at all complicated so I have to do the thing they say "KISS" Keep it Short and Simple. And I see you in the rest of the forum where I can be as silly as the next person. I like being in Spiritual sometimes where I can unleash that part of me. I think you are about the first person who has ever given me a chance, or a second thought. I appreciate that. We'll be crossing paths. I like it here.:-6 :-4
You're welcome to PM me if you ever want a chat or let me know you're going to start a thread on the subject.
KISS is good. We complicate our lives far too much.
I must wind down now as it's past my bedtime here. Bon voyage.:-4
I like to walk with God and it sounds like you do too. Some faith subjects that aren't too deep, I will get into. I am not at all complicated so I have to do the thing they say "KISS" Keep it Short and Simple. And I see you in the rest of the forum where I can be as silly as the next person. I like being in Spiritual sometimes where I can unleash that part of me. I think you are about the first person who has ever given me a chance, or a second thought. I appreciate that. We'll be crossing paths. I like it here.:-6 :-4
You're welcome to PM me if you ever want a chat or let me know you're going to start a thread on the subject.
KISS is good. We complicate our lives far too much.
I must wind down now as it's past my bedtime here. Bon voyage.:-4
The Second Coming
OpenMind wrote: You're welcome to PM me if you ever want a chat or let me know you're going to start a thread on the subject.
KISS is good. We complicate our lives far too much.
I must wind down now as it's past my bedtime here. Bon voyage.:-4
Nite OM. I just realized remembered that you are across the ocean:-6 :-4
KISS is good. We complicate our lives far too much.
I must wind down now as it's past my bedtime here. Bon voyage.:-4
Nite OM. I just realized remembered that you are across the ocean:-6 :-4
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
OpenMind wrote: The message of the Bible is more important than the story or its accuracy. We should attain to godliness as we were indeed made in his likeness. But we sinned and fell away from godliness. This is the message.
Evidence of a flood in Noah's time has not been proven. But it clearly states in Genesis 8:21 that God would not again destroy man and every living thing. He spoke this in his heart. Now, how does a man hear what God says in His heart? But there it is.
For that matter, there is evidence that a great flood ocurred in the region and beyond about the time that Adam would have existed. But none for when Noah existed.
Interpretation is mainly subjective. I interpret for myself and I am quite happy to debate this. I do not interpret for others, although I am happy to suggest interpretations.
Whatever you believe, I respect. So long as it is not a belief that sets you against people or even yourself.
why should such a message of falling away even exist? it doesn't really matter whether a fall or anything resembling it ever occurred. it is an asumption, but may not even be what happened. what if instead of a fall, the individual was sent out to learn, not because he was bad or good, but to understand the self? as for noah, why did such a person have to exist? there is no reason whatever. what if the story of an advanced civilisation, atlantis, mu, or some other civilisation really existed and was destroyed, not by a flood, but by a series of cataclysisms brought about by an asteroid hitting the planet and creating geological changes resulting in such destruction that only a few hundred thousand people survived and those survivors were scattered over the planet in small, isolated groups of a few hundred? does that invalidate anything, or validate something else? no. but it does give a better explanation of why certain stories are found in vastly different locations but all having similarities to a central theme. i don't make any claims of what anyone should believe when it is a matter of faith, but i do presume to say what could have been, based on scientific evidence, even when it shows that faith is so blind to evidence disputing what others take as fact. i prefer to get facts, not be told what to believe just because some written book makes claims without regard to facts proven through scientific research.:-4 :-4
Evidence of a flood in Noah's time has not been proven. But it clearly states in Genesis 8:21 that God would not again destroy man and every living thing. He spoke this in his heart. Now, how does a man hear what God says in His heart? But there it is.
For that matter, there is evidence that a great flood ocurred in the region and beyond about the time that Adam would have existed. But none for when Noah existed.
Interpretation is mainly subjective. I interpret for myself and I am quite happy to debate this. I do not interpret for others, although I am happy to suggest interpretations.
Whatever you believe, I respect. So long as it is not a belief that sets you against people or even yourself.
why should such a message of falling away even exist? it doesn't really matter whether a fall or anything resembling it ever occurred. it is an asumption, but may not even be what happened. what if instead of a fall, the individual was sent out to learn, not because he was bad or good, but to understand the self? as for noah, why did such a person have to exist? there is no reason whatever. what if the story of an advanced civilisation, atlantis, mu, or some other civilisation really existed and was destroyed, not by a flood, but by a series of cataclysisms brought about by an asteroid hitting the planet and creating geological changes resulting in such destruction that only a few hundred thousand people survived and those survivors were scattered over the planet in small, isolated groups of a few hundred? does that invalidate anything, or validate something else? no. but it does give a better explanation of why certain stories are found in vastly different locations but all having similarities to a central theme. i don't make any claims of what anyone should believe when it is a matter of faith, but i do presume to say what could have been, based on scientific evidence, even when it shows that faith is so blind to evidence disputing what others take as fact. i prefer to get facts, not be told what to believe just because some written book makes claims without regard to facts proven through scientific research.:-4 :-4
The Second Coming
charles_r51 wrote: why should such a message of falling away even exist? it doesn't really matter whether a fall or anything resembling it ever occurred. it is an asumption, but may not even be what happened. what if instead of a fall, the individual was sent out to learn, not because he was bad or good, but to understand the self? as for noah, why did such a person have to exist? there is no reason whatever. what if the story of an advanced civilisation, atlantis, mu, or some other civilisation really existed and was destroyed, not by a flood, but by a series of cataclysisms brought about by an asteroid hitting the planet and creating geological changes resulting in such destruction that only a few hundred thousand people survived and those survivors were scattered over the planet in small, isolated groups of a few hundred? does that invalidate anything, or validate something else? no. but it does give a better explanation of why certain stories are found in vastly different locations but all having similarities to a central theme. i don't make any claims of what anyone should believe when it is a matter of faith, but i do presume to say what could have been, based on scientific evidence, even when it shows that faith is so blind to evidence disputing what others take as fact. i prefer to get facts, not be told what to believe just because some written book makes claims without regard to facts proven through scientific research.:-4 :-4
Charles, there are too many 'what-ifs' in your post here. You may have seen my statement in an earlier post, or maybe not. I quote myself: I should add here that I do not follow the Christian faith. However, my own belief does allow for a God-like quality or force within the universe..
I have constrained myself to this one subject otherwise. I make my own interpretation of the Bible not only to how I perceive its meaning, but also according to what science has revealed and other disciplnes besides. In truth, I have not been able as yet to really elaborate upon my own beliefs. I am working on this and will post them just as soon as I am able to elucidate upon them.
Charles, there are too many 'what-ifs' in your post here.
You may have seen my statement in an earlier post, or maybe not. I quote myself: I should add here that I do not follow the Christian faith. However, my own belief does allow for a God-like quality or force within the universe..I have constrained myself to this one subject otherwise. I make my own interpretation of the Bible not only to how I perceive its meaning, but also according to what science has revealed and other disciplnes besides. In truth, I have not been able as yet to really elaborate upon my own beliefs. I am working on this and will post them just as soon as I am able to elucidate upon them.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
The Second Coming
charles_r51 wrote: many places are actually located, however the descriptions of events at those places are often not supported by archeological evidence. for example, the walls of jericho fell. the bible claims it was miraculous. in fact a simple earthquake in the area (a highly earthquake prone area) is a more likely explanation and is supported by archeological evidence.Yes, but Who sent the earthquake?
charles_r51 wrote: another is the 10 plagues of egypt. each one of the plagues can be explained by medical and archeological evidence and has a logical explanation, not a miraculous one.Scripture says that God sent the plagues so the people could know that they came from God and were not natural phenomena. When God sends a plague, it is not something explainable by science. We haven't seen any plagues of God in modern times.
Exodus 9:14
or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth.
15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth.
16 But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.
charles_r51 wrote: Just because something is claimed to have occurred, doesn't mean it happened in the manner described. no one claims to unjderstand the bible as not historical, but much of its contents have either a physical, logical explanation, or is meant to be taken as an allegorical statement designed to make a certain point.
halley's handbook of the bible is a very useful book for its explanation, in real terms, and not story form, of locations and events that are a logical and scientific explanation of much of what is in the bible and how science proves and disproves various events and locations mentioned therein.
faith is a wonderful thing, but knowledge is of greater value than faith when trying to understand the events portrayed in a book compiled over several centuries from oral traditions and stories.:driving: :-4 :-4Knowledge does not save you. Only faith does that. Charles, what you are talking about is trying to fit the glorious, supernatural, all-powerful acts of God into the narrow confines of the modern scientific paradigm. This basically strips God of everything worth worshipping.
Can science really prove or disprove the Bible? Science can not speak outside it's narrow paradigm. Paradigms are filters into which go all data we are exposed to, and out of which come only the data that fits the expectations of the paradigm. Science is too limited to encompass the revelation of God in His word.
Can science give me eternal life or victory over sin? When they come up with a serum for that, call me up, and maybe I'll be willing to reconsider my position.
charles_r51 wrote: another is the 10 plagues of egypt. each one of the plagues can be explained by medical and archeological evidence and has a logical explanation, not a miraculous one.Scripture says that God sent the plagues so the people could know that they came from God and were not natural phenomena. When God sends a plague, it is not something explainable by science. We haven't seen any plagues of God in modern times.
Exodus 9:14
or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth.
15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth.
16 But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.
charles_r51 wrote: Just because something is claimed to have occurred, doesn't mean it happened in the manner described. no one claims to unjderstand the bible as not historical, but much of its contents have either a physical, logical explanation, or is meant to be taken as an allegorical statement designed to make a certain point.
halley's handbook of the bible is a very useful book for its explanation, in real terms, and not story form, of locations and events that are a logical and scientific explanation of much of what is in the bible and how science proves and disproves various events and locations mentioned therein.
faith is a wonderful thing, but knowledge is of greater value than faith when trying to understand the events portrayed in a book compiled over several centuries from oral traditions and stories.:driving: :-4 :-4Knowledge does not save you. Only faith does that. Charles, what you are talking about is trying to fit the glorious, supernatural, all-powerful acts of God into the narrow confines of the modern scientific paradigm. This basically strips God of everything worth worshipping.
Can science really prove or disprove the Bible? Science can not speak outside it's narrow paradigm. Paradigms are filters into which go all data we are exposed to, and out of which come only the data that fits the expectations of the paradigm. Science is too limited to encompass the revelation of God in His word.
Can science give me eternal life or victory over sin? When they come up with a serum for that, call me up, and maybe I'll be willing to reconsider my position.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
telaquapacky wrote: Yes, but Who sent the earthquake?
Scripture says that God sent the plagues so the people could know that they came from God and were not natural phenomena. When God sends a plague, it is not something explainable by science. We haven't seen any plagues of God in modern times.
Exodus 9:14
or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth.
15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth.
16 But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.
Knowledge does not save you. Only faith does that. Charles, what you are talking about is trying to fit the glorious, supernatural, all-powerful acts of God into the narrow confines of the modern scientific paradigm. This basically strips God of everything worth worshipping.
Can science really prove or disprove the Bible? Science can not speak outside it's narrow paradigm. Paradigms are filters into which go all data we are exposed to, and out of which come only the data that fits the expectations of the paradigm. Science is too limited to encompass the revelation of God in His word.
Can science give me eternal life or victory over sin? When they come up with a serum for that, call me up, and maybe I'll be willing to reconsider my position.
faith without works is just so much trash thought.god saves no one, you do that. i've seen no saved person yet, but i have seen plenty of simpltons believing they're going to some unknown place they have been told exists. at least science forces you see things as they are and not as someone makes you dream about. and saying something exists without proof is nothing but daydreaming.:-4 :-4 :-4
Scripture says that God sent the plagues so the people could know that they came from God and were not natural phenomena. When God sends a plague, it is not something explainable by science. We haven't seen any plagues of God in modern times.
Exodus 9:14
or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth.
15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth.
16 But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.
Knowledge does not save you. Only faith does that. Charles, what you are talking about is trying to fit the glorious, supernatural, all-powerful acts of God into the narrow confines of the modern scientific paradigm. This basically strips God of everything worth worshipping.
Can science really prove or disprove the Bible? Science can not speak outside it's narrow paradigm. Paradigms are filters into which go all data we are exposed to, and out of which come only the data that fits the expectations of the paradigm. Science is too limited to encompass the revelation of God in His word.
Can science give me eternal life or victory over sin? When they come up with a serum for that, call me up, and maybe I'll be willing to reconsider my position.
faith without works is just so much trash thought.god saves no one, you do that. i've seen no saved person yet, but i have seen plenty of simpltons believing they're going to some unknown place they have been told exists. at least science forces you see things as they are and not as someone makes you dream about. and saying something exists without proof is nothing but daydreaming.:-4 :-4 :-4
The Second Coming
charles_r51 wrote: faith without works is just so much trash thought.god saves no one, you do that. i've seen no saved person yet, but i have seen plenty of simpltons believing they're going to some unknown place they have been told exists. at least science forces you see things as they are and not as someone makes you dream about. and saying something exists without proof is nothing but daydreaming.:-4 :-4 :-4
There is a lot that science can only allude to.
Tell me Charles, if you would. What is your position on quantum mechanics? Do you consider it to be valid?
There is a lot that science can only allude to.
Tell me Charles, if you would. What is your position on quantum mechanics? Do you consider it to be valid?
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
OpenMind wrote: There is a lot that science can only allude to.
Tell me Charles, if you would. What is your position on quantum mechanics? Do you consider it to be valid?
not being a mathematician, i don't enough of the math involved to have an opinion one could call valid.
science alludes to many things, but at least it admits the possibility that even what they do know may not absolutley true. they seek explanation and require certain repeatable occurrances befor saying something is right, and also admit that their knowledge of the subject may be far less than they would like it to be. they will even repudiate what was once acceprted as true, whenever a better explanation comes forward. they do not rely on some indefinable belief as an absolute fact. and continue to seek to know more than what they already have.
Tell me Charles, if you would. What is your position on quantum mechanics? Do you consider it to be valid?
not being a mathematician, i don't enough of the math involved to have an opinion one could call valid.
science alludes to many things, but at least it admits the possibility that even what they do know may not absolutley true. they seek explanation and require certain repeatable occurrances befor saying something is right, and also admit that their knowledge of the subject may be far less than they would like it to be. they will even repudiate what was once acceprted as true, whenever a better explanation comes forward. they do not rely on some indefinable belief as an absolute fact. and continue to seek to know more than what they already have.
The Second Coming
charles_r51 wrote: not being a mathematician, i don't enough of the math involved to have an opinion one could call valid.
science alludes to many things, but at least it admits the possibility that even what they do know may not absolutley true. they seek explanation and require certain repeatable occurrances befor saying something is right, and also admit that their knowledge of the subject may be far less than they would like it to be. they will even repudiate what was once acceprted as true, whenever a better explanation comes forward. they do not rely on some indefinable belief as an absolute fact. and continue to seek to know more than what they already have.
Fair comment, Charles. Although it has been known and still occurs that the scientific community will put down or ignore a better explanation because it would spoil the happy status quo with the currently held view.
science alludes to many things, but at least it admits the possibility that even what they do know may not absolutley true. they seek explanation and require certain repeatable occurrances befor saying something is right, and also admit that their knowledge of the subject may be far less than they would like it to be. they will even repudiate what was once acceprted as true, whenever a better explanation comes forward. they do not rely on some indefinable belief as an absolute fact. and continue to seek to know more than what they already have.
Fair comment, Charles. Although it has been known and still occurs that the scientific community will put down or ignore a better explanation because it would spoil the happy status quo with the currently held view.
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
OpenMind wrote: Fair comment, Charles. Although it has been known and still occurs that the scientific community will put down or ignore a better explanation because it would spoil the happy status quo with the currently held view.
and so it goes in many non-scientific areas. what is accepted now, and which is almost impossible to change, becomes the norm over time.:-4 :-4
and so it goes in many non-scientific areas. what is accepted now, and which is almost impossible to change, becomes the norm over time.:-4 :-4
The Second Coming
charles_r51 wrote: and so it goes in many non-scientific areas. what is accepted now, and which is almost impossible to change, becomes the norm over time.:-4 :-4
The reason I asked you about quantum mecvhanics is because of its arbitrary nature. A lot of the current accepted theories are based on what are called thought experiments, i.e. there's no way of proving them in a practical way.
The two slit experiment, as it is called, shows how a single photon will pass through both slits. It has therefore been presumed that the photon will travel through every single trajectory that is possible to it.
Bearing in mind that a particle is affected simply by being observed, then I reckon that belief will also determine where we will see that particle, and that could have serious consequences. It has occurred to me that whatever a person believes will become the reality for that person if they believe it enough over the common belief.
Currently, I would like to find out more about thoughts at the quantum level. Likewise spirits, or ghosts if you prefer. If they exist, they will need to exist at the quantum level at least. Life is like a multi-dimensional TV screen.
The reason I asked you about quantum mecvhanics is because of its arbitrary nature. A lot of the current accepted theories are based on what are called thought experiments, i.e. there's no way of proving them in a practical way.
The two slit experiment, as it is called, shows how a single photon will pass through both slits. It has therefore been presumed that the photon will travel through every single trajectory that is possible to it.
Bearing in mind that a particle is affected simply by being observed, then I reckon that belief will also determine where we will see that particle, and that could have serious consequences. It has occurred to me that whatever a person believes will become the reality for that person if they believe it enough over the common belief.
Currently, I would like to find out more about thoughts at the quantum level. Likewise spirits, or ghosts if you prefer. If they exist, they will need to exist at the quantum level at least. Life is like a multi-dimensional TV screen.
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
OpenMind wrote: The reason I asked you about quantum mecvhanics is because of its arbitrary nature. A lot of the current accepted theories are based on what are called thought experiments, i.e. there's no way of proving them in a practical way.
The two slit experiment, as it is called, shows how a single photon will pass through both slits. It has therefore been presumed that the photon will travel through every single trajectory that is possible to it.
Bearing in mind that a particle is affected simply by being observed, then I reckon that belief will also determine where we will see that particle, and that could have serious consequences. It has occurred to me that whatever a person believes will become the reality for that person if they believe it enough over the common belief.
Currently, I would like to find out more about thoughts at the quantum level. Likewise spirits, or ghosts if you prefer. If they exist, they will need to exist at the quantum level at least. Life is like a multi-dimensional TV screen.
quantum physics aside, what gave you the idea a spirit is in the physical universe as we are? why would they have to exist in it at all? from all i've studied on the subject, they are not a part of, nor even within this universe as we know it, but are outside it. again, there is no way to prove their existance that is in this sphere of influence so maybe quantum theory will be able to prove the existance of a non-corporeal being, but i don't think it'll be in any foreseeable future. but maybe it is, who knows?:-4 :-4
The two slit experiment, as it is called, shows how a single photon will pass through both slits. It has therefore been presumed that the photon will travel through every single trajectory that is possible to it.
Bearing in mind that a particle is affected simply by being observed, then I reckon that belief will also determine where we will see that particle, and that could have serious consequences. It has occurred to me that whatever a person believes will become the reality for that person if they believe it enough over the common belief.
Currently, I would like to find out more about thoughts at the quantum level. Likewise spirits, or ghosts if you prefer. If they exist, they will need to exist at the quantum level at least. Life is like a multi-dimensional TV screen.
quantum physics aside, what gave you the idea a spirit is in the physical universe as we are? why would they have to exist in it at all? from all i've studied on the subject, they are not a part of, nor even within this universe as we know it, but are outside it. again, there is no way to prove their existance that is in this sphere of influence so maybe quantum theory will be able to prove the existance of a non-corporeal being, but i don't think it'll be in any foreseeable future. but maybe it is, who knows?:-4 :-4
The Second Coming
charles_r51 wrote: quantum physics aside, what gave you the idea a spirit is in the physical universe as we are? why would they have to exist in it at all? from all i've studied on the subject, they are not a part of, nor even within this universe as we know it, but are outside it. again, there is no way to prove their existance that is in this sphere of influence so maybe quantum theory will be able to prove the existance of a non-corporeal being, but i don't think it'll be in any foreseeable future. but maybe it is, who knows?:-4 :-4
If a spirit exists at all, other than in our minds, it must have particle substance. If their substance simply vibrated at a different frequency on the elctromagnetic spectrum, we would not see them. To exist outside of the universe, they would need the ability to pass through the p-branes. Then I would also have to study ectoplasmic energy. This is said to be the means for spirits to appear and it is drawn from us.
If a spirit exists at all, other than in our minds, it must have particle substance. If their substance simply vibrated at a different frequency on the elctromagnetic spectrum, we would not see them. To exist outside of the universe, they would need the ability to pass through the p-branes. Then I would also have to study ectoplasmic energy. This is said to be the means for spirits to appear and it is drawn from us.
The Second Coming
OpenMind wrote: If a spirit exists at all, other than in our minds, it must have particle substance. If their substance simply vibrated at a different frequency on the elctromagnetic spectrum, we would not see them. To exist outside of the universe, they would need the ability to pass through the p-branes. Then I would also have to study ectoplasmic energy. This is said to be the means for spirits to appear and it is drawn from us.
It seems to me that spirit is non physical and therefore takes up no space and be in all space at all times. That is what God is, spiritual, on the head of a pin, everywhere. Spirit has no confines be it earth or otherwise. Spirit is glorious, free, unfettered, what I will be when I am freed from this confining body when it dies.
It seems to me that spirit is non physical and therefore takes up no space and be in all space at all times. That is what God is, spiritual, on the head of a pin, everywhere. Spirit has no confines be it earth or otherwise. Spirit is glorious, free, unfettered, what I will be when I am freed from this confining body when it dies.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
The Second Coming
Ted wrote: Bryn Mawr:-6
Well apparently Jesus was wrong on that one. Actually the "day of the Lord" has been expected from before the time of Jesus. The people of his day including his own disciples expected it withing a very short time. Here we are at 2000 years and still counting.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/y2k/bible_ca.htm
220 Dates for the End of the world!!! Date Setters!
You might indeed find this an interesting site. An interesting read.
Shalom
Ted:-6
jesus said in the bible that no one knows the day or the hour only the father in heaven knows. so be ready for he is coming as a thief in the night. UNEXPECTED!!!
Well apparently Jesus was wrong on that one. Actually the "day of the Lord" has been expected from before the time of Jesus. The people of his day including his own disciples expected it withing a very short time. Here we are at 2000 years and still counting.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/y2k/bible_ca.htm
220 Dates for the End of the world!!! Date Setters!
You might indeed find this an interesting site. An interesting read.
Shalom
Ted:-6
jesus said in the bible that no one knows the day or the hour only the father in heaven knows. so be ready for he is coming as a thief in the night. UNEXPECTED!!!
-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
OpenMind wrote: If a spirit exists at all, other than in our minds, it must have particle substance. If their substance simply vibrated at a different frequency on the elctromagnetic spectrum, we would not see them. To exist outside of the universe, they would need the ability to pass through the p-branes. Then I would also have to study ectoplasmic energy. This is said to be the means for spirits to appear and it is drawn from us.
ectoplasm is what a spirit uses when manifesting in this world. unfortunately, anyone who has the ability is unknown to me other than from an occasional person i've heard whop sees a ghost, but i don't know if that would really qualify as ectoplasmic manifestation. as for studying it, i don't know of any method unless it could be manifested under highly controlled conditions with someone who can provide the needed material, not just claim it. from what i've learned, the number of people able to have such a manifestation are almost nil, since the amount of training is so long and hard.
as far as existing outside this universe, they would since they would have no need to carry anything physical around, and this universe has physical certainties which must be satified to exist in this universe. :-4 :-4
ectoplasm is what a spirit uses when manifesting in this world. unfortunately, anyone who has the ability is unknown to me other than from an occasional person i've heard whop sees a ghost, but i don't know if that would really qualify as ectoplasmic manifestation. as for studying it, i don't know of any method unless it could be manifested under highly controlled conditions with someone who can provide the needed material, not just claim it. from what i've learned, the number of people able to have such a manifestation are almost nil, since the amount of training is so long and hard.
as far as existing outside this universe, they would since they would have no need to carry anything physical around, and this universe has physical certainties which must be satified to exist in this universe.
:-4 :-4-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
naty2005 wrote: jesus said in the bible that no one knows the day or the hour only the father in heaven knows. so be ready for he is coming as a thief in the night. UNEXPECTED!!!
maybe what you expect is not what you'll get. he told you what the signs were, but not what the end would be. many see signs all the time and nothing has happened to change that. it's been going on for two thousand years, and each time someone tries to say the end is near, they wind up looking like fools. don't assume that, like them, you can say anything which will change, accelerate, slow, or determine what the divine plan is. it is nothing more than an execise in futility to do so. when the time comes, maybe you'll be surprised, and look back and say, "some plan, i never even knew it came about. how could i be so blind?". :-4
maybe what you expect is not what you'll get. he told you what the signs were, but not what the end would be. many see signs all the time and nothing has happened to change that. it's been going on for two thousand years, and each time someone tries to say the end is near, they wind up looking like fools. don't assume that, like them, you can say anything which will change, accelerate, slow, or determine what the divine plan is. it is nothing more than an execise in futility to do so. when the time comes, maybe you'll be surprised, and look back and say, "some plan, i never even knew it came about. how could i be so blind?".
:-4-
charles_r51
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am
The Second Coming
weber wrote: It seems to me that spirit is non physical and therefore takes up no space and be in all space at all times. That is what God is, spiritual, on the head of a pin, everywhere. Spirit has no confines be it earth or otherwise. Spirit is glorious, free, unfettered, what I will be when I am freed from this confining body when it dies.
fair explanation. enjoy the time off from this world, when you leave, cuz you may have to come back, again, and again, and etc. jsut hope it doesn't get to boring though, i hate boredom. :-4 :-4
fair explanation. enjoy the time off from this world, when you leave, cuz you may have to come back, again, and again, and etc. jsut hope it doesn't get to boring though, i hate boredom.
:-4 :-4The Second Coming
charles_r51 wrote: fair explanation. enjoy the time off from this world, when you leave, cuz you may have to come back, again, and again, and etc. jsut hope it doesn't get to boring though, i hate boredom. :-4 :-4
You don't give up do you. I am at peace with whatever happens. I am content. Should that be what is in store for me, there's not much I can do. But until then, I am free to choose what I wish to believe for me. So it doesn't much matter what you say. What I can never understand is why people think they are right and everybody else is wrong. That reminds me of the ostrich with it's head in the sand. I say what I believe but I don't think everybody else is wrong, because it is just what I believe.
:-4 :-4You don't give up do you. I am at peace with whatever happens. I am content. Should that be what is in store for me, there's not much I can do. But until then, I am free to choose what I wish to believe for me. So it doesn't much matter what you say. What I can never understand is why people think they are right and everybody else is wrong. That reminds me of the ostrich with it's head in the sand. I say what I believe but I don't think everybody else is wrong, because it is just what I believe.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
The Second Coming
cute Furball Weber.....................:-6