Quoting sweet from 21:26, 1st May 2007
Also, the Bible tale of the creation of earth wasn't read literally, each of the creation "days" lasting rather, er, longer than the conventional day.
Quoting DrAlex from 21:50, 1st May 2007Quoting sweet from 21:26, 1st May 2007
Also, the Bible tale of the creation of earth wasn't read literally, each of the creation "days" lasting rather, er, longer than the conventional day.
Indeed, how can you have a "day" if there is no Earth to revolve around the sun?
[hr]
The Sinner: Where no one ever learned "if you haven't got any thing nice to say, don't say anything at all."
Quoting Mr Comedy from 22:48, 1st May 2007but the fact that every piece of evidence we can see checks out massively increases the possibility that the things we cannot know the answer to check out as well.
I'd encourage anyone to seriously read and contemplate the teachings of the Bible. If you conclude in your analysis that the Bible cannot be true, and is clearly wrong, then fair enough.
However, with the Bible having very clear teaching with clear actions attached, not investigating and contemplating it could be a grave mistake. If the Bible still checks out nearly 2000 years since it was written despite massive advances in our historical, scriptural and archelogical knowledge, then it is worth considering if it should have an impact yourself.
Quoting Mr Comedy from 22:48, 1st May 2007
I don't care if the stories in Genesis are allegorical or not, as this doesn't detract from the central message of the bible.
Indeed, if we could categorically refute an aspect of the gospels, I would renounce my faith as I cannot believe in an infallable God and a fallable gospel.
A worldwide flood? Are you seriously going to try to back that up?
How come you were so lucky as to get the only correct version of the only correct religion first time?
Quoting Mr Comedy from 22:48, 1st May 2007
I don't care if the stories in Genesis are allegorical or not, as this doesn't detract from the central message of the bible.
Indeed, if we could categorically refute an aspect of the gospels, I would renounce my faith as I cannot believe in an infallable God and a fallable gospel.
Quoting Mr Comedy from 08:59, 2nd May 2007
Unfortunately Senethro, your fervency is only exceeded by your own ignorance.A worldwide flood? Are you seriously going to try to back that up?
How would you then explain that ancient and geographically disparate cultures from the Babylonians to the Aboriginals in Australia and the Native Americans all talk about a worldwide flood?
Or that the Babylonians (who would have little need to lie about these things) have an almost identical flood story?
Seems like a massive coincidence to me. Indeed if we applied reasoning to this then this part of the Bible warrants closer examination.
none have the accuracy or historical dependency that the Bible has. This is something I doubt you've taken the time to do.
[/quote]Quoting Mr Comedy from 22:48, 1st May 2007
My point is - I don't believe in a fallable biblical record. However, even if Noah never built an Ark or creation didn't take 7 literal days, the central message of the Bible remains unchanged.
Quoting Mr Comedy from 10:09, 2nd May 2007
You are confusing the issue here.
I believe in an infallable Bible.
However, if certain tenants of the Bible were disproved (which they haven't), the message of the Bible remains unchanged (e.g that of an omnipotent God who died for sins etc).
These two are stand alone points. I haven't shifted the goalposts, but, if you were able to disprove some small area of the Bible then it doesn't invalidate the entire message.
[hr]
"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests