Honest opinions from Christians please

[my opinion]

No... it does not go up and down...if it did it would be rising and setting in the same place...I cannot be any clearer on that...

And I see now where a year for us may not be a year in bible times... so that point is moot as we can never know what a year back then was..

And I'm sure there has been floods in all parts of the earth at sometime or other...it is the global flood that does not bear out. To have a global flood and leave no evidence really stretches the credibility of it. This in turn casts doubt on the authority of scripture Genesis, and in particular the story of creation, adam and eve, and the fall, which are all contained in the same scripture as the flood. However, the flood, or lack of it, is the only thing that is provable because it is a physical event which should leave physical evidence. Debating the story of adam and eve or the fall (except for the time frame) is totally pointless because by the very nature of these events you would not expect to find any tangible evidence. You then have Jesus speaking of this flood in Mathew, so now this brings this scripture under scrutiny...it's a can of worms my friend...

Also, when posting links to web sites to substantiate your claims they really shouldn't link to Christian web sites... it's hardly going to be unbiased... a little impartiality will go a long way...science is not out to destroy anyone's religion or faith...it reports facts and facts only...there is very strict criteria when it comes to science stating something for a fact. I am not a science lover... I concern myself with only facts..if science happens to be that vehicle on some ocassions then so be it...

But now I start to get the picture which was my original intent...to see what you think and how you keep faith in the face of all of these anomalies. It is not my intent to destroy your faith or prove or disprove anything. I am only interested in facts, as it is these that create reality.

 

[Comet]

No... it does not go up and down...if it did it would be rising and setting in the same place...I cannot be any clearer on that...

Not true, it RISES/up in the East and SETS/down in the west. I cannot be any clearer than it does rise and set....

An

d I see now where a year for us may not be a year in bible times... so that point is moot as we can never know what a year back then was..

Okay then, understanding on a point....

And I'm sure there has been floods in all parts of the earth at sometime or other...it is the global flood that does not bear out. To have a global flood and leave no evidence really stretches the credibility of it. This in turn casts doubt on the authority of scripture Genesis, and in particular the story of creation, adam and eve, and the fall, which are all contained in the same scripture as the flood. However, the flood, or lack of it, is the only thing that is provable because it is a physical event which should leave physical evidence. Debating the story of adam and eve or the fall (except for the time frame) is totally pointless because by the very nature of these events you would not expect to find any tangible evidence. You then have Jesus speaking of this flood in Mathew, so now this brings this scripture under scrutiny...it's a can of worms my friend...

Again, I posted only one website to argue that there was a global flood... sorry if it was a Christian website. Many scientists believe in a global flood and there are many other links I could find, or you could by looking.

Now you change your arguement to that of "Adam and Eve", where you ignored the arguments that Katzpur posted. If that was not your arguement, then why do you now revert to it?

You brought up Adam and Eve, not me... so please give me the scripture to which you reference. If you have the line, I'll be happy to read it in my BIBLE and find others to retort. If you can't list it, then I know you speak from your own and not the BIBLE. Please, list the scriptures you refer to!

Also, when posting links to web sites to substantiate your claims they really shouldn't link to Christian web sites... it's hardly going to be unbiased... a little impartiality will go a long way...science is not out to destroy anyone's religion or faith...it reports facts and facts only...there is very strict criteria when it comes to science stating something for a fact. I am not a science lover... I concern myself with only facts..if science happens to be that vehicle on some ocassions then so be it...

You asked for Christian perspective, what did you expect. Again, there are a million other websites that are not Christian so to speak that say the same.... Again, I am an anthropology major.... perhaps I have studied this subject more than you. You ask, I reply....

But now I start to get the picture which was my original intent...to see what you think and how you keep faith in the face of all of these anomalies. It is not my intent to destroy your faith or prove or disprove anything. I am only interested in facts, as it is these that create reality.

You assume too much, you argue with a non-Christian my friend! I will defend my brothers and sisters where they seem to not be able to. I was raised a Christian and denounced that faith at the age of 5! Yet, their view point is no less valid than mine or yours! You don't listen, and you should.

A close minded arguement is nothing to be proud of, for you learn nothing. UNDERSTANDING is key in things..... is that not what you search for? Do I not make valid points? Do you not see more?

Chivalry is not dead! I will defend all till I die. I hope you find such purpose and understanding someday.

 

[my opinion]

Not true, it RISES/up in the East and SETS/down in the west.  I cannot be any clearer than it does rise and set....

You are a mincer of words..'rise and set' are not 'up and down'

You brought up Adam and Eve, not me... so please give me the scripture to which you reference. If you have the line, I'll be happy to read it in my BIBLE and find others to retort. If you can't list it, then I know you speak from your own and not the BIBLE. Please, list the scriptures you refer to!

I have no idea what you are talking about here...I think you are letting your rave get ahead of your rant. In my last post I tell you that according to the scientific evidence available there is no scientific evidence available...of a global flood...Because this flood is stated as a fact in Genesis...but turns out to be untrue...then the other doctirines you Christians hold so dear, that are contained in the same scripture as the flood must also be approached with cynicism...namely adam and eve and the fall...
Then in Mathew we have Jesus discussing this ficticious flood...so now we have Mathew to be cautious about. Then if we hook up all of the references in Mathew to other scriptures and events and places...they...by design...also need to be approached with the same cynicism...
If the term 'you Christians' does not apply to you, then what are you doing interacting with this post? I asked for Christian opinions if you recall... you gave an opinion... I assume you are Christian...you sure waste a lot of time skirting issues.

You asked for Christian perspective, what did you expect. Again, there are a million other websites that are not Christian so to speak that say the same.... Again, I am an anthropology major.... perhaps I have studied this subject more than you. You ask, I reply....

I asked for Christian perpectives of those on these boards, not to be redirected to Christain web sites...

You assume too much, you argue with a non-Christian my friend! I will defend my brothers and sisters where they seem to not be able to. I was raised a Christian and denounced that faith at the age of 5! Yet, their view point is no less valid than mine or yours! You don't listen, and you should.

And you don't read and you should...again...I asked for Christian opinions... I am sure the Christains brother and sisters can defend themselves... denounced Christianity at the age of 5 hey... I was 40 before I became a know-it-all...

 

[Comet]

Again, you dodge the points.... my brothers and sisters of the faith you ask for will see that. It matters not to your closed mind. You dodge from your own closed mindness, like you accuse them of doing. It matters not anymore.

You dodge the issues I bring up, I dodge nothing. I hope you find peace with what you seek. I have found my peace.

 

[tripstarkey]

As a Christian, I do not necessarily believe that all of the bible should be taken literally. A lot of times, things are written in the bible to show man his true place in this world. For example in Genesis, the creation account can be taken from a literal standpoint or a figurative standpoint based on your actual beliefs. If you take it from a literal standpoint, then the creation account is to show us the we as human beings were put as a head over all of creation. We are to be God's caretakers of earth. The rest of the bible can be taken from this perspective too. As far as Noah and other examples that you say prove that the bible has made mistakes, you can't say that because how do you know that science is true. All of sciences methods could be flawed, and we would have no way of knowing that. It could be telling you one thing that you want to believe, when in actuality that could be so far from the real truth. You can't base all things off of science facts because as humans we are flawed, and so are our methods. As a christian, my beliefs are that God is sovereign over everything, and we are below him because of our sinful nature. Since we our not perfect, we cannot trust our methods to be right, therefore we lean on the word of God (scripture) to tell us how to live our lives in pursuit of everlasting life with our God.

 

[Bishadi]

Honest opinions from Christians please

i am sorry, but that is funny to even read.

 

[CaptainBritain]

base assumptions. tell me some base assumptions of science. right now nothing comes to mind, im sure there are though. As I am Agnostic, i understand your angle thing about believing stuff, even science. however, it also applies to religion.

Every scientific experiment ever conducted had base assumptions to start it out with, even very simple science, im not saying thats wrong, its the way science is conducted but if i replace scientific base assumptions with with my Biblical informed base assumptions it does upset the apple cart a bit, its not a thing we will all ever agree on, but until actual proof emerges that my Biblical base assumptions are wrong, my faith is strong, and its not blind faith there is evidence but the rules of scientific testing are very specific to certain sets of circumstances, ie things that can be felt by sences and repeated etc.
Not much of the spiritual is predicatable or repeated, science is the wrong tool therefore to deal with the subject.
Hope i made some sence, I tried.

 

[Jose Fly]

As you will likely soon see, the answer to your questions is quite simple: The Christians who adhere to these sorts of things (young earth, recent creation of humans, global flood) either ignore or deny the science that shows them to be false. This is evidenced by "AnswersinGenesis' statement of faith": "By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

It doesn't get much more clear than that.

Given the importance Hebrew folklore plays in some people's lives, it's understandable. Not everyone is introspective and objective. Never underestimate the brain's ability to fool itself to keep itself safe and comfortable.

 

[CaptainBritain]

Good post Jose, the facts are also plain that even amongst many Christians (myself included) the fellows at Answersin Genesis are kind of seen as, well, how can I put this, well barking.

However not all there efforts are wasted, in there very strong zeal to prove there way of thinking they have turned up and discovered a great deal of info that does pose very deep questions, the site is really worth a look at, but just dont dump all Christians in to one camp, there are many creation theories, it just happens that the young earth brigade seem to have all the best ie most expensive websites, but if you do trawl through there evidence, there is a lot there that does back up creation, that science does not have the answer to, and many questions to science on the site that imho do need answering, the idea of this universe this planet and this life happening at random becomes absurd.
There theories about DNA are well worth a look.

There are other Christian resources to go to ofcourse, but the nature of the OP needed the view of the type of chap who takes every word of the bible as perfect and reckons we are less than 10000 years old, AinG was just the best suggestion I could think of.

 

[Draka]

Maybe I'm totally off here, but I took the OP to ask why accept any of the bible as fact when so much has been proven inaccurate? From the very beginning we know Genesis to not be true, so what makes people think that any of it is? And if one subscribes to the idea that parts of the bible are allegorical...then why not all of it? Also, who gets to decide what parts are allegory and what parts are true? I thought the question was simple. If parts of the bible are false/allegorical/ or just outright scientifically impossible then what makes a person believe in any of it?

 

[Draka]

Furthermore to my point: If I were to tell you a story, claiming it was true, had some real-life places and people in the story, even sounded plausible through most of it, but had a part in it where I donned a magic rubber helmet and lept off my roof and flew up through the clouds and landed in Oz where I took the train home again...would you still believe the other parts of the story or would you come to the conclusion the whole story was a work of fiction?

 

[Jose Fly]

CaptainBritain,

However not all there efforts are wasted, in there very strong zeal to prove there way of thinking they have turned up and discovered a great deal of info that does pose very deep questions, the site is really worth a look at

I'm quite familiar with young-earth creationism and the arguments made by its advocates.

but just dont dump all Christians in to one camp, there are many creation theories

Of course not; young-earth creationists are their own unique breed.

if you do trawl through there evidence, there is a lot there that does back up creation, that science does not have the answer to, and many questions to science on the site that imho do need answering

First, I have yet to see anything from AIG that is compelling at all. Second, of course there are unanswered questions; that's why we have science.

There theories about DNA are well worth a look

Such as?

 

[CaptainBritain]

Maybe I'm totally off here, but I took the OP to ask why accept any of the bible as fact when so much has been proven inaccurate? From the very beginning we know Genesis to not be true, so what makes people think that any of it is? And if one subscribes to the idea that parts of the bible are allegorical...then why not all of it? Also, who gets to decide what parts are allegory and what parts are true? I thought the question was simple. If parts of the bible are false/allegorical/ or just outright scientifically impossible then what makes a person believe in any of it?

Well for one thing the bible is not a book, it is a collection of books written over many centuries on a diverse range of subject, various parts of the Bible can be taken one way and some the other thus.

The arguement about scientifically possible and impossible things can do no harm to things spiritual as by there very nature they are not bound by science,

And as for what is false that is very much open to debates as a multitude of threads on this site can vouch for.

And on a seperate note science has provided a great deal of evidence to support creation, without which input i would not have been born again in the first place.

 

[CaptainBritain]

Jose, I dont want to de-rail the thread with this (but I will start one v soon), but read AiG again, there is proper science there, they just try and warp it, but re-read the DNA stuff on there site, will be quicker than me stealing from them.

 

[Jose Fly]

CaptainBritain,

dont want to de-rail the thread with this (but I will start one v soon)

That's fine. As I said, I am very, very familiar with AIG and their arguments and I have yet to find any of their arguments valid. Simply saying "go re-read their site" gets us nowhere.

 

[Draka]

Well for one thing the bible is not a book, it is a collection of books written over many centuries on a diverse range of subject, various parts of the Bible can be taken one way and some the other thus.

The arguement about scientifically possible and impossible things can do no harm to things spiritual as by there very nature they are not bound by science,

And as for what is false that is very much open to debates as a multitude of threads on this site can vouch for.

And on a seperate note science has provided a great deal of evidence to support creation, without which input i would not have been born again in the first place.

Skirting the issue. One book...many books...the point is people want to say that the book, that includes all the books in it, is the "word of god". If certain books or part of certain books in this one big book are proven false...why honestly put stock in the rest of it? You simply haven't answered that and I have yet to see a Christian who does.

Also, referring to answersingenesis is just about considered the low of lows here. That site isn't worth a person's time to look at. Might as well p*ss away however much time you spent there trying to figure out how to twiddle your toes. It will serve you just the same.

 

[ChristineES]

I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that the creation story is symbolic, I don't know about the flood- it may have been regional and there is a chance that it is symbolic, too, and I don't know of any Christians who believe that the sun goes up and down. That last one was kind of insulting, do you really believe that Christians think the world is flat?

 

[CaptainBritain]

Skirting the issue. One book...many books...the point is people want to say that the book, that includes all the books in it, is the "word of god". If certain books or part of certain books in this one big book are proven false...why honestly put stock in the rest of it? You simply haven't answered that and I have yet to see a Christian who does.

Also, referring to answersingenesis is just about considered the low of lows here. That site isn't worth a person's time to look at. Might as well p*ss away however much time you spent there trying to figure out how to twiddle your toes. It will serve you just the same.

Ok then I will play it that way, tell me what has proven to be false in your view,
and also i simply referred to AiG as a suggestion for the op, if you read all my posts on this thread you will note i called the chaps there barking (which here means mad)
Bring me all this proof you have and i will explain how it does not stand up, but no matter how hard I try you will not accept it, I know this as the Bible tells me this.
But I will try none the less.
So fire away, now if i should have questions about your proof i will expect answers as it could be the the proof is faulty

 

[Draka]

Ok then I will play it that way, tell me what has proven to be false in your view,
and also i simply referred to AiG as a suggestion for the op, if you read all my posts on this thread you will note i called the chaps there barking (which here means mad)
Bring me all this proof you have and i will explain how it does not stand up, but no matter how hard I try you will not accept it, I know this as the Bible tells me this.
But I will try none the less.
So fire away, now if i should have questions about your proof i will expect answers as it could be the the proof is faulty

Are you honestly questioning that the earth is older than a few thousand years? Really? You are asking for proof? There is no proof whatsoever that there was any worldwide flood and very much to the contrary there is simply not enough water on the earth to cover all the land even if you melt all the ice. And there is tons upon tons of evidence for evolution and not one verifiable scrap for spontaneous creation. And when I say verifiable I mean by actual scientists who have reached a general consensus...not science-wannabes only interested in twisting facts to suit their purposes. Shoot, why don't you stew on how a person is really going to survive in the belly of a freakin fish for a few days while you're on it. The bible is rife with things that didn't really happen. Now, if you can think for one moment that any of these things make it possible for any portion of the bible to be in error then it is put to you to explain why you hold any of it to be true.

 

[Draka]

I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that the creation story is symbolic, I don't know about the flood- it may have been regional and there is a chance that it is symbolic, too, and I don't know of any Christians who believe that the sun goes up and down. That last one was kind of insulting, do you really believe that Christians think the world is flat?

No one is saying that Christians actually believe the world is flat...but that is exactly the point. You admit you believe the creation story is symbolic and you don't believe in the worldwide flood. So the real question then becomes...why do you choose to believe in other parts of the bible when you, yourself, already admit some of it is not true and discount it?




Isn't this exactly the point of this all? No one is really answering the question here. They all want to debate the examples and not the point the examples are being used for.

If, as a Christian, you admit that there are ANY parts of the bible that aren't exactly literally accurate and may just be allegorical...then WHY do you choose to believe in the rest of the bible? No one even reads the example story I posted. If a story is plausible but there are outright fictional parts of it then do you take the story to be a work of fiction or choose to believe the story as fact except for the obviously fictional parts? And WHY would a person choose to do so?