How could a sensible person believe in the bible?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you misunderstood me. I said "little more," not "a little more."

Whoops. My mistake.

I have to learn to take more time reading.

 

[slabbey06]

I think your thoughts on this would probably be close enough to the intent of the OP to be worthwhile here on this thread, if you don't mind. I guess I was just thinking in terms of the title of the thread. "How could a sensible person believe in the Bible?" It's an insulting question, IMO. I consider myself very sensible and I believe in the Bible. I do believe that parts of it are metaphorical, though, and don't think we have to take a literal interpretation of every word in it in order to say that we believe in it. That's why I wondered what your opinion was. (I'm going to be out of town for a few days, though, so I may not see your post until the end of the week.)

Here is what I mean by taking a literal interpretation of the Bible. Maybe a better word would be it needs to be interpreted "normally." I'm going to post some quotes simply because they say what I want to say better than I can...

"We interpret literally when we approach the words of a Scripture passage in the same basic way that we would any other literature or any ordinary conversation. For example, if I just told you I saw three brown dogs in the alley, you would interpret that statement literally. You would not seek to find hidden meaning in my comment... Literal interpretation assumes that, since God wants His revelation understood by people, He based His revelatory communication on the normal rules of human communication."
From Understanding End Times Prophecy by Dr. Paul Benware

"The literal method of interpretation is that method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage...the meaning is to be determined by both grammatical and historical considerations."
From Things to Come by Dwight J. Pentecost
This is all I have the time to post for now, but this sums up nicely what I mean by literal interpretation. It takes into consideration that there are figures of speech in the Bible, but it seeks to interpret them in light of context and doesn't interpret something as an allegory or a metaphor unless the needed grammatical and historical cues are in the passage.

 

[joeboonda]

I guess I was just thinking in terms of the title of the thread. "How could a sensible person believe in the Bible?" It's an insulting question, IMO. I consider myself very sensible and I believe in the Bible.

Katz post quoted above there. Glad to see others felt the title was a bit insulting, too.

 

[logician]

A person can be very sensible in some things, and completely over the cliff in others.

Bobby Fisher, one of the best, if not the best chess player(in his prime) of all time, was totally taken in by the Herbert W Armstrong version of Xianity, a way-out-in-left-field belief. When it comes to religion, people many times lose their sensibility.

 

[thedictator]

I saw this preacher Ken Hamm or something trying to teach kids that dinosaurs and humans lived together. I can't understand how he can defend that at all. He believes that if it's not in the bible, it never happened. Personally i can't understand how people believe in the bible. Honestly how could you believe a book that says God created the world about 10,000 years ago? Too bad for them because life fossils have been discovered that date back billions of years. Even the skeletons of modern humans date back before the time of Adam and Eve. I believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean i dont believe in God like all of these evangelists think. They have all just been horribly mislead since birth and are now proceeding to brainwash the children of our future.

So you would do a better job of brainwashing.

 

[joeboonda]

The schools do a great job of brainwashing, telling us the same fairy-tale year after year til we believe it: Long, long ago in a land far away a frog turned into a prince....

 

[Panda]

What do you mean Joe?

 

[joeboonda]

What do you mean Joe?

When I read those school science books and they say billions and billions of years ago, and the primordial soup, and life formed and here we are, is a fairy-tale to me as I'm sure the Creation story is a myth or fairy-tale to others. To me, it takes more 'faith' to believe in the theory of evolution with all its missing links than to believe that, "in the beginning, God..." That's just me, though, from my studies, etc. People are welcome to believe what theory they conclude is best supported by their studies.

 

[ChristineES]

When I read those school science books and they say billions and billions of years ago, and the primordial soup, and life formed and here we are, is a fairy-tale to me as I'm sure the Creation story is a myth or fairy-tale to others. To me, it takes more 'faith' to believe in the theory of evolution with all its missing links than to believe that, "in the beginning, God..." That's just me, though, from my studies, etc. People are welcome to believe what theory they conclude is best supported by their studies.

I know what you mean. Some certain aspects of evolution seem likely, but there are others that don't to me. I don't believe that one species can turn into another, that a amphibian turned into a reptile and a reptile turned into a bird (or whatever). Animals seem very adaptable to their environment and people do too, but they were made that way as the climate changes and such.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know what you mean. Some certain aspects of evolution seem likely, but there are others that don't to me. I don't believe that one species can turn into another, that a amphibian turned into a reptile and a reptile turned into a bird (or whatever). Animals seem very adaptable to their environment and people do too, but they were made that way as the climate changes and such.

:banghead3

I'm rather annoyed with some science teachers in Tennessee and El Cajon right now, but I don't think this is the thread to go into a long discussion on evolutionary theory.

I do wonder, though, if Christine and Joe have ever considered why some whales have vestigal leg bones or why they themselves have appendices, if one species can't turn into another.

 

[joeboonda]

:banghead3

I'm rather annoyed with some science teachers in Tennessee and El Cajon right now, but I don't think this is the thread to go into a long discussion on evolutionary theory.

I do wonder, though, if Christine and Joe have ever considered why some whales have vestigal leg bones or why they themselves have appendices, if one species can't turn into another.

Its vestigial hip bones in the whales: From AiG:

These bones are alleged to show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females.

I have a video somewhere that shows the above to be true.

On the appendix, also from AiG:

(See also Your Appendix—It’s There for a Reason!)

It is known that the appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs.

 

[slabbey06]

This is completely off topic, but I met Ken Ham once. It was a fun experience.

 

[camanintx]

I have also seen photos of human footprints in dino footprints.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/dinosaurs.asp

There are several places where these occur, just have to google them. You will find articles for and against as usual.

Can anyone who thinks this disproves evolution explain exactly how you date a footprint?

Since we cannot say how old either footprint is, all this tells us is that the human stepped here after the dinosaur. If creationism was true then we shouldn't we also find dinosaur footprints on top of human footprints?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Its vestigial hip bones in the whales: From AiG:

No, not just hip bones, but also thigh bones and in some cases, foot bones.

Have a look for yourself: it's #9 on the list of LiveScience's Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigal Organs)

On the appendix, also from AiG:

(See also Your Appendix—It’s There for a Reason!)

It is known that the appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs.

And its similarity in appearance, location and structure to an actively functioning digestive organ in herbivores is only coincidental, right?

 

[ChristineES]

I'm rather annoyed with some science teachers in Tennessee and El Cajon right now, but I don't think this is the thread to go into a long discussion on evolutionary theory.

I didn't learn about evolution in El Cajon, California , but in Colorado Springs science and more than 20 years ago. Why don't you get annoyed at them instead.

 

[lew0049]

A person can be very sensible in some things, and completely over the cliff in others.

Bobby Fisher, one of the best, if not the best chess player(in his prime) of all time, was totally taken in by the Herbert W Armstrong version of Xianity, a way-out-in-left-field belief. When it comes to religion, people many times lose their sensibility.

This might be true, but also when it comes to religion - implying that reason and logic are not used is far from the truth. With some individuals and in some faiths I tend to agree, but from my perspective (as I used to also be an atheist) believing that there is more than what can be explained or found is in no way neglecting my use of logic and reason. On the contrary, the use of both logic and reason are the foundation of my faith.

 

[ChristineES]

I, too, find it annoying that some atheists get an idea that all Christians are pretty stupid because they believe in God. Just because someone believes in a deity does not mean that they are stupid or superstitious. I love science and I am good at it when I get a chance to study it, but there are certain things I choose not to believe or accept.
I have read books written by the late Carl Sagan and others like him.

 

[logician]

I think you missed my point. You can be a genius (like Bobby Fisher) and still be illogical when it comes to religion. When it comes to love and religion, sensibility tends to fly out the door.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think you missed my point. You can be a genius (like Bobby Fisher) and still be illogical when it comes to religion.

And you can be a genius and still be logical when it comes to religion. Therefore?

 

[joeboonda]

No, not just hip bones, but also thigh bones and in some cases, foot bones.

Have a look for yourself: it's #9 on the list of LiveScience's Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigal Organs)


And its similarity in appearance, location and structure to an actively functioning digestive organ in herbivores is only coincidental, right?

As I said, you may study these things and draw your own conclusions, and I mine. I believe the people at Answers in Genesis and the Bible and the many great scientists, even former evolutionists who have come to believe through their scientific findings, in creation. We could go back and forth with our evidence to support our beliefs in each of our theories, and I can even step into your shoes and see evolution through your eyes, but unless you can look at the evidence through a creationists eyes, I don't think I can ever fully explain to you why I believe as I do. Through the worldview of a creationist, when I see the vast oceans, I see great evidence that there was once a world-wide flood. My Bible says in the last days men will be "willfully ignorant" of this. (dumb on purpose) When I see different bands of rock (strata), which supposedly each represent milllions of years, and I see a tree trunk going through all of them, I see evidence of a world-wide flood. As with the oldest living tree, barrier reef, and desert dating to around 4200 years ago as evidence for the flood. I see the fossils and the way they are layed out as evidence of the flood. I see a wasp and the eye and the bombadier beetle that shoots 2 chemicals out to "napalm" a frog as intetelligent design, very intelligent, and believe it did not come from happenstance. (Could you imagine millions of years of these beetles exploding at random in the swamp as they tried to get the chemical mixture just right?)I could go on, but I will just say that I was raised on evolution but found it to be full of holes and finaly completely absurd whereas the more I studied the creation I saw great evidence for the Creator, intelligent design, and Noah's Flood, and a young Earth. Now, you may study and observe these things and read articles and books, and etc. and draw your own conclusions. I respect you and whatever you conclude is what you conclude. I am not going to try to argue it. I respect you, you respect me, and Peace.