Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not accept it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Old Testament - Sell It To Me!
- Thread starter Secret Chief
- Start date
siti
Well-Known Member
Shh!! I don't want everyone to know where I'm coming from!
I do not give up so far your claims and assertions have not been backed up by independent sources, mine have. Still not responded to post #60.
As I said before this 'hands on; anthropomorphic warrior God' exists throughout the Bible, and it is best to consider it a fallible human view of a tribal God or Gods of an ancient culture in both the Tanakh and the NT, and not the reality of a Universal God.
I object to his aggressive responses to a number of posts without any effort of a constructive dialogue, not really serious enough to be offended.
I can handle loud music it is other "blasts!!!" that are becoming more prevalent today between neighbors.Especially if the neighbor blasts music late at night.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
There’s a lot of prejudice on this forum. Mostly from lapsed US Evangelicals who have, through no fault of their own, a fairly warped view. Try not to take it personally, there are many damaged individuals with axes to grind.
Last edited:
I think it is better, if God or Jesus is the judge. Maybe animals are not righteous nor evil, only like biological machines without conscience.
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
Does that include the Hominidae?
Do they have conscience?
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
Obviously that's a human construct, but inter species similarities / differences of the Hominidae are still being investigated. Apparently gorillas have a sense of humour!
- New Study of Ape Cognition Shows We're Not All That Unique
I believe the goat considers you an evil alien,
Logos | Definition, History, & Facts
Logos, in Greek philosophy and early Christian theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. The concept became significant in Christian writings and doctrines as a vehicle for conceiving the role of Jesus Christ as the active principle of God in...
logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) in ancient Greek philosophy and early Christian theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
Although the concept is also found in Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems, it became particularly significant in Christian writings and doctrines as a vehicle for conceiving the role of Jesus Christ as the principle of God active in the creation and the continuous structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to human beings. It thus underlies the basic Christian doctrine of the preexistence of Jesus.
The idea of the logos in Greek thought harks back at least to the 6th-century-BCE philosopher Heraclitus, who discerned in the cosmic process a logos analogous to the reasoning power in humans. Later, the Stoics, philosophers who followed the teachings of the thinker Zeno of Citium (4th–3rd century BCE), defined the logos as an active rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality. They called the logos providence, nature, god, and the soul of the universe, which is composed of many seminal logoi that are contained in the universal logos. Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria), a 1st-century-CE Jewish philosopher, taught that the logos was the intermediary between God and the cosmos, being both the agent of creation and the agent through which the human mind can apprehend and comprehend God. According to Philo and the Middle Platonists (philosophers who interpreted in religious terms the teachings of Plato), the logos was both immanent in the world and at the same time the transcendent divine mind.
I do not believe the fundamental concept of logos in Christianity has any conflict with the belief in the Baha'i Faith.
A per the subject of the thread the Pentateuch is hard to sell in any form as historical set of books.
The following is response to Norman Geisler;'s argument for Old Earth Creationism. Old Earth Creationism is an attempt to synchronize Scientific evidence. It pretty comprehensive on the faulty Old Earth Creationist argument. It easily concludes when taking the whole of the Bible into consideration Young Earth Creationism is the only version that fits the texts without immense contradictions,
This does nat address the fact that Young Earth Creationism is physically and historically impossible, because the authors believe in Young Earth Creationism..
Answering Dr. Norman Geisler’s Comments on Genesis | Biblical Science Institute
biblicalscienceinstitute.com
Answering Dr. Norman Geisler’s Comments on Genesis
by Biblical Science Institute | Jul 17, 2017 | Apologetics, Origins, TheologyWhy are Christians so reluctant to accept Genesis as written? Even many otherwise fine Bible scholars, such as Dr. Norman Geisler, are hesitant to fully believe the words of Genesis. On many other issues, Geisler reasons cogently and interprets Scripture with Scripture. But when it comes to Genesis, the rules of hermeneutics and logical thinking are thrown away to make room for deep time (millions of years). Why? This brings to mind the words of Christ as He lamented over the reluctance of the disciples to believe in the resurrection: “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25).
Dr. Geisler recently wrote an article entitled “Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism?” Since the Bible explicitly teaches that God created in six days (Exodus 20:11) with Adam and Eve made on day 6 (Genesis 1:26-31), and since the genealogies only add up to a few thousand years (e.g. Genesis 5), the Bible does teach a “young” Earth (in the sense of thousands of years as opposed to billions). Therefore, if Scripture is inerrant, it follows logically that the Earth is young. But this is not Dr. Geisler’s conclusion. It is clear from his article that Geisler doesn’t want to accept the biblical timescale of creation. He works very hard to persuade the reader that there are multiple positions on Genesis that are compatible with inerrancy. Let’s examine his reasoning.
First, we note that the title of Dr. Geisler’s article has a subtle evolutionary bias “…to Believe in Young Earth Creationism.” The term “Creationism” means the belief in creation, or the doctrine that God created. So the title is somewhat redundant: “to believe in the belief of creation.” Evolutionists often set creationism (the belief in creation) against evolution (without the “ism”) in order to imply that creation is a belief whereas evolution isn’t. It’s a rhetorical trick. But why did Dr. Geisler use this term? It was probably unintentional. But it does suggest that Geisler has been influenced by secular lines of thought.
The age of the earth is a hotly debated issue among evangelicals. Old Earthers believe, like most scientists, that the universe is billions of years old.
There seems to be a subtle appeal to authority in this statement: “like most scientists.” It’s probably a true claim, but is it relevant to the issue of biblical interpretation? When considering whether Christ literally rose from the dead, do we consult with scientists and include their majority opinion on the topic as an important factor in our interpretation of the biblical text? It could well be that many Christians are reluctant to accept the literal words of Genesis because they are intimidated by secular scientists. “The fear of man brings a snare, But he who trusts in the LORD will be exalted.” (Proverbs 29:25).
Young Earthers, measure the age of the universe in terms of thousands of years. The debate is not new, but the insistence by some Young Earthers that belief in the inerrancy of the Bible demands a Young Earth position is relatively new.
Inerrancy means that the Bible, in its original autographs, is entirely without error. That necessarily includes the timescale of Genesis, as well as everything else the Bible teaches. That the Bible teaches that “God created in six days” is certainly not a relatively new position. And if indeed the Bible teaches that, then inerrancy demands that we accept it as true.
The Biblical Status of the Young Earth View
In order to establish the Young Earth view one must demonstrated [sic] that there are (1) no time gaps in the biblical record and that (2) the “days” of Genesis are six successive 24 hour days of creation.
First, neither of these claims is essential to establish a young Earth from Scripture. There are other ways to demonstrate the biblical timescale that bypass these conditions entirely. For example, we could point out that Jesus stated that God created the man and woman from the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6). This statement would make no sense if human beings were first created billions of years after the beginning of creation. But it makes perfect sense if they were created in the first week. Christ’s statement only makes sense in a young Earth, regardless of any alleged gaps in the genealogies, or regardless of whether the days are truly days – so long as they are short and not millions of years.
Second, the issue of gaps in the genealogies is utterly irrelevant to the age of the Earth. The reason is that the Bible gives the age of person A at the time person B is born – regardless of whether person B is a child, grandchild, or great-grandchild. The timescale is unaffected. For example, “Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch.” (Genesis 5:18). Geisler’s point is that Enoch may actually be a grandson, or great grandson of Jared, rather than a son. But this has absolutely no effect on the age of the Earth. The timespan between Jared’s birth and Enoch’s birth is 162 years, regardless of how many people may have been in between. In like fashion, we can add up the ages between Adam and Abraham, and it comes out to around 2000 years. And both biblical and secular scholars agree that Abraham lived around 2000 B.C. So this puts the age of the Earth at around 6000 years – regardless of whether or not the genealogies have gaps.
Third, it is very easy to establish that the days of creation are just that: days. There are other Hebrew words and phrases God could have used if He had intended to convey that creation took vast ages. And it is clear that the days are successive, as we’ll see below.
Reason for more of the argument . . .
Last edited:
siti
Well-Known Member
He's probably not the only one.