16 Aug 14
Originally posted by FMFThis perspective is anti Biblical, anti science and cannot be substantiated in any rational way. What is more it detracts sincere seekers of truth from the Biblical message.
What do you think of the viewpoint of Christians who believe the earth was literally created in six days, that is to say in 144 hours?
16 Aug 14
Originally posted by divegeesterAnd why is it so hard for you to see such a simple thing?
Not according to Galveston75, LemonLime, Josephw, Kelly And probably several others, to them these are literal trees with leaves, roots and fruits.
There is NOTHING at all in those verses that even slightly indicates it's not real.
This is where "faith" comes into ones world of understanding the bible or understanding what you may be mentally able to do.
No where does the bible say point blank you have to 100% understand every word and term or expression in the Bible. It would be great if we as individuals did, but we don't. That's why the Bible says as time passes the "light would get brighter". That indicates that we all would not know all the answers but as time goes on we would improve in our knowledge.
So... in the meantime this is where "faith" and being "humble" comes into play.
Instead of picking some little word apart in the bible beyond reason and then coming to the conclusion that the bible is wrong, misguiding or just doesn't make sence and then missing the bigger more important issues that pertain to today and the very world of evil that God is about to destroy and to help with the command Jesus gave us to warn others of this coming event, some loose sight and get stuck on some small issue which seems to happen here a whole lot. The Bible calls that still partaking of the "milk" and not the "meat" of the Bible
One should pray to God for help in understanding these things as he has done for many, and be of the heart and mind to accept it even IF you don't understand the answers!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by galveston75Do you think the "tree of life" from the Garden of eden is a real tree with roots and leaves etc?
And why is it so hard for you to see such a simple thing?
There is NOTHING at all in those verses that even slightly indicates it's not real.
This is where "faith" comes into ones world of understanding the bible or understanding what you may be mentally able to do.
No where does the bible say point blank you have to 100% understand every wor ...[text shortened]... y, and be of the heart and mind to accept it even IF you don't understand the answers!!!!!!!!!!!
16 Aug 14
Originally posted by HandyAndyThe modern meaning of "day" whether literal or figurative is merely confusing the issue. In ancient times, when the OT was written, a "day" started at sun up and ended at sun down. So a day was of variable duration depending on the season, but definitely not an indeterminate period which might be interpreted to mean thousands of years.
Let's call it a draw, gentlemen. Strictly speaking, a day is the 24-hour period during which
the earth completes one rotation on its axis. But in a poetic sense, a day can be defined as
an epoch of undetermined duration. In this case, it seems to be a question of literary style.
Have a nice day! 🙂
Isn't it obvious that the word "day" cannot have meant any portion of this natural (literal) diurnal cycle when all the world was still in darkness (i.e., before the sun was created).
Originally posted by moonbusExcuse me for chiming in here, but I want to address your points here and ask questions, if I may.
Your fixation on the Bible is peculiar (and peculiarly Protestant, if I may presume to guess your affiliation).
1. At the time of Jesus and for the first three centuries after his death, there was no such book as The Bible. There were innumerable sacred scrolls circulating round the Mediterranean in the first three centuries CE. Not everyone who thinks of ...[text shortened]... The Bible was suited to purpose at the time, but it is frozen in time. Now it's time to move on.
1. At the time of Jesus and for the first three centuries after his death, there was no such book as The Bible. There were innumerable sacred scrolls circulating round the Mediterranean in the first three centuries CE. Not everyone who thinks of himself as a Christian accepts that there were always exactly 66 books, never more, never less.
1. In the Gospels, Jesus refers many times to scripture. Much of what we know today as the Old Testament must have been established by Jesus' time, especially since the writings of Moses, as they were presented to the Jews as "God's law", were passed from God to Moses to instruct the people, nearly 1500 years before Jesus' time. Jesus showed clear understanding of what we now know of as the Old Testament, and especially of the Torah.
2. If I may suggest, read about how the Bible came to be; it didn't just drop out of the sky fully-formed, you know. (Unless you're a Mormon, in which case it _did_.) Find out why just those particular scrolls (or 'books' ) were canonized, by whom, when, and how often they were redacted over the last two millennia. For your info, the earliest _complete_ extant OT (known as the Masoretic Text) dates from 1524. That is very very far removed from the time of Jesus and the Apostles, and a huge amount of editing when on during the gap in between. Only fragments survive from earlier centuries.
2. "Only fragments survive from earlier centuries." And yet we know there must have been, established already as "scripture", at least the Torah, and perhaps most of the rest of the OT, by Jesus' time. His knowledge of scripture was as good, if not better than, the Pharisees and the Sadducees. That only fragments survive doesn't mean the ancient texts didn't exist at all. And I have no doubt that "scripture" in those days probably included many texts which are not included in our Bible today.
(2a. What do you mean "Unless you're a Mormon, in which case it _did_."? If you're referring to The Book of Mormon, you are right, but the Book of Mormon is not the Bible, even among LDS.)
3. The Bible is not the primary source for the revelation of God's will for man. As any Catholic, Greek or Russian Orthodox, or Anglican priest will tell you, the Bible is only the menu, not the meal.
3. If the Bible is not the "primary source for the revelation of God's will for man", maybe you could point us all to what IS? And why do you say this revelation is only for those of Catholic, Greek or Russian Orthodox, or Anglican denominations? Just a clarification in simple English is all I'm looking for here. Your statements about this seem to indicate some sort of "secret" knowledge.
And finally, the Bible is not the final word of God to man; God's will for man is being continuously revealed (updated, refined) through Ecumenical Councils. Ignore them at your (eternal) peril.
The Bible was suited to purpose at the time, but it is frozen in time. Now it's time to move on.
I understand and agree with what you say about the Ecumenical Councils and the Bible may indeed be "frozen in time" but that doesn't mean it is not enduring and alive and does not provide prophecy and warnings for our future.
Originally posted by divegeesterSo iyo the tree might have actually been what, a family tree? If it's not a literal tree then what does the word "tree" represent?
Not according to Galveston75, LemonLime, Josephw, Kelly And probably several others, to them these are literal trees with leaves, roots and fruits.
It's not enough for you to claim symbolism without showing (or at least hinting at) what that symbolism means or represents. If everything in that story is literally a figurative prop in order to make a point, then what in your opinion was that point? Are you suggesting it wasn't Satans fault for tempting Adam and Eve? Are you suggesting the blame rests entirely on Eve?
If you paint yourself into a corner don't panic. You can always paint a door on the wall and escape... figuratively speaking.
16 Aug 14
Originally posted by lemon limeAgriculture
So iyo the tree might have actually been what, a family tree? If it's not a literal tree then what does the word "tree" represent?
It's not enough for you to claim symbolism without showing (or at least hinting at) what that symbolism means or represents. If everything in that story is literally a figurative prop in order to make a point, then what in ...[text shortened]... corner don't panic. You can always paint a door on the wall and escape... figuratively speaking.