To question the accuracy of scripture, (whether Genesis1,6, 10, Matthew 1,etc) is the tactic the seprant used with Eve in Genesis 3. He didn't "come down hard" against the Word of God, just introduced doubt. But you probably wholly reject that as a literal account also.
So then, you have an answer to the "Zerubbabel Question?" No? Then why don't we take another look at just what the serpent did in the garden and see just who is guilty of that kind of behavior here:
God said: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:16-17).
The serpent said (words to the effect), "Don't read it like that. Read it my way." He then goes on to put words into God's mouth that the Lord never really said and gave it the opposite meaning of what the Lord had intended.
Where does God say the earth is "6,000 years old?" Where? And why are you putting those words into His mouth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
My point throughout the thread is that a rejection of Genesis 1 is not merely a rejection of a single chapter of the Bible, but is an assualt on scripture itself. And has been shown in this thread, the questioning of scripture only BEGINS with Genesis 1, its far from ending there.
Jason, with all due respect, you haven't shown anything in this thread other than a desire to slip-slide around.
Call it what you want to Pel. I derive my beliefs from scripture, as I've said before if you want me to consider your position, prove it to me from scripture, not "science".
Okay, I will call it "deception." You lied when you said that I "came down hard against Scripture..." You simply flat out lied.
Do you see how polarizing your presumption is? Because Ken Ham and John MacArthur rocked your world you feel like their words are the words of a god. Anyone who disagrees with your idols and the opinions of those idols that you repeat here is guilty of blasphemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
You say you believe the Word of God, yet you out and out reject Genesis 1. You reject that the first human being was a male called Adam. You reject that there was a global flood. I listed 29 Old Testament items for you guys to affirm, which neither you nor prax has touched.
I dare say that I believe Genesis far more than you. I can't speak for Prax, but I can readily see that I have at least read Genesis far more than you. Why do you ignore the message in this book? When I brought up Genesis 14:14, on another point, you acted like it wasn't even the Word of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
Do you believe the Red Sea parted and all of the Israelites crossed on dry land? Do you believe Balaams donkey spoke to him? Do you believe the walls of Jericho fell down flat at a shout? I am under the impression there are several portions of scripture that you don't accept as literal historical and miraculous accounts, and your (and Praxeas') silence on those issues only seems to confirm my assumptions.
Please don't mistake my embarrassment over my friend Jason's lapses as being some sort of "cold shoulder" turned toward your gaffes. Each passage cited requires a lengthy and diligent consideration, and at times one has to confess that they can't always make a choice between different viable and devout explanations for some passages - in other words, I'm willing to say, "I don't know" a lot, but I do enjoy saying much more along the way. This is the Word of God. It deserves a lot of attention.
And, YOU have never told me whether or not Luke 10:30-37, was a "literal historical" series of events. Was it? Or did Jesus just "lie" about it ever having happened at all?
... Or is there a better way to approach this question than asking, "Did it literally happened just like that?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
Your telling me I've made a mess of my theology, when you don't even accept what the Bible says in selevted portions. Which, to no suprise, you make yourself the authority of which portions of the Bible are true and to be taken as they read, and which ones need a little reinterpretaion. The way you express your views of scripture reminds me of the Jesus Seminar panel, or Thomas Jefferson.
Pel, I have respect for you. I do believe that your a christian man. I don't wish bad on anyone. I always consider "how would I feel if I were in that position?" And I can't even fathom if one of my children were to pass. I did take time to pray for you and your family yesterday, and I truly prayed in sincerity, not just some token prayer.
I'm not against you, and I don't think your against me. However we have two radically different viewpoints on this topic, which we both feel are critical to Christianity. I feel it is critical, because I see your position as an attack on scripture, even though you yourself may not be hostile t scripture, if someone else comes along and uses your reasoning and applies your logic for Genesis 1 consitently throughout the Bible, there is alot of material that simply won't make the cut. Thus I conclude your decision to accept science as an authority can have no other result than to logically reject the Bible as the divinely inspired and authoratative word of God.
Whereas, you feel like Biblical literalism keeps christianity in the provebial "stone age" and is a stumbling block to people coming to Christ, and destroys the credibility of Christianity.
I understand your viewpoint, I just think it is completely incorrect.
I appreciate your prayers and the fact that in summation you have pulled back some of the "against Scripture" rhetoric. And you have summed up my views ... "okay" here. I would be happy if we did truly understand one another, but I think you would be greatly blessed if you understood more about the work that God has done here in creation and that there's also more in his Word for us all as well.
I have been testy lately, more so than usual perhaps and for that I apologize.
BTW Creation wasn't made for man. Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
I view the creator as Someone involved in it like one of us might be in a painting or sculpture.
We enjoy the work of our hands and the final results. I don't see what is so hard with the idea that God formed the earth, manipulating its weather, plates, gravity etc etc to get what we have now. Consider the Grand Canyon and how far less spectacular it would be over the course of a few years and not a few thousand?
What an awesome creation God has wrought
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Please don't mistake my embarrassment over my friend Jason's lapses as being some sort of "cold shoulder" turned toward your gaffes. Each passage cited requires a lengthy and diligent consideration, and at times one has to confess that they can't always make a choice between different viable and devout explanations for some passages - in other words, I'm willing to say, "I don't know" a lot, but I do enjoy saying much more along the way. This is the Word of God. It deserves a lot of attention.
And, YOU have never told me whether or not Luke 10:30-37, was a "literal historical" series of events. Was it? Or did Jesus just "lie" about it ever having happened at all?
... Or is there a better way to approach this question than asking, "Did it literally happened just like that?"
.
The problem we have with Jason's "questions" is it's a red herring. It's irrelevant and just misdirects the main issue which he asserts an absolute answer....there is no evidence, while admitting his lack of knowledge on the subject. So such an absolute assertion is impossible to make. So he wants to redirect the discussion to something else
The other problem really is that we did not reject gen 1 then turn to science. There is hard scientific evidences and scientific facts that need to be addressed.
As for the questions I don't know of any specific scientific fact that says we should reject them all, but he is trying to make this an issue of disbelief when it's not. I don't disbelieve any miracle. But if there is some hard evidence we should take into account then why be so afraid to do it?
Ok, just one example. If there is scientific data that refutes a world wide flood, then we should not be afraid to look at the facts. That does not mean there was no flood though. It may have been a local flood.
But again there we have scientific data. It's NOT a matter of disbelief that God can do miraculous things. That is what he keeps trying to make it and that is a flat out lie.
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
The main thing is, where I came in, is that the bible does not contradict evolution. Evolution as a science does not make determinations as to whether there is God involved or not. It simply studies the findings and seeks "how".
The bible could contradict evolution if your interpretation is based on a literal historical reading.
Then again bible readers used to claim the earth was flat and round earthers were heretics
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
It would say something like, "biological evolution has never happened and is not happening now and the earth is just 6,000 years old. And microscopes and telescopes are inventions of the debbil and you must not look through them."
It would say something like, "biological evolution has never happened and is not happening now and the earth is just 6,000 years old. And microscopes and telescopes are inventions of the debbil and you must not look through them."
But if it gets things in the wrong order, no problem? Yes, yes, it was never intended literally. Sorry. Carry on.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Linear Mode
