| Author |
Darvin a NUT? |
gelfen
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Melbourne, Australia
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-07-15 03:45:00, paulbang wrote:
Since God himself said that he created the universe in 7 days including man and all animals |
|
did he really? or is this merely man's imperfect interpretation of god's divine message?
additionally, do you seriously believe that the "days" in the bible are literally 24-hour days?
_________________
Whomsoever you see in distress, recognize in him a fellow man
Gelfen's special place where people talk to him
[ This Message was edited by: gelfen on 2005-07-15 04:15 ] |
|
|
blackspot
Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM |
In a way, I believe in creation too, but I don't believe it happened as dramatically as how the bible describes it. We should know better than interpret the bible literally.
resistance is futile. |
paulbang
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Posts: 143
From: Bangalore - starry eyed surpri
PM |
@black how can one not interpret the bible litterally?
dont your thumbs hurt?? |
gelfen
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Melbourne, Australia
PM |
@paul: if you look at it the other way, how can one possibly interpret all of the bible literally?
|
paulbang
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Posts: 143
From: Bangalore - starry eyed surpri
PM |
@gelf i can't imagine life without it 
dont your thumbs hurt?? |
Jim
Joined: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Belgium
PM |
So you base your life on a book ?
Imagine we are all from Adam & Eve, how disformed we should be because of the lack of DNA mixing ... this theory can't be real.
What I also hate to see in religious articles is the words "It's true" whitout having an example or something to backup this conclusion. Prove it, that it's true, which 99% doesn't do because they can't, while science HAS to have something to backup a theory/conclusion or else it isn't accepted so I can't accept the "because it's the will of God", pfffttttttt. If he has the will why have we world terror and Africa is so poor ?
|
JK
Joined: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: S. Africa - JOZI
PM |
coz sum people come from monkeys!!!  just kidding.
But u got a point, without religion there will be (maybe) less fighting, wars and discrimination etc, but religion be it fake or real, keep people grounded!!!
I also have a theory... why dont all the white people sleep with the black people and everyone will be the same!!! that would make life peaceful???
sorry to go of topic! |
goldenface
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Liverpool City Centre
PM |
Yes, I think we should stay on topic. ** You see the only way some creationists think that they can prove their theory is to try and discredit evolutionary theory. When that fails, which inevitably happens, all thats left is to quote from the Bible. Just saying "because it says so" doesn't stand up too well.
:-l
This message was posted from a T610 |
Oogamous
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Posts: 401
PM |
"Sometimes i wonder why i'm on this earth?
Is it by evolution, or is it by birth?
If it's by birth, how did the first guy get on earth?
So it's got to be evolution, as Darwin put forth,
I guess i have to thank Adam & Eve, the apes - infact both!"
- Oogamous,
(In 7th Grade- 9 years ago)
Sony all the way |
gelfen
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Melbourne, Australia
PM |
@paul: being Christian doen't mean interpreting the Bible literally, it means interpreting the message behind what is written.
|
blackspot
Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM |
Just the fact that the books in the bible were not originally written in English, should be a major consideration already not to interpret them literally. You have to be aware of how the original message was delivered and understand the culture and tradition of the people during the time when it was written.
This is a bit off topic but just take for example "it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle..." If you just take it literally, you would probably laugh. In those times however, there were entrances for camels and another for people which they call something that we can only interpret as "the eye of a needle". This makes a whole lot of difference in the meaning doesn't it?
In the same way, the words in Genesis, describing creation shouldn't be taken literally. The formation of the planets, the plants, the animals, and human beings may actually have taken place but who knows what the actual words really meant in the original context.
resistance is futile. |
gelfen
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Melbourne, Australia
PM |
you also need to consider the understanding of the original author, and that the author was trying to convert his level of knowledge into concepts people of the time would understand.
_________________
Whomsoever you see in distress, recognize in him a fellow man
Gelfen's special place where people talk to him
[ This Message was edited by: gelfen on 2005-07-18 04:38 ] |
paulbang
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Posts: 143
From: Bangalore - starry eyed surpri
PM |
okso now lets all look at history and people that made it and start interpreting what they said based on what WE think their mental level/knowledge/life was.
so when galileo invented the telescope- its main purpose was to look into his neighbours window. We can't judge them as we wish as its not right. We don't know everything but God does and its mentioned every where in the bible that God wrote through people except the 10 commandment tablets that moses destroyed-those were written by God's own hands.
dont your thumbs hurt?? |
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-07-18 04:40:24, blackspot wrote:
Just the fact that the books in the bible were not originally written in English, should be a major consideration already not to interpret them literally. You have to be aware of how the original message was delivered and understand the culture and tradition of the people during the time when it was written...
|
|
Which is why I own a NIV Study Bible. It has Maps of present day and ancient Israel, introductions to all books, study notes on many verses and an extensive concordance to find and compare passages.
Many sceptics falsely believe that Christians follow a vague fairytale full of out-landish statements and questionable history when in fact the opposite is true.
The Old Testament, originally written in Hebrew is the most accurate historical document ever written. It contains lists of Kings of Israel, Egypt, Persia, Roman Emporers etc, all of whom existed and can be verified by non-biblical means. Also it mentions Kings who were not known about by any other means until recent achaeological discoveries confirmed them. The OT in it's earliest forms was copied with an incredible amount of accuracy, by hand, and any more than 3 errors meant a copy was destroyed. That's 3 errors in approx 500,000 words! The New Testament was compiled (in Greek) from a number of eye-witness accounts, letters, autobiographies and prophetic writings,
by a Church Council who wanted a book which accurately summed up the Christian teachings. They did not write the book, they merely compiled it.
There are parts of the Bible which are non-literal. Those bits are called Prophecy. The rest is literal when taken in context. However, saying that you can pick and choose which parts to believe and which to take with a grain of salt as it suits you, simply devalues your own beliefs. The Bible is the word of God - we measure ourselves by it, we don't change the measure to suit our denials, guilty consciences and whims as many would do.
|
paulbang
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Posts: 143
From: Bangalore - starry eyed surpri
PM |
@car
dont your thumbs hurt?? |
|
|
Posted: 2005-07-15 05:12
