Bush Says He Doubts Bible Literally True

AP ^ | 12-09-2008

[WalterSkinner]

..he did come from a liberal church background

I was always under the impression he was pretty shallow in his Bible understanding--now I know why...

[Mr. Silverback]

Then I head the preacher suggest that He was establishing a pattern for Man who was about to be inhabiting a creation bound by the contraints of time. God needed the mere instant for a thought (and that’s a God-thought, not a man’s thought) to bring about any and all He created

Good point.

[Mr. Silverback]

Muslim terrorists just follow the Koran. Bush either isn’t familiar with what the Koran espouses or he is lying. Neither is acceptable to me.

Yes, yes, because his job as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in a time of existential war is to please your sense of moral outrage.

What do you mean by Jesus gave us the religion of guy on guy action? What are you talking about? Are you a Christian?

My (pretty bleedin' obvious) point was that there are people who call themselves Christians who believe that things the Bible very clearly prohibits (like homosexual behavior) are at the core of the faith. There are also people who call themselves Muslims who believe that things the Koran clearly prohibits (living in peace with the rest of us, for example) are at the core of Islam.

We want the Muslims who think they should be peaceful on our side. Step one for doing that is NOT to say, "You fool, your Koran says you should be killling me right now!"

[Mr. Silverback]

No comment.

"The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him."--Proverbs 18:17

[gemoftheocean]

“where is it inconsistent.”

*sigh* I’ll assume you’ve read the accounts of the Last Supper. Was it on the 1st night of passover. Or the day before? check your synoptic Gospels and John.

When you look for truth in the bible - think about the truth it is trying to teach. We are to learn to do the will of God.

The “how” He does/did something is for science (or in some cases miracles) the WHYS are what religion answers.

[Mr. Silverback]

Note post 260...and the replies that follow.

;-)

[Magnum44]

First, I already stated I would defer to Him to define what a day is, and what constitutes a morning and evening. For all I know Day 1 morning is the Big Bang and evening is the initial cooling period.

Secondly, and more important, those that try to parse and pick apart His Word for the purpose of trying to espouse either argument (for or against the literal 24 hour day creation) are missing the point of His gifts to us, and really need to focus on their own relationships rather than worry what others think.

JMO

[CottShop]

[[Well ... he’s right. Some things in the Bible are, of course, literally true (archaeology can prove it).]]

The fact is htough, that IF he believes evolution is true, then he doesn’t beleive important biblical truths are literal. His statement is inline with many professing Christians who really just have a head knowledge of God and Christ, but not true heart knowledge. I’m not saying President Bush isn’t infact saved, but his statements certainly cast doubt on that. Many ‘good’ people proclaim to be followers, but even ‘good’ people will miss the mark and be cast out of heaven. I hope Pres. Bush is saved, for his own sake, but really, his statements are indeed troubling, and I don’t think they are just said just because he isn’t well versed i nthe bible, I think he said htem because he truly isn’t sure about some important key biblical issues and doubts they were literal, and I don’t think he was just talking about parables either- I think he meant he wasn’t sure about things like the whole creation event, and perhaps somem ore key theological issues.

I know almost certainly that Barack isn’t saved, and most likely just went to church because it was politically expedient to do so (He no doubt wanted to ‘instill some values’ in his children too- but here again- we see him sitting under a bitter vicious ‘preacher’ who only has a head knowledge of God and CERTAINLY not a heart knowledge)

[r9etb]

The fact is htough, that IF he believes evolution is true, then he doesn’t beleive important biblical truths are literal.

Where does the Bible lay out God's exact methods?

His statement is inline with many professing Christians who really just have a head knowledge of God and Christ, but not true heart knowledge.

Oh, come now. What you're really saying is, real Christians must deny any and all scientific evidence that runs counter to your personal view of how God does what He does.

[Liberty Valance]

"I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."

Well cut my legs off and call me shorty, I agree with the President on this. ;o)

[starlifter]

Indeed, I questioned you and you came up short.

Sorry.

[CottShop]

[[What you’re really saying is, real Christians must deny any and all scientific evidence that runs counter to your personal view of how God does what He does.]]

Nope- what I am saying is that the bible states that we shall ‘know htem by their fruits’ and when someone consistently makes statements that question whether God’s word is actually His word, like so many self proclaimed Christians do, then it’s REASONABLE to question whether they actually have a heart knowledge of Christ (Who by the way IS the TRUTH, and who instills in His children this same TRUTH).

Many people, being self-proclaimed Christians with nothign more than a head knowledge, think the bible is really nothign more than a ‘good book’ with ‘good stories’, and doubt that it is hte Very word of God despite God proclaiming that the whole bible is His word. Many self proclaimed Christians think Christ was a ‘good teacher’, and even wish to emulate Him and do ‘good things’ themselves, thinking that this makes them a CHristian, but it doesn’t.

A lot of people ‘turn to religion’ after bad thigns happen in their life, but God doesn’t want htem ‘turning to religion’- He wants them to obey His word and Accept Christ as Savior the way HE told them they must in His word- but apaprently, if some folks don’t beleive God’s word is His actual word (Remember, many self proclaimed Christians think the bible is nothign but hte writings of a few ‘good people’ about a ‘few good topics’, and don’t actually beleive that it is the INSPIRED word of God in which God personally wrote through each writer via the special inspiration of hte Holy Spirit, and as such feel that His word is really nothign more than a set of subjective morals which ‘make hte world a better place’.

Again, I state that I am NOT sayin Pres. Bush is unsaved, however, his words strongly indicate a head knowledge and not heart. His words also are indicative of a growing population of people who self-proclaim themselves as Christian, (for many reasons, such as political expediency, social acceptance etc)

[[What you’re really saying is, real Christians must deny any and all scientific evidence]]

Nope- what I’m saying is that self proclaimed Christians consistently deny the FACTUAL scientific evidence in favor of a lie. Mty ‘opinion’ on the matter isn’t relevent- the FACT is that hte evidnece strongly points to special creation, AND it points STRONGLY agaisnt evolution- this is NOT an opinion, but scientific fact- but thanks for hte attempted stab at ID and Creationism with your not so subtle petty insult

[r9etb]

You’re talking nonsense. Have a nice life.

[CottShop]

I am having a nice life- beleive what ya want- I’ll keep calling it liek I see it as Christ commanded we do

[Mr. Silverback]

First, I already stated I would defer to Him to define what a day is, and what constitutes a morning and evening. For all I know Day 1 morning is the Big Bang and evening is the initial cooling period.

You are missing the point by a wide margin. My point was not that it's up to you or me to define what a day is, my point was that He has already defined what a day is.

Also, let's take the idea for a moment that God was describing the events of the Big Bang and the following evolution of the Earth and its critters in Genesis 1, and a day means cosmological and evolutionary ages. Well then, how did plants come before a sun, and how did birds come to be before land animals? Either the first two chapters of Genesis (and therefore the third chapter) are a fairy tale, or they are true. What they are most definitely NOT is a description of Earth's evolution.

Secondly, and more important, those that try to parse and pick apart His Word for the purpose of trying to espouse either argument (for or against the literal 24 hour day creation) are missing the point of His gifts to us, and really need to focus on their own relationships rather than worry what others think.

If there's no importance to making sure the Word is properly interpreted, what's with all the warnings about false teaching in the New Testament?

Didn't you violate your own standard by bringing up the "maybe a day isn't a 24 hour day" point in the first place?

If the Fall of Man is part of a fairy tale instead of a documented historical event, doesn't that have implications for the rest of the Gospel?

Why would I be wandering off the reservation by agreeing with Jesus, Paul, Isaiah, Hosea, Malachi, Jeremiah, David, and the writer of Job on the issue of the validity of the Creation account?

Would you apply this standard to other parts of the Bible, or only to the Creation account?

Sorry for the questions, but I find it odd that Christians think we can know and enjoy the love of God better by seeking to understand His word less.

[Mr. Silverback]

Ah...well, it seems you are accusing me of circular reasoning or some such because I said that Paul said that scripture is God-breathed. Of course, I could refer you to More Than a Carpenter and let you follow the chain of logic from there, or the Field Guide to Christianity if you can find that...or send you here.

That said, there's not a thing that should prevent you from answering the questions in 260. Are you unwilling or unable to defend the ideas you've presented? Or will you answer? And if you won't, why should any of us care what you think about our intellectual ability?

[P8riot]

That is not an inconsistency. It is an interpretation based on not understanding the culture of that time, and how they measured the day.

[CottShop]

[[I said that Paul said that scripture is God-breathed.]]

Exactly, and God is incpable of lying, and when He asked Job if Job was there when He created species, and named several, He was confirming that He indeed DID create species.

Those who sin (IE do not accept Christ as Savior) will be punished. Animals have no such judgement by God, and God clearly told Adam that eating hte fruit (sinning) that man is deciding to serve sin and so must be punished. If we’re ‘evovled from apes’ and we’re nothign but animals, how is it that we’re in danger of losing our SOUL to eternal damnation? Did God lie to us in His word when He told us sin = eternal death then?

From the Rib came Eve. Did God LIE to us then too?

God searched the animals and FOUND NO LIKE KIND for a mate for Adam- Again, if we’re all descended from animals, why was there no mate to be found? Again- Did God LIE to us when He told us this in His word? If Adam was descended from Apes- Certainly htere must have been very many mates that had ‘evovled’ right along with Adam? But Nope- We’re told Adam was a VERY unique special creation with a Soul, and no mates were found- But apparently, those who think evolution and God’s word are compatible, must then think that God LIED to us- something He is incapable of.

Now that we’ve discussed this, let us not forget that Macroevoltuion is a biological impossibility, A mathematical impossibility (and not just some ‘lotto-type crap-shoot either- it’s a major major impossibility to evolve just one ‘positive mutaiton’- let along create major masses of non species specific info in order for species to move onward and upward in ever complex ‘self-assembling’ configurations- somethign that biolgical science can NOT even show is possible- and infact is biolgogically impossible- mutations + time can NOT create the absolutely necessary NON species specific info NEEDED to move species beyond their own kinds) so it’s just plain silly to even suggest God ‘started creation’ then ‘left species to evolve on their own’ and htose that do IGNORE the scientific FACTS of biology, all in the name of ‘reconciling evolution with God’s word’- they exchange the TRUTH for the lie of Macreovoltuion, and apparently are trying to convince Creationists that their faith based belief in Macroevoltuion is superior to God’s TRUTH, and to the actual scientific FACTS that refute Macroevoltuion.

It’s NO simple matter to violate several scientific and natural laws- especially in the mind boggling numbers that would be absolutely essential IF macroevo0ltuion were a reality. Trillions of ever increasingly complex and sefl-assembling NON species specific information would have to just materialize out of nowhere, because again, simply altering species specific info simply is NOT able to create this essential genetic information.

But alas, al lthis scientific facts simply gets ignored and it’s argued that ‘God allowed evolution’ even htough it was biolgically impossible? Amazing! The only way someone can claim God’s word and evoltuion are compatible is to state that God is a liar, and that He deceived us in His word.

[Mr. Silverback]

But alas, al lthis scientific facts simply gets ignored and it’s argued that ‘God allowed evolution’ even htough it was biolgically impossible? Amazing! The only way someone can claim God’s word and evoltuion are compatible is to state that God is a liar, and that He deceived us in His word.

Great post...just keep in mind that some of them believe that not because they think God's a liar, but just because they haven't thought through the implications.

[MrB]

Nice...

I especially like the part about Adam and no mate.

How would someone “de-allegoryize” that?

In other words, what in evolution could account for a Man not having a female of his own species, and then one appearing for him?