Posted on 11/14/2005 1:20:59 PM PST by homeschool_dad
You totally missed the context of my post to homeschool_dad. Read it again and see if you can't discover where you erred.
In the sprirt of disclosure, my Freeper name isn't exactly accurate anymore as I'm no longer homeschooling exclusively. I do have to say though, that the days that I was were some of the best days of my life. My hat is tipped to you too, for providing the care that you are for your dad. It's encouraging to me to see that there still are people who do the right thing.
I was baptized at birth. This is a small part of my search though... and I think one of the problems with Protestantism. Yes, I understand that grace is a free gift and there certainly isn't anything that we can do to earn it. But it's been my experience that many Protestants take that as an excuse to be lazy about their faith. "Jesus did all of the work, so I don't have to do anything".
In a conversation with my sister-in-law, she said that it sounded like I was trying to find a way to earn my way into Heaven. I know that no one can do that. What I *am* looking for though, is the best way to honor my God and my Creator.
I guess that my quoting of the Mishnah was not meant to imply a loss of faith in Christ per se, but more of a questioning of the God of Judaism and Christianity. Not sure if that makes sense or not.
I know that I'm treading on rocky ground, and yes it does make me uncomfortable.
I don't know if this inconsitency makes me doubt Jesus or not. It does make me question whether or not my original beliefs about the Bible were correct (that it is infallible).
You've really hit on the crux of one of my questions: does it make a bad Christian if I don't believe in the story of Creation as told in Genesis? Or is it more important to place your emphasis on life today since that's where we are.
The available evidence that I was drawing on was scriptural teaching that by definition, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all pray to the God of Abraham.
Sorry about the error.
Powerful post. You have convince me. But there is still one thing I don't understand. How do dinosaurs fit into the equation?
Yes, it does matter. Either God is totally truthful or he is not truthful. There is no middle ground.
John 1:1 ¶In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him;
and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Christianity doesn't stand or fall on the Bible. Christianity stands or fall on whether or not Jesus is who He said He is. Jesus said He is the Great "I Am." Jesus quoted exclusively the Scriptures as being the Word of God. Scipture states:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: - II Tim 3:16The Divine authorship of Scripture can be ascertained based upon many different proofs: historical, archeaological, internal and external bibliographical evidences that make all other texts of antiquity pale as a candle against the sun. And then there's prophecy, something that is exclusive to the Bible. Prophecy is completely absent from the Koran, the Hindu Vedas, the Baghavad Gita, the Ramayana, the sayings of Buddha or Confucius, the Book of Mormon, ande yet a full 1/3 is devoted exclusively to prophecy and 80% of that has been fullfilled. And we're not talking about average run of the mill fortune cookie, Casandra-style prophecy (or gibberish by the likes of Nostrodamus, St. Malichy), but serious sink your teeth prophecy such as those foretelling the coming of the Messiah with extremely specific aspects of His coming, e.g. the place of his birth, the loss of self rule of the country he's born in, being wrapped in burial clothes at his birth, his suffering, crucifixion and subsequent resurrection, etc. that total 333 prophecies concerning Christ.
It has been calculated that the odds of any 3 of the 333 prophecies being fullfilled in any one person amounts to 10^48. As an analogy of this, figure the great state of Texas was covered in 1/2 dollars 3' thick, and one somewhere in the state had a mark on it. The odds of finding that one 1/2 dollar by chance alone is equivalent to 3 out of 333 prophecies fullfilled in one man. Another analogy is required to describe 10 prophecies fullfilled: cover the whole state of Texas with electrons (one being marked). The odds of finding that one electron by chance alone amounts to 10 out 333 prophecies fullfilled in one man. If you sorted through all those electrons at a rate of 250/sec, there wouldn't be enough time to find that one electron even given the amount of time atheists speculate elapsed since the universe began. This is remarkable in its own right in that there were no prophecies foretelling the coming of Buddha, Mohammad, Zoroaster, Confucius, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Edy, popular Hindu gurus, or any other religious leader. The odds of all 333 prophecies fullfilled in one man is greater than the number of molecules in the universe. And then there's truely remarkable prophecies about the Jews, Israel and Jerusalem. There's no ordinary natural explanation for those prophecies being fullfilled whatsoever by pure chance.
Christianity has the Divine mark of approval bar none. And the divine inspiration of Scripture is beyond dispute. Those that want to believe require no proof, those that don't want to believe can't be provided sufficient evidence to compell them otherwise; the evidence is overwhelming.
With respect to your question: what part of scripture was inspired by God? And what value does that little bit confer? What conclusion can be drawn with respect to Gen 1-11 based on II Tim 3:16. And if you deny the veracity and integrity of Gen 1-11, what are you saying about God? And if what you say about God is essentially that He's a liar, are you really a Christian? Despite that, and that notwithstanding, if that's true, and yet consider yourself to be a Christian, my only question would be why would you actually be a Christian?
Tanniyn is always translated into another word when we write it in English. Tanniyn occurs 28 times in the Bible and is normally translated "dragon." It is also translated "serpent," "sea monster," "dinosaur," "great creature," and "reptile." Behemoth and Leviathan are relatively specific creatures, perhaps each was a single kind of animal. Tanniyn is a more general term, and it can be thought of as the original version of the word "dinosaur." The word "dinosaur" was originally coined in 1841, more than three thousand years after the Bible first referred to "Tanniyn."
What do you see described in Job 40:15-24? What animal is described in Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1?
I absolutely don't think God is a liar. You'll notice that my belief that one of the attributes of God is that He is Truth. And I also agree that Christianity does not stand or fall on the bible. It's just taken me a little while to come to grips with that. Truth happens to be important to me because all of the major religions claim it for themselves. I want to know where it truly lies.
We would expect behemoth to be a large land animal whose bones are like beams of bronze and so forth, so whatever a behemoth is, it is large. A key phrase is "He is the first of the ways of God." This phrase in the original Hebrew implied that behemoth was the biggest animal created. Although an elephant or a hippopotamus are big, they are less than one-tenth the size of a Brachiosaurus, the largest (complete) dinosaur ever discovered. A Brachiosaurus could therefore easily be described as "the first of the ways of God" only if it was actually witnessed by the author.
Unlike behemoth, who is huge, Leviathan is ferocious and terrifying. Many references refer to the sea, so Leviathan is probably a sea creature. Although some bibles refer to Leviathan as an alligator or crocodile, neither of these are sea creatures. They like the water, but they spend much of their time on land. Furthermotr, the question "Who can open the doors of his face. . . ." implies that nobody can open Leviathan’s jaws. Although an alligator's jaws cannot normally be forced open, a punch to their sensitive snout or poke in eye might startle them enough to release their grip. Although this is a good description of an alligator characteristic, it does not fit perfectly with the description of Leviathan, which in the context was supposed to describe an essentially impossible event, and we are not done yet.
Compared to Leviathan’s armor, iron is like straw and arrows can not make it flee. Let’s face it, an arrow can do a lot of damage to a crocodile or alligator. This is not a description of either of them, or any living animal I'm aware of. It is hard to read Job 41:18-21 without realizing the Bible is telling us that Leviathan breathes fire. That alone will eliminate almost every living animal (the bombardier beetle). I have a hard time believing the account is describing a bomardier beetle (not even a big one).
The history of every culture is filled with stories of fire-breathing dragons. If you think about it, in all the past ages wouldn’t someone have "made up" a story of a fire-breathing lion or something? Nope, they didn't need to make anything up, because the dragon stories are based on truth, and only "dragons" breathed fire. It is easy to imagine Leviathan as a member of the dragon (tanniyn) family. (Plus, Isaiah 27:1 strongly implies this connection.)
Furthermore, many fossil dinosaur skulls contain unexplained, empty passages. Scientists have not been able to guess the reason for these passages. Based on the Scripture's cited, would it make sense that some dinosaurs used these passages as "gas tanks" for the combustible mixture used to "breathe fire?" Nah, that's right out of the question and totally impossible. Anyways, those are my thoughts on the matter.
You have (I believe) overwhelmed any argument of the "gap theory" proponents.
Thanks again!
That sounds like a good place to be with it. Why not just stick with that and let other people debate the undebatable and profess infallible knowledge of the "unknowable?" You are practically sitting right on it while they're a million miles away.
No such scriptual teaching exists, and "by definition" only asserts a postulate (which, in this case, is a postulate that is disproven when the argument takes full form). Jesus was a Jew, so it is logically consistent to assert that the God of Christianity is the God of Abraham. No such intrinsic link exists in the case of Islam. Since "Allah" was a name given to a deity of the Kaaba pantheon (one of 360 gods worshipped at that site before Mohammed's band of thugs destroyed the others), there is no historical or logical link to assume Islam is merely a change in form of worship of the Judeo-Christian Deity when instead it is far more likely to be a revision of worship of the deity who instead already had that name at that location. Other aspects of Islam (the black rock, the Hajj, etc.) which were part of pagan Allah worship only reinforce that conclusion. The idea that the Kaaba was built by Abraham, or that the "Allah" worshipped there was the god of Abraham, is Islamic revisionist history easily disproven by the archaeological record.
If historical facts were insufficient reason to reject such an argument, then the natures of the religions themselves can be considered. Islam (Sura 112) asserts that Allah begets not, nor is he begotten. The God of Christianity, on the other hand, has a begotten Son named Jesus. If I were to say I know George Bush, and you say you do too and we begin talking about him, and you mention his two daughters while I start talking about his lifetime vow of chastity and the fact that he has no children, then it becomes clear that either one of us is lying about George or that we are talking about two different George Bushes.
The philosophy of the world asserts that all religions are of equal merit and validity. But if you put your worldly philosophy and "feelings" aside and use the reasoning powers that God gave you, you can easily see that such assertions are self-evident falsehoods. From a logical or historical perspective, even the Zoroastrians have a more valid claim on the God of Abraham than the Mohammedans do.
Eventually, Hagar and Ishmael were banished from Abraham’s camp, and went out into the desert. Ishmael went on to be the patriarch of the Arab nations and founders of Islam who lay their claim to Israel on Ishmael birth as the first born son of Abraham. Isaac went on to be the patriarch of the tribes of Israel, who base their claim on the land of Israel on Isaac’s birthright.
So what does this all mean? That Jews, Christians, and Muslims all pray to the same God (whilst calling Him different names). That if Abraham would have kept his Johnson in his pants and trusted what God had told him, we wouldn’t be having all of this bloodshed in the Middle East today. Beyond that, I started to believe that they ALL (Christians, Muslims, AND Jews) had it wrong. Back to my basic, fundamental beliefs that God is a God of Love… the True God would not want his followers killing ANYone in His name. That goes for Christians, Muslims, and Jews, too.
Your reading of the Holy Word of G-d is very faulty!
Was Abram or Abraham the father of Ishmael?
Does it matter ?
Yes it does; The former man is in the flesh , the latter man has the Ruach haKodesh.
The Jews and the followers of the Christ believe
in the One True G-d,
creator of the universe.
The followers of Mohammed serve the Evil One.
b'shem Y'shua
This is a historically fallacious argument.
The Jews hardly worshipped a new deity when they began worshipping El. The Cannanites and Ugarites worshipped an El who looked nothing like the El in the Bible. Yet that did not prevent Moses from using that name for God quite profusely.
The fact that pagans used the same name in worshipping one in their pantheon does not preclude Allah from being the same entity that the Jews and the Christians worship, albeit understood quite differently (and, as a Christian, I must say wrongly.) Arabic Christians refer to God as "Allah," and ultimately, "Allah" is a linguistic corruption of the tetragrammaton YHWH.
This debate - whether or not the entity is the same - is at best a red herring. What matters, rather, is how God is understood by the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims. As a Christian, I have to say there is only one right way to understand God, and neither the Jews nor the Muslims fully comprehend it, though both may have an inferior understanding of the True Faith. What word they use is irrelevant. Islam and Judaism, by their terms, claim to worship the same God as I. I must take them at their word, and engage them on theology, not semantics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.