Posted on 09/06/2009 3:50:15 PM PDT by NYer
Did these plants turn into fish???
No I am not.
When did I ever say that?
Some time ago, when wideawake was still here. You said that the Bible contradicts itself and invoked the "new testament" to prove it. Something about Matthew saying the sermon was on a "mount" and Luke saying it was in a "valley." And wideawake called you on it. Unfortunately, he isn't here any more. If you give me time I may be able to find the post and quote it verbatim (or link to it).
What I have said, though, is the Bible states that there are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25).
I have said the same thing. Unfortunately, this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about the Word of G-d (or the supposed "word of G-d" in the case of the "new testament") containing mistakes or untruths, which has nothing whatsoever to do with rejecting sola scriptura.
I have also said that the Bible doesn't state anywhere that it is to be taken literally word for word.
Then why do you quote it? Is the reader of your posts supposed to interpret the verses you quote "literally" or to ask you what it "really" means? This is the whole point of my question. Why do you quote a book that can't be interpreted literally to prove anything? Please respond. And btw, since you don't believe in sola scriptura, why would the Bible have to say that about itself for it to be true?
The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages.
Actually, the Torah was written entirely by G-d in Hebrew (with the exception of two words in Genesis, which are in Aramaic), the Nevi'im were written entirely under the spirit of Prophecy in Hebrew (with the exception of a single verse in Jeremiah), and the Ketuvim were written entirely under Divine Inspiration mostly in Hebrew (with the exception of brief passages in Ezra and Daniel). The action of G-d prevents contradictions and errors, though of course I understand that your concept of incarnationism means that G-d's Word is adulterated with human errors.
Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind. The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific or a history "textbook."
Why does it have to be a scientific or history "texbook" in order to be free from error? What makes you think that G-d is incapable of inspiring a "religious book" that is absolutely free from error? Please answer this as well.
It seems I don't have to look up that old post of yours after all, as you've just confirmed everything I said (right after denying it). Why deny something if you're going to immediately confirm it?
God says you are flat out wrong...
Then why is it "impossible" for G-d to have created a fully formed universe in a period of six days 5769 years ago? Or is that the only thing "impossible" for Him?
Your hypocrisy is showing.
Where Ambrose is, there is no knowledge of the church...
Iscool - AD 2009
See how easy that is???
Evolution is not necessarily atheist.
This is why the Catholic Church is collapsing in on itself.
Except that it is not.
This is why you have Obama at Notre Dame and a secular canonization of Ted Kennedy.
You blame the Church for a secular canonization?
"those people" who live in trailers and have names like Billy Bob.
"we aren't like those awful people who live in Arkansas."
Are you blaming all Catholics for what one or a few or some Catholics might have said to you?
That would have to be a textbook example of prejudice.
You're hypocrites and you brought it on yourselves.
Your anti-Catholic bigotry is duly noted.
No. Iscool claims God says I am flat-out wrong.
And why should I care what Iscool claims?
One might even call it simple.
And yet He commands us to do so, and everything is possible with Him.
Theres a 100 reasons why you can point to the Bible and
find Catholicism is wrong. I believed and was taught so.
Its not until I investigated Catholicism on all these points
and read its defense against these things on a Sola Scriptura
basis that I found the Catholic Church was hitting em out of the park on 90-95 of the issues. From a Sola Scriptura basis the evidence of Purgortory is fairly weak as opposed to strong. But for the hard 2-3 items or more, I know knew whose
views were more encompassing of the Bible, its bible verse explanations were more encompossasing of the surrounding text, and the explanations didnt depend on ignoring some other relevant verses. I converted to Catholicism. I found it amazing how Gods Truth was so well hidden and how the cultural protestant bias of American society keeps us from examining more deeply the Catholic Church and what it teaches as opposed to what other denominations say about it. There is alot of what amounts to false propaganda out there about the Catholic Church. It seems many sense that such an enemy needs to be defeated and beaten with any stick available, even if such stick is not a ‘truth stick’.
***Did these plants turn into fish???***
No. Why?
So? Who cares? What has that got to do with anything?
You seem to misunderstand my position. I am not "anti-evolution." I am pro-total Biblical inerrancy. I reject evolution because it contradicts the Biblical account, not because "G-d couldn't have done it that way."
Since you are such a fan of "science," I hope you reject transubstantiation, resurrection of the dead, the virgin birth and other such unscientific fairy tales.
And I stand by what I comment. Catholics have run looked down their noses at creationists while loudly proclaiming their belief in transubstantiation because "that's what it says!" Whatever-his-name-is (the scientific atheist) called you on it when he pierced a consecrated host with a nail. While I reject his atheism I certainly admire his consistency--something you wouldn't know anything about.
Pinging your good buddy vladimir998 for when he gets back (he's no wideawake, but I don't think he's as big a fan of Charles Darwin as you are).
And I will point out yet again that, from a Sola Scriptura basis, the evidence of sola Scriptura is non-existent.
***God says you are flat out wrong...***
Has God appointed you yet again to speak for Him from the comfort of your LaZBoy chair?
***Nothing is impossible for God.
Then why is it “impossible” for G-d to have created a fully formed universe in a period of six days 5769 years ago? Or is that the only thing “impossible” for Him? ***
We’re not saying that it is impossible. Just not likely.
***Your hypocrisy is showing.***
Are you attributing things to me again?
Then why is it “impossible” for G-d to have created a fully formed universe in a period of six days 5769 years ago? Or is that the only thing “impossible” for Him? ***
We’re not saying that it is impossible. Just not likely.
Well then, I guess it's not likely that J*sus was born of a virgin, changed water into wine, rose from the dead, performed/s transubstantiation either. After all, "the Bible is not a science or history textbook," is it?
So, did you become an evolutionist when you converted to Catholicism?
***Well then, I guess it’s not likely that J*sus was born of a virgin, changed water into wine, rose from the dead, performed/s transubstantiation either. After all, “the Bible is not a science or history textbook,” is it?***
No it is not. It is the attempt by men to describe God.
Joshua 10:
12
On this day, when the LORD delivered up the Amorites to the Israelites, Joshua prayed to the LORD, and said in the presence of Israel: Stand still, O sun, at Gibeon, O moon, in the valley of Aijalon!
13
3 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, while the nation took vengeance on its foes. Is this not recorded in the Book of Jashar? The sun halted in the middle of the sky; not for a whole day did it resume its swift course.
14
Never before or since was there a day like this, when the LORD obeyed the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel.
Tell me. How long was this day? It says that the sun halted for a whole day. Was this day 48 hours? If it was not a 24 hour day (and we have adequate evidence that the days formerly were 25 hours and that the earth’s spin is speeding up), then how long were the first 6 days?
If the earth’s spin was slower as we go back in time, then how can you spout that the days were 24 hour days as we understand them? Perhaps the original days were thousands of years. How can you definitely refute that?
That would be very helpful as I don't recall this exchange.
Then why do you quote it? Is the reader of your posts supposed to interpret the verses you quote "literally" or to ask you what it "really" means? This is the whole point of my question.
I quote it because it is scripture. In fact, I'm not sure how we got on this discourse in the first place. The thread is about Catholics coming home, not about sola scriptura.
If the earth’s spin was slower as we go back in time, then how can you spout that the days were 24 hour days as we understand them? Perhaps the original days were thousands of years. How can you definitely refute that?
My, my, my. You "prove" that you aren't a hypocrite by poking fun at the miracle of the sun in the Book of Joshua? That's a winner. [sarcasm]
I sure hope you don't believe in the "miracle of the sun" at Fatima. That would just be more hypocrisy!
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.