Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic - Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!

First, almost universally, the building of the tower has been understood as an act of pride. These were men who sought to establish themselves, establish their own dominion. Notice that their speaking is entirely without reference to God at all.

Read 1 Corinthians 15. The Resurrection of the Body has always been a key theme of the Christian faith since its beginnings.

But I would call attention to the rather misleading distinction concerning a spiritual body. It's not that his body is "spiritual" as opposed to "physical" (although some erring translations make that mistake), but rather "Spiritual" (that is, alive by way of the Holy Spirit) as opposed to "animal" (that is, alive by way of ordinary human life). The actual Greek terms to distinguish these two types of bodies are pneuma and psuche, both of which are terms that do not describe mere physical life, but spirit and soul. The distinction is not the difference between physical and incorporeal, but the difference between life that God gives and life that is natural to fallen man.

Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that Christ's body is now any less physical than ours. The only difference is that, after his ascension, his is now perfect, free from the power of death, whereas, we - this side of the Resurrection of the Last Day - are still mortal.

But the Scriptures as a whole teach that he was raised from the dead on Easter in his body (John 20 - note he shows the wounds to his disciples), that he ascended into heaven in his body (Matthew 28, John 21, Acts 1), and that he will return in his body.

One of the problems that I have with the way many well-meaning Christians think of this today is that they tend to downplay the historic teaching of the Resurrection of the Body (which taught in Scripture, and is in both the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds, so I don't know why they
ignore it). The current notion that you just die and spend eternity as a disembodied spirit in either heaven or hell is distinctly Gnostic, not Christian. Although I do believe the Scriptures teach an interim state ("To be absent from the body is to be with the Lord."), they also teach that our final state takes place on the Last Day at the Resurrection.

For the Christian, our resurrection is intimately connected with Christ's resurrection. It is why Baptism is such an important Sacrament of the Church (Romans 6).

Also, the fact that Christ still has a physical body has implications for the Sacrament of Holy Communion. If Christ no longer has a physical body, then the Sacrament is pointless (1 Corinthians 11).

Read 1 Corinthians 15. The Resurrection of the Body has always been a key theme of the Christian faith since its beginnings.

But I would call attention to the rather misleading distinction concerning a spiritual body. It's not that his body is "spiritual" as opposed to "physical" (although some erring translations make that mistake), but rather "Spiritual" (that is, alive by way of the Holy Spirit) as opposed to "animal" (that is, alive by way of ordinary human life). The actual Greek terms to distinguish these two types of bodies are pneuma and psuche, both of which are terms that do not describe mere physical life, but spirit and soul. The distinction is not the difference between physical and incorporeal, but the difference between life that God gives and life that is natural to fallen man.

Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that Christ's body is now any less physical than ours. The only difference is that, after his ascension, his is now perfect, free from the power of death, whereas, we - this side of the Resurrection of the Last Day - are still mortal.

But the Scriptures as a whole teach that he was raised from the dead on Easter in his body (John 20 - note he shows the wounds to his disciples), that he ascended into heaven in his body (Matthew 28, John 21, Acts 1), and that he will return in his body.

One of the problems that I have with the way many well-meaning Christians think of this today is that they tend to downplay the historic teaching of the Resurrection of the Body (which taught in Scripture, and is in both the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds, so I don't know why they ignore it). The current notion that you just die and spend eternity as a disembodied spirit in either heaven or hell is distinctly Gnostic, not Christian. Although I do believe the Scriptures teach an interim state ("To be absent from the body is to be with the Lord."), they also teach that our final state takes place on the Last Day at the Resurrection.

For the Christian, our resurrection is intimately connected with Christ's resurrection. It is why Baptism is such an important Sacrament of the Church (Romans 6).

Also, the fact that Christ still has a physical body has implications for the Sacrament of Holy Communion. If Christ no longer has a physical body, then the Sacrament is pointless (1 Corinthians 11).

So He has a body, but He can still do the "be everywhere, in everything" thing at the same time?

Parlod wrote:

So He has a body, but He can still do the "be everywhere, in everything" thing at the same time?

That's one of the perks of being the Son of the guy that created the universe.

Physcial bodies can't, but spirits can.

IantheGecko wrote:

Physcial bodies can't, but spirits can.

According tot he general consensus here, God has a physical body.

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent"

I write unto you, little children because ye have known the Father."

"They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power."

And the Lord says, "This is life eternal, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent." And again, "A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Do ye, therefore, notice those who preach other doctrines, how they affirm that the Father of Christ cannot be known, and how they exhibit enmity and deceit in their dealings with one another. They have no regard for love; they despise the good things we expect hereafter; they regard present things as if they were durable; they ridicule him that is in affliction; they laugh at him that is in bonds.

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

How can you know and have a relationship with God, when you can't decide if he's physical or spiritual, here or there, everywhere yet nowhere, everything yet nothing?

I have a question about creation.
Is it meant to be taken literally... that God really did create Earth and the Universe in 6 days? And that everything went as cleanly as it was said?

(just pulling random numbers for example... one thousand years=one day)

It can mean "a 24-hour period." It can mean "period of time." It can mean "epoch."

So I guess you can interpret it how you want. We're not sure how Moses intended the word "day" to be used.

Author:	Zoologist! [ Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:03 pm ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: First, almost universally, the building of the tower has been understood as an act of pride. These were men who sought to establish themselves, establish their own dominion. Notice that their speaking is entirely without reference to God at all. But isn't this almost consistent in humanity? People are creating many different immense symbols of pride without considering God. Why aren't our languages being changed as constant as these symbols of pride? Is the separation of language metaphorical or literal?

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:17 am ]
Post subject:
To answer the first question, it almost assumes that, if God did something that way back then, he's almost obligated to do things the same way now. Back then there was a common language, but now there are many. Since language is a constant barrier anyway, would there really be any need to sunder them again? But who says that they aren't? Almost every field of study has its own lingo, its own terminology that people of that field use that outsiders rarely understand. Just take the legal profession, for example: have you ever tried to read legal documents? Not only that, but language itself is rarely static. In fact, the only static languages are those that are no longer in general use, like Koine Greek and Latin. Just compare the English used a few hundred years ago with English of the 21st century: the two sometimes bear only a passing resemblance. What's more, man's symbols of pride often have other ways in which they are brought low. Usually by means of symbols of other men's pride. But I don't take the sundering of languages as an isolated incident anyway. If you compare what happened on at Babel to what happened at Pentecost, there are some remarkable parallels. At Babel, man's attempt to construct a temple for himself was hindered by the power of language. At Pentecost, the power of language was employed once again, but this time to build a temple to God, and to unite humanity into the Body of Christ, the Holy Christian Church. Language is a very powerful tool. The ancients understood this, but with today's relativistic thinking and post-modern semantics, that idea is being quickly lost. Language, like a hammer, can be used both to build and destroy. As for the last question, I take it to mean that there was in fact a common language among men. The difficulty is that the Hebrew words for earth can also be translated as land, but taken as a whole it does seem to suggest that there was only one language at the time. Evidence suggests that there were other ancient languages besides those spoken by the people of Babel. And yet I can't help but think that what took place on Pentecost was intended to be the remedy for what took place at Babel.

Author:	furrykef [ Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:09 am ]
Post subject:
I just stickied this 'cause it's a commonly recurring topic on these forums, so we might as well have the thread conveniently nearby.

Author:	Angelgrl1029 [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:01 pm ]
Post subject:
HELLO PEOPLE WHO HAVE BIBLE CONTRIDICTORY PROBLEMS!!!! There is a great website called http://www.truthortradition.com that is THE BEST site for all your bible questions!!!

Author:	Parlod [ Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ- Doubts? Curiousitites? Contradictions? Come here!
I can't remember if this has been brought up or not, so I'll just go ahead with it. I was just wondering about it the other day. Why was Christ resurrected back into his body, and why did he keep it when he ascended into heaven, when most Christians believe that Christ is now spirit, and has no need for a body?

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here! http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5268	Page 15 of 17

Author:	Didymus [ Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ- Doubts? Curiousitites? Contradictions? Come here!
Read 1 Corinthians 15. The Resurrection of the Body has always been a key theme of the Christian faith since its beginnings. But I would call attention to the rather misleading distinction concerning a spiritual body. It's not that his body is "spiritual" as opposed to "physical" (although some erring translations make that mistake), but rather "Spiritual" (that is, alive by way of the Holy Spirit) as opposed to "animal" (that is, alive by way of ordinary human life). The actual Greek terms to distinguish these two types of bodies are pneuma and psuche, both of which are terms that do not describe mere physical life, but spirit and soul. The distinction is not the difference between physical and incorporeal, but the difference between life that God gives and life that is natural to fallen man. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that Christ's body is now any less physical than ours. The only difference is that, after his ascension, his is now perfect, free from the power of death, whereas, we - this side of the Resurrection of the Last Day - are still mortal. But the Scriptures as a whole teach that he was raised from the dead on Easter in his body (John 20 - note he shows the wounds to his disciples), that he ascended into heaven in his body (Matthew 28, John 21, Acts 1), and that he will return in his body. One of the problems that I have with the way many well-meaning Christians think of this today is that they tend to downplay the historic teaching of the Resurrection of the Body (which taught in Scripture, and is in both the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds, so I don't know why they ignore it). The current notion that you just die and spend eternity as a disembodied spirit in either heaven or hell is distinctly Gnostic, not Christian. Although I do believe the Scriptures teach an interim state ("To be absent from the body is to be with the Lord."), they also teach that our final state takes place on the Last Day at the Resurrection. For the Christian, our resurrection is intimately connected with Christ's resurrection. It is why Baptism is such an important Sacrament of the Church (Romans 6). Also, the fact that Christ still has a physical body has implications for the Sacrament of Holy Communion. If Christ no longer has a physical body, then the Sacrament is pointless (1 Corinthians 11).

Author:	StrongRad [ Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ- Doubts? Curiousitites? Contradictions? Come here!
Didymus wrote: Read 1 Corinthians 15. The Resurrection of the Body has always been a key theme of the Christian faith since its beginnings. But I would call attention to the rather misleading distinction concerning a spiritual body. It's not that his body is "spiritual" as opposed to "physical" (although some erring translations make that mistake), but rather "Spiritual" (that is, alive by way of the Holy Spirit) as opposed to "animal" (that is, alive by way of ordinary human life). The actual Greek terms to distinguish these two types of bodies are pneuma and psuche, both of which are terms that do not describe mere physical life, but spirit and soul. The distinction is not the difference between physical and incorporeal, but the difference between life that God gives and life that is natural to fallen man. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that Christ's body is now any less physical than ours. The only difference is that, after his ascension, his is now perfect, free from the power of death, whereas, we - this side of the Resurrection of the Last Day - are still mortal. But the Scriptures as a whole teach that he was raised from the dead on Easter in his body (John 20 - note he shows the wounds to his disciples), that he ascended into heaven in his body (Matthew 28, John 21, Acts 1), and that he will return in his body. One of the problems that I have with the way many well-meaning Christians think of this today is that they tend to downplay the historic teaching of the Resurrection of the Body (which taught in Scripture, and is in both the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds, so I don't know why they ignore it). The current notion that you just die and spend eternity as a disembodied spirit in either heaven or hell is distinctly Gnostic, not Christian. Although I do believe the Scriptures teach an interim state ("To be absent from the body is to be with the Lord."), they also teach that our final state takes place on the Last Day at the Resurrection. For the Christian, our resurrection is intimately connected with Christ's resurrection. It is why Baptism is such an important Sacrament of the Church (Romans 6). Also, the fact that Christ still has a physical body has implications for the Sacrament of Holy Communion. If Christ no longer has a physical body, then the Sacrament is pointless (1 Corinthians 11). I would have said "he wanted to keep a souvenir", but your answer is a lot better (and probably more true).

Author:	Parlod [ Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ- Doubts? Curiousitites? Contradictions? Come here!
Didymus wrote: Read 1 Corinthians 15. The Resurrection of the Body has always been a key theme of the Christian faith since its beginnings. But I would call attention to the rather misleading distinction concerning a spiritual body. It's not that his body is "spiritual" as opposed to "physical" (although some erring translations make that mistake), but rather "Spiritual" (that is, alive by way of the Holy Spirit) as opposed to "animal" (that is, alive by way of ordinary human life). The actual Greek terms to distinguish these two types of bodies are pneuma and psuche, both of which are terms that do not describe mere physical life, but spirit and soul. The distinction is not the difference between physical and incorporeal, but the difference between life that God gives and life that is natural to fallen man. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that Christ's body is now any less physical than ours. The only difference is that, after his ascension, his is now perfect, free from the power of death, whereas, we - this side of the Resurrection of the Last Day - are still mortal. But the Scriptures as a whole teach that he was raised from the dead on Easter in his body (John 20 - note he shows the wounds to his disciples), that he ascended into heaven in his body (Matthew 28, John 21, Acts 1), and that he will return in his body. One of the problems that I have with the way many well-meaning Christians think of this today is that they tend to downplay the historic teaching of the Resurrection of the Body (which taught in Scripture, and is in both the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds, so I don't know why they ignore it). The current notion that you just die and spend eternity as a disembodied spirit in either heaven or hell is distinctly Gnostic, not Christian. Although I do believe the Scriptures teach an interim state ("To be absent from the body is to be with the Lord."), they also teach that our final state takes place on the Last Day at the Resurrection. For the Christian, our resurrection is intimately connected with Christ's resurrection. It is why Baptism is such an important Sacrament of the Church (Romans 6). Also, the fact that Christ still has a physical body has implications for the Sacrament of Holy Communion. If Christ no longer has a physical body, then the Sacrament is pointless (1 Corinthians 11). Unless I misread anything, I agree with you. Thanks. It just seems like from what I've heard from other Christians is that Christ is God, and that God is Spirit, that he is everywhere and nowhere, in everything and out of everything, etc. That would be hard to believe if he really does have a body.

Author:	Didymus [ Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
The Scriptures teach that Jesus was Lord in the flesh, that is, both fully God and fully human. It is easy to understand why people think these two natures conflict with each other, but we're not at liberty to simply throw one aside in favor of the other: either Christ was fully God and fully human, or he could not be our Redeemer and High Priest.

Author:	Parlod [ Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
So He has a body, but He can still do the "be everywhere, in everything" thing at the same time?

Author:	StrongRad [ Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
Parlod wrote: So He has a body, but He can still do the "be everywhere, in everything" thing at the same time? That's one of the perks of being the Son of the guy that created the universe.

Author:	Shampoo2002 [ Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
I never got the whole, "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" thing. When I was about five, my brother told me that it is said that god had three heads... I'm not so sure he was telling me the truth.

Author:	Parlod [ Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
StrongRad wrote: Parlod wrote: So He has a body, but He can still do the "be everywhere, in everything" thing at the same time? That's one of the perks of being the Son of the guy that created the universe. But how? Does His body split into tiny bits? My point is that the idea of the Trinity doesn't make sense. Now we've argued this one up and down, but it's just interesting to think about. He has a phyisical body, but can be everywhere and in everything, and can "dwell in our hearts?" C'mon. Physical bodies can't dwell in us. Oh, and shampoo, I LOL'd.

Author:	IantheGecko [ Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
Physcial bodies can't, but spirits can.

Page 15 of 17	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Parlod [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
IantheGecko wrote: Physcial bodies can't, but spirits can. According tot he general consensus here, God has a physical body.

Author:	Capt. Ido Nos [ Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
Parlod wrote: IantheGecko wrote: Physcial bodies can't, but spirits can. According tot he general consensus here, God has a physical body. Jesus, God the Son does, is what the general consensus seems to be (the fact aside that our consensus doesn't necessarily make it fact), whereas God the Father and the Holy Spirit are still Spirit, but all still God. SO it would seem that God is both Spirit and Body, but mostly Spirit.

Author:	Didymus [ Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:00 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
Watch the Nestorianism there, bub. God the Father it is generally believed does not have a physical body as we know it. God the Son, however, who is both 100% God and 100% man, did at His incarnation, and does even now, have a physical body. And God the Holy Spirit does not in general manifestation, except in rare instances where His form seems to take a material shape (a dove, fire, etc.). Nevertheless, His manifestations tend not to be human in the way Christ is. But if this is a challenge to the orthodox (i.e., biblical) doctrine of the Holy Trinity (as outlined by the Nicene, Apostolic, and Athanasian Creeds), my response is a question for you: who is Jesus' true father? According to the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit is the one who conceived Him. But throughout His life, Jesus claimed that God the Father was. And is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of God the Father or the Spirit of Christ? The greatest minds in Christendom have from the very beginning tried to understand these things. Within the limitations of human understanding, it doesn't make sense. But then again, we are talking about the divine nature, something that by its very nature is difficult for humans to understand. What the greatest minds in Christendom concluded is essentially what we call Athanasian or Orthodox Trinitarianism. Three Persons, yet only One God. And the Second of the Three Persons, Christ is both fully God and fully human. To propose that we are speaking of multiple Gods is a discredit to the Bible's clear monotheistic teachings, and to propose that all three Persons are not equally God is to discredit Jesus' own teachings. So even if these things are beyond our understanding, they are clearly the right confession of the Holy Christian Church. For more information, CLICK HERE. Shampoo, the idea of God having three heads is essentially an analogy attempting to explain how the Three Persons are only One God - distinct, yet the same. All analogies are imperfect, however, as we can only conceive of those things within the limits of our own existence. Oh, and as for the possibility of Jesus' physical body being in multiple places at once: the Scriptures teach that, in the Sacrament, Jesus' body and blood are indeed present in the forms of bread and wine, to the degree that partaking in an unbelieving disposition is actually a sin against His body and blood (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). So somehow, as both God and Man, he is able to accomplish it. But remember, this is the same God-Man who fed several thousand people with only two tiny fish and five small cakes of bread.

Author:	Parlod [ Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
You are suggesting that God is unknowable, and incomprehensible. John 17:3 wrote: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" 1 John 2:13 wrote: I write unto you, little children because ye have known the Father." Emphasis mine. Around 110 A.D., Christian father Ignatius wrote an epistle to the Trallians: Ignatius wrote: "They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power." He also sent another epistle to the Smyrnaeans: Ignatius wrote: And the Lord says, "This is life eternal, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent." And again, "A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Do ye, therefore, notice those who preach other doctrines, how they affirm that the Father of Christ cannot be known, and how they exhibit enmity and deceit in their dealings with one another. They have no regard for love; they despise the good things we expect hereafter; they regard present things as if they were durable; they ridicule him that is in affliction; they laugh at him that is in bonds. Emphasis mine. The idea that God cannot be known or understood does not derive from biblical Christianity.

Author:	Exhibit A [ Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
There's a big difference between not understanding everything about God and not knowing Him. Just because the Trinity is too much for our minds to comprehend, that doesn't mean that we can't have a personal relationship with God. Take for example, this passage from Isaiah 55: Quote: 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. God is so much higher than us that it is simply not possible for us to fully understand everything about Him with our limited human minds.

Author:	Parlod [ Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
I've always understood that passage as a way of God telling us that sometimes things are going to happen to us, and we are not going to know why. We will suffer through trials and tribulations. We may pray to God for something to happen, and it doesn't happen. But instead of getting angry with God, we need to understand that His thoughts are not ours, and his ways aren't mine. I don't think he's talking about his physical appearance. How can you know and have a relationship with God, when you can't decide if he's physical or spiritual, here or there, everywhere yet nowhere, everything yet nothing?

Author:	ed 'lim' smilde [ Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
Parlod wrote: How can you know and have a relationship with God, when you can't decide if he's physical or spiritual, here or there, everywhere yet nowhere, everything yet nothing? We can decide, though... he is both physical, spiritual, everywhere, and all-knowing.

Author:	Word Up [ Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:10 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
I have a question about creation. Is it meant to be taken literally... that God really did create Earth and the Universe in 6 days? And that everything went as cleanly as it was said? I prefer to combine science and religion... make everyone happy. If the Bible was written in a metaphorical sense and the actual time frame in which the Earth was created in was taken into scale (just pulling random numbers for example... one thousand years=one day), then scientists and religious leaders can make nice, right? I mean, all the evidence is there... people were created of dust, which according to the Big Bang Theory, we were... right?

Author:	StrongRad [ Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
Word Up wrote: I have a question about creation. Is it meant to be taken literally... that God really did create Earth and the Universe in 6 days? And that everything went as cleanly as it was said? People in the Church don't even agree on this one. There are those that say that (at least the 7 days part) the creation story was written in God's time frame (what is a day to a being that has always existed and always will?), others say it is literal and the planet is 10,000 years old. So, to answer your question, it depends on who you ask. I'm similar to you, in that I see the Big Bang and other "how did we get here" ideas as the answer to "How did God do it?" That part wasn't in the Bible mainly because we need to know that (more so than how) God did it. He probably figured that it was something we'd look into if we ever decided to. There are a lot that say the "God-driven" system is needlessly complicated if it could have happened without him. I won't deny that, but you know, that's why it's called faith.

Author:	ed 'lim' smilde [ Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
Word Up wrote: (just pulling random numbers for example... one thousand years=one day) Heh, or are you just pulling them from 2 Peter 3:8? (Or Psalm 90?) But yeah, neither of those verses are literal, either. It basically means that God isn't really in human time, since he created it and all. I think the six-day metaphor was designed to explain the Sabbath and resting to his people.

Author:	Parlod [ Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
Biblical Hebrew has some 3,000 words in it's vocabulary (At least it did back then. I'm not sure how much it has grown since the creation of Genesis). This means that some words are going to have more than one meaning. The Hebrew (the author of Genesis was Moses) word for "day" has several different meanings. It can mean "a 24-hour period." It can mean "period of time." It can mean "epoch." So I guess you can interpret it how you want. We're not sure how Moses intended the word "day" to be used.

Author:	Capt. Ido Nos [ Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:19 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
Parlod wrote: It can mean "a 24-hour period." It can mean "period of time." It can mean "epoch." So I guess you can interpret it how you want. We're not sure how Moses intended the word "day" to be used. Actually, we can. There are in fact different words with different associated meanings. Sure they may be similar (I'm not a biblical scholar, but many of my friends, pastors, and mentors are, so this is where I'm getting them from) however there are distinct words. There's enough evidence to see where day-age and day-day is used in Genesis alone, and day-day is what's used in Genesis 1. Many people go and see the verse that talks about a day being a thousand years in God's sight, however this is pulling things out of context. The Bible is not straightforward literal or figurative, you have to understand the context, the passage's intent, and also the general methods of ancient hebrew writing (if you want to really be in-depth). Very ancient hebrew literature enjoys saying things twice, once with literal events, once with the emotional human side of things. When you read the OT, especially the Pentateuch you'll see this happens a lot. This being said, genesis one is the literal sense, genesis two entails the relational one. There's still enough room for debate, but not quite as much as people give it. With this all being said, I think Gen 1:1 is meant to be literally taken, just for my own two cents.

Author:	gunluva [ Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:34 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
My view is, God made the Big bang happen. He helped it along a little bit, with the creation of the planets, shaping them as he saw fit. When he was done, he examined each planet for habitability, and chose earth. At least, that's the simple version of what I believe.

Author:	Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
I'm curious about this:

Author:	Droideka [ Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
I'm pretty sure that's in reference to teaching about the Bible (Meaning the woman is supposed to learn, not preach, like in church or whatever). I'll have to look up the context though.

Author:	HHFOV [ Thu May 01, 2008 12:51 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Bible FAQ: Doubts? Curiosities? Contradictions? Come here!
Right, and that's acceptable and not sexist...how?