Originally Posted by pizzaguy
(This post NOT directed at anyone here.)
I have been reading the Bible for 32 years now. I find the following to be the truth:
1) The Bible was not meant to tell us HOW God did anything. It is not intended as a source of technical or scientific knowledge.
2) It IS intended to tell us WHAT God did, the whys of His way, etc.
Having said that, while there is no big pack of scientific knowledge in there, there will NOT be anything "wrong" in there, either. Take for example the old testament phrase, "He hangeth the earth on nothing".
Now, this was written over 2,000 years ago. It is hard to understand the phrase unless you know that:
... the earth is round, not flat.
... the earth DOES "hang" without any huge elephant, giant man or other wierd thing holding it up!
So, over 2,000 years ago, the Bible was describing what we now know is true: the earth is a round ball that somehow (magically to those minds back then) hangs with no "support".
I get very irritated when preachers/believers/etc. try to make the Bible a scientific text, because I don't see it as one. While, again, there will be nothing technically incorrect - I still say that I have found VERY LITTLE in it that is technical at all!!!!!
It just wasn't intended to be technical, it was intended to be aimed at the HEART.
1.) Well, of course not. I'm refuting a previous contributor's assertion that 'scientists' had a hand in the writing.
2.) Well, he certainly seems to be just like us, designed in our image with the same jealousy & envy humans have. He's murderous, capricious & vengeful, JUST the guy I'd like to follow!
3.) He hangeth - please list just where this passage is found. I'd like to see for myself just what this is in reference to.
As to your second post: that would be an incorrect definition. The correct one would be:
Denial of the existence of God.
As to your assertion that an invisible being created all we see in 7 days (or, at least
this one. BTW, stolen directly from Sumerian creation myths) I see that it makes at least as much sense as the big bang.
The big bang is our
best attempt to describe how all we see around us was created. It is NOT set in stone & the whole theory can be dumped tomorrow if we find something better. Your belief that an invisible diety waved his hands & voila', instantly created everything is as not as fanciful an idea as the big bang is how?
I'm not interested in getting into this argument on this thread. I'd rather let John's comments stand where they are. If you guys are interested in carrying this no-win discussion on further I would like to, once again, suggest you take it here & stay civil:
https://www.crossfireforum.org/forum...e-general.html