TLW,

I am so disappointed in you that I can't express it in words. You decided to start this feud, even though I asked you nicely not to. Think about if you are doing good with this. Pray and ask God if you are doing right.

Why would god need to rest... if he doesn't get tired?

Isaiah 40:28 - Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

(P.S. This does not reflect my beliefs, just my curiosity.)

I'll be back later, it's an easy answer, but someone is waiting for me and I want to make sure that I make it clear and simple to understand.

5 o'clock I have to go...

Sounds good to me. I await your rebuttal. No rush.

again He does not need to rest. It was a way of saying that we need to keep the seventh day in His honor. That's all.

I'm just giving a logical answer that you couldn't.
why are you making this such a big deal?

thnx TLW

With all due respect Spider I think Miguel has made a very good point. Even all believers in the Bible don't accept the same interpretations and you're out to try to disprove potential inconsistencies?

I was a Free Methodist and they believed much like TLW describes concerning the 6-day creation. They take it as an allegory and they don't demand that it be taken literally.

I think this brings to light a very real concern. You are going to argue against accusations of 'contradictions' in the Bible, yet not all believers in the Bible even agree that all the stories should even be taken to mean the same things.

My view on the 6-day creation interpretation as being a mere allegory is every bit as valid as any Christian because it was indeed the view that I was taught when I was a Christian. My church would agree with TLW's assessment completely.

Also, why should you say that you are "so disappointed in TLW?". What are you? His father?

In all seriousness Spider, sometimes you exhibit such extremely authority that I think the whole "god" picture has gone to your head. I don't mean that as an insult. I'm seriously concerned about it. You always talk down to everyone else like as if your word is final and anything they have to say is a disappointment to you. And then you get so easily insulted when they disagree with you.

That's just not normal Spider.

Going around telling other Christians that you are disappointed in them for not agreeing with your interpretations is truly not cool.

Didn't you read his insults for me?

Don't you EVER read a post before you jump on me?



That's what disappoints me, that we have to have a feud about who is right: Catholics or Protestants. It's pointless.

Genesis 2:2


"shabath" is translated in Genesis 2:2 as "rest". Shabath more oftenly translated as "cease", but it can mean rest. In the context of Genesis 2:2, the proper translation would be "ceased". God didn't rest, God stopped working (creating).

You were taking his comments about fundamentalist's views as a personal insult?

Fundamentalists insist on a verbatim approach to scripture, TLW thinks that's logically indefensible, as do most non-fundmentalists.

All he was basically saying is that he disagrees with Fundamentalism. And you take that as a personal insult?

You are way overly senstive Spider, no wonder you're always claiming personal insult.

I didn't see that as a personal insult at all. And I'm totally in agreement with him that Fundamentalists don't have the logical answers to prove their points.

I think the vast majority of people would agree with this.

After all, if they agreed that Fundamentalists are making any progress at proving their points they'd all become Fundamentalists. Fortunately Fundamentalists are an extreme minority. We can thank God for that.

NOAH'S FLOOD

Genesis 6:5


In the time immediately before the flood, people were dedicated to evil. God found evil in the hearts of all men.

John 3:23


In the time of Jesus, we see that the Jews were repentant and were going into the desert to be baptized by John the Baptist.

That's the difference between the two times, many of the Jews in the time of Jesus were repentant for their sins and sought salvation, but during Noah's days, the hearts of men were turned towards wickedness.

Another difference is that no man before the flood had so impressed God as Abraham did. God blessed Abraham with a blessing that promised of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

Genesis 22:18

He was responding to one of my posts. What don't you get? He was calling me a "fundie" and stating that I cannot logically defend the six day creation, which I can. But as I said, the physical evidence isn't strong enough yet to make a good case. There is evidence, but not enough right now.

This is precisely the argument I expected.

The reason that I personally reject this argument is because it only looks at the precise moment in the times of the actual stories. However, we can't do that. That's not the full picture.

There had to have been a time prior to the flood when all men were not evil and many indeed were seeking to serve God. Therefore the argument that, because every man was evil at the time of the flood the situation on the ground was different, doesn't hold water (if you'll excuse the pun).

It doesn't hold water, because that's merely the pinnacle of the story, but there must have been times earlier, prior to the flood, when all men were not evil and therefore those times would have been equal opportunities for God to have offered salvation before he allowed the whole world to become corrupt.

I've thought of all these possibilities before Spider. This explanation does not hold water IMHO.



Again, IMHO, this argument doesn't hold water for two reasons.

First reason: Noah Himself

It doesn't hold water because of Noah himself. You say that no one impressed God as much as Abraham did, but evidently Noah must have impressed God, as well as his entire family, including his in-laws.

So again, IMHO, this doesn't hold water as a rational explanation for the behavioral change of God.

Second reason: This is nothing more than a concession that God does indeed change

This concedes that God's behavior did change and just offers a justification for the change. But God is supposed to be unchanging. This is saying that God is allowed to change if he has a good enough excuse to change.

But that would mean that if Abraham could cause God to change his behavior, then maybe some other man can also cause God to change his behavior. Again, we're right back to a God who can change. But that was my original assertion. The biblical story is a story about a God who supposedly never changes. Making excuses for why he might have changed is nothing more than a concession that he did indeed change.

If he could change for Abraham, then maybe he's willing to change again for Jay Leno. It doesn't matter because it's still a God who changes how he deals with humanity. It's a concession that the unchanging God of the Bible does indeed change.

I'm ready to put it to a vote and see what the people have to say, unless you have more to add.

This is an assumption not based on evidence. Unless you can offer evidence to support this position, then this point will be ignored.



Yes, Noah impressed God, but only enough to be saved, not enough to become the foundation of the line that would lead to the salvation of the world.

God saved Lot from Soddom, but Lot offered his daughters up to be raped. Lot wasn't a holy man, but he was a repentant man. God didn't have reason to bless Lot, like he did Abraham. And God didn't have a reason to bless Noah as greatly.

Just because God blesses someone, doesn't mean God has to give this, the greatest blessing to them.



No, that's not true. God doesn't change and these incidents prove that. The people in Noah's day had to be punished, just like the people in Jesus' day. Jesus took that punishment upon himself, instead of God wiping out humanity again. Also, you are judging them as equal still, which ignores my argument of the wicked generation of Noah, which has not been refuted with any evidence. Since the people in Jesus' time were dedicated to being saved, God could treat them as they deserved. It's not a "change" to treat people as they deserve to be treated. And before you argue that the people before the flood were treated unfairly, that's not true. Noah was saved by his faith in God's ability to save him. Those people before the flood were saved through sacrifice (as a symbol of faith) and faith. The people before the flood were also saved through Jesus' sacrifice.

Hebrews 4:3

What???

I thought we were going to put this to a vote????

Who are you to claim what should be ignored????

This is so typical of you Spider.

Just put it to a vote already.

I was polite enough to give you the last word.

Let's hear what the people have to say. Take the poll of how many Christians, and non-Christians are reading the threads tonight.

I gave you the last word. You have nothing to complain about. Email all your Christian friends and have them swamp the thread with votes.

I'll just sit here and watch.

Abra,

You once said to me "I am a human and I have feelings" do you think I don't? You suggest that I would cheat and I guess I shouldn't be hurt. It's a really bad day for me and to do this. We'll just have to take this to one point.

Let's have a vote. If you feel the above argument is valid without any supporting evidence, say "Aye". If you think it is an invalid argument because it lacks evidence, say "Nay"

I didn't suggest that you would cheat. I didn't say that you would tell them how to vote.