View Full Version : Catholic Church no longer swears Bible to be all true
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
[
12]
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
CybrSage
10-24-05, 11:40 AM
I'm not Catholic bashing, but does the Bible support the worship of Mary?
No. The Bible is very clear that she was just a normal sinner like everyone else (Mary said so herself). It also says that people should not pray to statues (graven images) and also says to stay away from those who prohibit marriage (calls it a doctrine of demons).
Jazzy jeff
10-24-05, 02:04 PM
Yeah, that's what I thought too. I remember a few years back when the last Pope came out and said Evolution was true- They basically threw the Bible out the window with that one.:thumbdwn:
Yeah, that's what I thought too. I remember a few years back when the last Pope came out and said Evolution was true- They basically threw the Bible out the window with that one.:thumbdwn:
No it didn't. It just shows that the story of Genesis is a fable and is not meant to be taken literally. The Bible is supposed to give spiritual meaning to things, not provide a scientific explaination of everything like a text book. As long as you don't confuse religion with science, you can believe in the bible and follow science at the same time. Most modern christians do that, with the exception of 99% of American christians, who for some reason have a hard time with it.
No it didn't. It just shows that the story of Genesis is a fable and is not meant to be taken literally. The Bible is supposed to give spiritual meaning to things, not provide a scientific explaination of everything like a text book. As long as you don't confuse religion with science, you can believe in the bible and follow science at the same time. Most modern christians do that, with the exception of 99% of American christians, who for some reason have a hard time with it.
:wtf:
netviper13
10-24-05, 04:51 PM
No it didn't. It just shows that the story of Genesis is a fable and is not meant to be taken literally. The Bible is supposed to give spiritual meaning to things, not provide a scientific explaination of everything like a text book. As long as you don't confuse religion with science, you can believe in the bible and follow science at the same time. Most modern christians do that, with the exception of 99% of American christians, who for some reason have a hard time with it.
:clap:
CybrSage
10-25-05, 09:03 AM
with the exception of 99% of American christians
Did you know that 87.547% of percentages quoted on Internet Forums are made up on the spot?
Jazzy jeff
10-25-05, 10:43 AM
No it didn't. It just shows that the story of Genesis is a fable and is not meant to be taken literally. The Bible is supposed to give spiritual meaning to things, not provide a scientific explaination of everything like a text book. As long as you don't confuse religion with science, you can believe in the bible and follow science at the same time. Most modern christians do that, with the exception of 99% of American christians, who for some reason have a hard time with it.
The world was either created in 6 days or 6 billion years. You can spiritualize all you want, but there's no harmony between God speaking the world into existance and scientific Darwinism.:D
Did you know that 87.547% of percentages quoted on Internet Forums are made up on the spot?
Yes im sorry. It was actually 100%.
My percentage wasn't made up, its just my own personal experience. I have never met an American Christian who could accept both religion and science. I've met plenty of Christians in the UK who could though.
The world was either created in 6 days or 6 billion years. You can spiritualize all you want, but there's no harmony between God speaking the world into existance and scientific Darwinism.:D
People of the time likely had no word for "billion" or "billion years". Rather the story of genesis was broken up into "days" to indicate discreet steps. They may not indicate the passage of time at all (time has no meaning to God anyway), but if they did a "day" could translate into a billion years. So yes you can still accept the too, aslong as you don't take the Genesis as being literally specific.
People of the time likely had no word for "billion" or "billion years". Rather the story of genesis was broken up into "days" to indicate discreet steps. They may not indicate the passage of time at all (time has no meaning to God anyway), but if they did a "day" could translate into a billion years. So yes you can still accept the too, aslong as you don't take the Genesis as being literally specific.
In continental asia, they did have words for numbers much larger than 1 billion.
CybrSage
10-25-05, 11:45 AM
People of the time likely had no word for "billion" or "billion years". Rather the story of genesis was broken up into "days" to indicate discreet steps. They may not indicate the passage of time at all (time has no meaning to God anyway), but if they did a "day" could translate into a billion years. So yes you can still accept the too, aslong as you don't take the Genesis as being literally specific.
I agree. I view "day" as being just an age, a chunk of time. Same was as in saying "Back in Napoleon's day". We know Napoleon had many days, thus we mean an era, an age.
I believe Genesis is very generic. God did not mention anything about DNA, it would have confused them. Heck, Genesis does not even mention the battle in Heaven and the fall of Satan, yet we know that happened before man was created. It was not mentioned because it was not relevant to the discussion, which was the creation of man.
Same with the 40 days. 40 represented "a lot" to them, much as "a billion" means to us.
Jazzy jeff
10-25-05, 04:04 PM
A day is a 24 hour time period. They may not have had clocks back in the day, but the sun still came up and then it went down- not a difficult concept. I dont understand how someone can call themself a Christian and yet deny the very foundation of the Bible- Creation. Creation sets forth the greatness and power of God and the beginning of mankind. I guess I show my 'intelligence' by believing my great grandparents were monkeys and that the world magically created itself over billions of years. :eek:
In the ancient world the day ended when the sun went down, for example Saturday would begin at 6:00PM on what we would call Friday.
Wrt to the bible, I believe it is the Word of God. I also belive that sciene is now reveling how God created the world.
CybrSage
10-25-05, 05:26 PM
A day is a 24 hour time period. They may not have had clocks back in the day, but the sun still came up and then it went down- not a difficult concept. I dont understand how someone can call themself a Christian and yet deny the very foundation of the Bible- Creation. Creation sets forth the greatness and power of God and the beginning of mankind. I guess I show my 'intelligence' by believing my great grandparents were monkeys and that the world magically created itself over billions of years. :eek:
Can you show me where the devil waged war in heaven, and his subsequent fall, inside the creation timeline? From what I have read, it does not appear in either the first or the second telling.
By your own logic, Satan never fell.
Can you show me where the devil waged war in heaven, and his subsequent fall, inside the creation timeline? From what I have read, it does not appear in either the first or the second telling.
By your own logic, Satan never fell.
Creation and the fall of satan are separate.
Jazzy jeff
10-26-05, 07:08 AM
The story of Genesis is limited on the details about God and the angels and their origins. I believe the angels and Satan were around long before us, but I cant prove it. I do know that Satan took the form of a serpant and deceived Adam and Eve. Well actually Eve was deceived, because she chose to believe the serpent's lie instead of God's word and Adam ate the fruit probably out of love for his wife. But if you study the account closely the sin behind what they did was unbelief. Eating the forbidden fruit was just the result of their lack of faith.
sytaylor
10-26-05, 07:31 AM
*bites lip*
I'm with cybr that the author's version of "day" and the literal meaning of the word day are two different things.
CybrSage
10-26-05, 10:38 AM
Exactly what I mean with the creation story. It starts with God creating everything and goes directly into the creation of life on earth. If you take a literal view of it, you have to say the angels were never created...or they were created before the beginning and before heaven.
Since we know they were created after the beginning (only God was around at the beginning, He is the prime mover) we can conclude God created the angels after the beginning. This means they had to be created during the creation story, but they are not listed there. This can only mean the story cannot be taken literally.
sytaylor
10-26-05, 11:14 AM
Or you could be really adventerous and salute his noodly appendage.
Ninjaman09
10-26-05, 11:36 AM
Or you could be really adventerous and salute his noodly appendage.
It's His Noodly Appendage that has been pulling the strings since the beginning anyway. The Bible was written as a trick to test the peoples' faith in the one true Lord.
Jazzy jeff
10-26-05, 01:46 PM
You prove my point perfectly. You've had evolution and dinosaurs cramed down your throat from the time you were in elementary school, so creation is an alien concept to you. If you start mincing words you can make the Bible say whatever you want. I believe there's a verse in Genesis or Job where it says 'all the sons of God shouted for joy at the works of your hand', or something like that. I dont have a Bible with me, but its an allusion to the fact that the angels were present at creation, which must mean they were already created.
CybrSage
10-26-05, 02:59 PM
Oh, I agree they were there during the creation of the earth and man and such. But they were not there before God created them. The Genesis story does not show when God created them...because it was not relevant.
It happened, though, so if Genesis is to be taken 100% literally, the story needs to have them being created too.
Since Genesis does not mention Angels, yet starts with "The Beginning", either angels were not created (we know this is not true) or Genesis is not to be taken literally.
It happened, though, so if Genesis is to be taken 100% literally, the story needs to have them being created too.
Since Genesis does not mention Angels, yet starts with "The Beginning", either angels were not created (we know this is not true) or Genesis is not to be taken literally.
No it doesn't. Angels are not human. They are created by God for God. Creation does not need the story of the creation of angels to be take 100% serious. It stands on its own. You either believe it or you don't. The reason Genisis talks about man is that man is God's favored creation because of our free will. We chose to believe in God the angels had no choice. They know God and they believe in Him. Satan believes in God but he wanted to be God.
When we die we do not become angels. We recieve our resurection body which is new.
sytaylor
10-26-05, 04:03 PM
I'm interested in how your imaginations perceive heaven to be, and the afterlife. Since it is shaped very much by the bible, yet very few details are given within the bible on the afterlife itself. It is essentially in adulthood, unchanged from the limitless possibilites in childhood.
I'm interested in how your imaginations perceive heaven to be, and the afterlife. Since it is shaped very much by the bible, yet very few details are given within the bible on the afterlife itself. It is essentially in adulthood, unchanged from the limitless possibilites in childhood.
I'm not interested in being talked down to.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.