Evidence for God from Science

Kristoff, you have shown that you aren't really here to discuss and aren't interested in Christianity. It seems you have made up your mind about us and our beliefs. At this point it might be wise for you to read over the Board Purpose and guidelines. We are not here as your punching bag to ridicule our beliefs as myth.

If you are here then you will abide by our board purposes.

Kristoffer wrote:Aren't you guys just taking a myth a little to literally? I am fine with Jesus, but this garden story... come on it would be easier to accept it as a buetiful poetical story rather than a 100% fact.

Why all this arguing

Kristoffer, I will try and find some works on this issue - of how mythological or how literal the creation story is in the bible. Obviously, people disagree about this. In the creation story, there are essential truths about the Christian faith (and Judaism, of course) that affect theology and doctrine, so how these are considered is very important. People can discuss and debate them here though - it's perfectly fine. What matters in the end is whether you believe Christ is the son of God, and that He died as a sacrifice for your sins (personally), and that you accept Him as Lord. After that, things will fall into place (though most of it is a slow process), yet some mysteries will remain. The creation story is like that - much is a mystery. But disagreement about it does not mean one person is saved and one person is not.

I haven't made my mind up, but you seem to want to make it up for me.

I have read the forum guidelines and purpose twice, maybe a third time will help?

I don't consider it a ridicule to call something a myth, lots of the myths of Norse gods that I know of are very exciting tales, don't you think it would be absurd for me to not call THÓR or ODIN a mythological character? Then why cant I call Adem one

Please forgive me, ja okí¨j? Third time lucky!(i go check those threads again and again if it comes down too it)

If Adam is a myth, then we aren't all sinners. So, it's very important theologically. Christ would not have had to come to make right what Adam did. What Adam did, and what Christ did, affects the whole world through all of time. One can take it seriously or not, but it does not compare to Thor or any other mythological being. People who study mythology do not view many of the biblical stories as myths; they are not written as myths or in the same style, they are written as history.

This is a nice and concise writing on the historicity/mythology of Genesis, chapters 1-11. It is from The Apologetics Study Bible, page 2:

"The parallels between chapters 1-11 and creation and flood myths have elicited the question, Is the Bible merely a Hebrew version of myths about beginnings?

When weighing the importance of parallels, these principles should be kept in mind. First, not all parallels are equally significant, since minor ones can be attributed to common content. Second, the identity of who is borrowing from whom cannot be definitively concluded. Often it is best to assume a universal memory as the source. Third, the functions of the stories are much different. For example, the flood story of the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic is incidental to the main idea of telling how Gilgamesh sought immortality. In the Bible, by contrast, the flood narrative is central to the development of the theme.

That the Bible's theology is divergent from the polytheism of antiquity argues against the Bible's dependence on sources from other cultures. The author of Genesis was aware of the cultural context of the nations and often crafted his accounts to counter the prevailing view. The historical framework of chapters 1-11 (e.g. 'these are the records of,' 2:4; 5:1) and the genealogies (chaps. 4-5; 10-11) indicate that the author presented a historical account, not a literary myth."

Kristoffer,

Aren't you guys just taking a myth a little to literally? I am fine with Jesus, but this garden story... come on it would be easier to accept it as a buetiful poetical story rather than a 100% fact.

First, it is not written as Hebrew poetry. Second, please give me one or two things that you think indicate it to be myth. You may have more, but let's start slow.

Thanks

By the way, nice posts cslewislover.

I like for people to read the Enuma Elish and once their head stops hurting read Genesis one. They are very different. History verses a myth. Genesis one and two can be tested by looking at science. If it is real history, we will see its story and science's story growing closer together. They are.

If Adam is a Metaphor for "every man", then we are still just all sinners.

Even as just a story, it can still be a story with truth. Its just about the one and only old bible book story that I have read, other than king Salomon(and his many wives)

Kristoffer wrote:If Adam is a Metaphor for "every man", then we are still just all sinners.

Even as just a story, it can still be a story with truth. Its just about the one and only old bible book story that I have read, other than king Salomon(and his many wives)

We know we're all sinners, so . . . your point? You really need to get caught up on some basics of Christianity before you'll be able to have a conversation here. You at least could ask questions about it, instead of just stating your opinions all of the time (many/most [all?] of them uneducated opinions about our faith). So who says Adam is a metaphor for every man? Who believes that? I'm asking you, since you state this. Is this just your view of it, without studying it further?

So my point was is that there doesn't have to be a real Adam. that was it. (p.s.it was my neighbour who told me it was "just a storey" and a "full of metaphorical statements")

If you think I need to read Up on the basics, then what better place to turn than your Holy Library(bible), which book from it would give me what you call "basics"?

Also even if some of the things in it do match science sort of, kind of: it doesn't make it a historical document. It just means it has some things accurate. Heck the whole story could be true in a WAY, just not true in a literal sense...you would have to be a real fundementalic crazy house to think so, ní«j?

Kristoffer wrote:So my point was is that there doesn't have to be a real Adam. that was it. (p.s.it was my neighbour who told me it was "just a storey" and a "full of metaphorical statements")

If you think I need to read Up on the basics, then what better place to turn than your Holy Library(bible), which book from it would give me what you call "basics"?

Also even if some of the things in it do match science sort of, kind of: it doesn't make it a historical document. It just means it has some things accurate. Heck the whole story could be true in a WAY, just not true in a literal sense...you would have to be a real fundementalic crazy house to think so, ní«j?

Points to consider...

So you, by faith, take what your neighbor stated as true?

If you wanted to get to the Biltmore hotel in NC would you use a map or would you use a menu from a Chinese restaurant? Why is it so difficult to come to terms that God left humanity one set of directions back to him so we could be sure not to get lost?

Lastly, please define what you think the word sin means...

Thank You
-
-
-

Kristoffer wrote:So my point was is that there doesn't have to be a real Adam. that was it. (p.s.it was my neighbour who told me it was "just a storey" and a "full of metaphorical statements")

If you think I need to read Up on the basics, then what better place to turn than your Holy Library(bible), which book from it would give me what you call "basics"?

Also even if some of the things in it do match science sort of, kind of: it doesn't make it a historical document. It just means it has some things accurate. Heck the whole story could be true in a WAY, just not true in a literal sense...you would have to be a real fundementalic crazy house to think so, ní«j?

You seem somewhat open, and hopefully aren't here just to annoy us, but you just keep coming off as so arrogant (plus you changed someone's quote here already, which is highly unethical). How can you just willy-nilly say this and that about the Bible, parts of which have been around for 1000s and 1000s of years, when tons of people through time have studied it and made sure it was copied completely accurately, when today we know more about it than ever - about how reliable it is - from historical and archaeological studies (besides linguistically and others)? You're insulting to all who spend their time to meticulously research the authenticity and truthfulness of the Bible; what have YOU done in this regard? What possible basis do you have for your opinion? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Yet you're out here stating this stuff in public, and apparently not too worried about whether you have a soul that is immortal or not, and what it could all mean in the end. And yes, please do read the Bible, that's what you should be doing. This is from the book of Romans, chapter 1 (NIV, from Biblegateway).

19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Since you asked somewhere about if the Bible says anything about homosexuality, here is one place it does, so I just continued the passage.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Ní«j I haven't changed no-ones quote here, that's my neighbour who is actually has a proper degree in theological stuff. What i say is, if you want to finish with your conclusion with how it is accurate that is fine...But it isn't okí«j to begin with a conclusion and work from there. So if they attacked the problem with no preconceivations then I could trust its truthworthedness.

You are right, I am not worried about my "immortal soul", Should I be? Really I have enough burdens as it is with work, the daily commute and getting used to life out in the country. The basis of my opinion? I asked the theologist. He offered an answer, to his authority I accepted it. I could explain his answer, perhaps I could get the man to elaborate for me but he really know his subject!

IS that KRISTUS in the new book??? talking about Homosexuality?

Anyway I really appreciate the chance to understand this stuff, I don't consider it wasted time to use my mind for a little enquiring.

You need to explain yourself, about how you can simply claim the bible is inaccurate. What parts? Even secular scholars agree that it is accurate when it comes to history, and there could be discussion about other parts (dealing with science, dealing with doctrine, etc), so your statement does not stand. If you want to remain here, or have any discussions with anyone, you need to know what you're talking about! What theologian are you talking about??? You keep just stating opinions with nothing to back them up. And yes, even professional theologians have different opinions, but on the basics of the faith they agree. If the bible wasn't authentic and accurate, then there would be no basis for faith. You do not seem like you want to learn here, really. If you completely think the bible is unreliable and inaccurate, then what is the point?

Why do you care if it was a quote from Christ or not? If the bible isn't accurate, then how could you trust that "the words of Christ" are even his?? We believe Christ is "the word" (the bible), as was stated by John in the beginning of the Book of John. The part of the bible I quoted from was written after Christ was resurrected, but it matters not. The words in the bible are of Christ's mind. We don't just cut out Christ's words from the bible and say that's it! We follow the whole bible, as the word of God.

Kristoffer wrote:The basis of my opinion? I asked the theologist. He offered an answer, to his authority I accepted it. I could explain his answer, perhaps I could get the man to elaborate for me but he really know his subject!

You may find that many here also 'know their subject'. There are young earth creationsists, old earth creationists, those who don't agree with evolution and those who take Adam literally, which is most I would imagine. If you really can't believe why someone would would adhere to any of these notions, just ask. Most are rather willing to chat about it.

I think you will find it difficult to find people without any preconceived notions to talk to, people tend to have them. You yourself seem to have preconceived ideas about many of the notions regularly expressed here, as do I. You may find it more fruitful to ask how these people conceived these notions that seem so alien to you. You may find that they have put a great deal of thought into it and may even come to think they know more than the guy next door to you - or even more than you!