Discussions on a ranges of philosophical issues including the nature of truth and reality, personal identity, mind-body theories, epistemology, justification of beliefs, argumentation and logic, philosophy of religion, free will and determinism, etc.
Jac3510 wrote:Only if you're willing, in context, to make the added point that this further proves that YECs don't believe yom means a twenty-four hour days since obviously Joshua's long "day" would have been LONGER thatn 24 hours!!! So see, long days are part of the meaning of yom.
See, you yecs can be reasonable!
Don't flatter us. Give a monkey a typewriter and enough time and he'll give you Romeo and Juliet. Give a YEC enough posts and he'll say something that his intellectual and theological betters can regard as reasonable.
bbyrd,
No. There is no such symbolism at all.
then that is what is true for you, and i am not inclined to change your mind there, ok. But God expresses the divine plan in the heavens, and smarter guys than me have concluded otherwise than your conclusions. i could give you a link to a Scriptural Astrologist, who is frankly still a bit fundie for my taste, still accepts Rapture, etc...but i do think he is very knowledgeable on this part of the elephant...
he's kind of hard to comprehend at first, ok, refuses to use the heathen names for any of the planets (or even ref them) so that is kind of a pain, but maybe it will serve to get you started. Yes, there is symbolism, and no, you do not have to believe that if you don't wanna.
Jac3510 wrote:Only if you're willing, in context, to make the added point that this further proves that YECs don't believe yom means a twenty-four hour days since obviously Joshua's long "day" would have been LONGER thatn 24 hours!!! So see, long days are part of the meaning of yom.
See, you yecs can be reasonable!
Don't flatter us. Give a monkey a typewriter and enough time and he'll give you Romeo and Juliet. Give a YEC enough posts and he'll say something that his intellectual and theological betters can regard as reasonable.
bbyrd,
No. There is no such symbolism at all.
then that is what is true for you, and i am not inclined to change your mind there, ok. But God expresses the divine plan in the heavens, and smarter guys than me have concluded otherwise than your conclusions. i could give you a link to a Scriptural Astrologist, who is frankly still a bit fundie for my taste, still accepts Rapture, etc...but i do think he is very knowledgeable on this part of the elephant...
he's kind of hard to comprehend at first, ok, refuses to use the heathen names for any of the planets (or even ref them) so that is kind of a pain, but maybe it will serve to get you started. Yes, there is symbolism, and no, you do not have to believe that if you don't wanna.
See Jac? It's midnight somewhere!
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
At bare minimum, retract this. I have a LOT of theological training and I don't see any reading other than "such literalisms."
did any of your training touch upon the symbolism of the sun as Christ, and the moon as the Church?
Where in the NT does it state that Christ is The Sun or The Church ( which is the Body of Christ), the moon?
i think these are inferred from their place in the solar system, the sun is obvious, the moon is "no light of its own, all reflected light from the sun," etc.
these are all derived from "God sets the heavens in order," paraphrased. Understand that this is not some different belief system or anything, just recognizing that God puts signs in the heavens, the heavens declare the glory of God, etc.
At bare minimum, retract this. I have a LOT of theological training and I don't see any reading other than "such literalisms."
did any of your training touch upon the symbolism of the sun as Christ, and the moon as the Church?
Where in the NT does it state that Christ is The Sun or The Church ( which is the Body of Christ), the moon?
i think these are inferred from their place in the solar system, the sun is obvious, the moon is "no light of its own, all reflected light from the sun," etc.
these are all derived from "God sets the heavens in order," paraphrased. Understand that this is not some different belief system or anything, just recognizing that God puts signs in the heavens, the heavens declare the glory of God, etc.
Do you pull this stuff out of Uranus?
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
Is there not an enormous problem with picking and choosing certain passages and trying to extract various specific parts and declaring them simply not true AT ALL???!!! And when we look at key passages, like the Creation accounts, Adam and Eve's creations and their falling into sin, the portions where Jesus confirms the OT and its purpose, where the Apostles re-enforce these things, the human lineages of Christ - can you claim they are untrue without ending up with tremendous theological problems, and without calling into doubt many key foundational theological understandings? Like a need for a Saviour, etc? Is it credible to think that neither any prophet, apostle or Jesus ever mentioned such an asserted problem with the truth or integrity of Scripture? Does their collective testimony not totally reject such a view as heresy???!!!
Is there not an enormous problem with picking and choosing certain passages and trying to extract various specific parts and declaring them simply not true AT ALL???!!! And when we look at key passages, like the Creation accounts, Adam and Eve's creations and their falling into sin, the portions where Jesus confirms the OT and its purpose, where the Apostles re-enforce these things, the human lineages of Christ - can you claim they are untrue without ending up with tremendous theological problems, and without calling into doubt many key foundational theological understandings? Like a need for a Saviour, etc? Is it credible to think that neither any prophet, apostle or Jesus ever mentioned such an asserted problem with the truth or integrity of Scripture? Does their collective testimony not totally reject such a view as heresy???!!!
Who is calling any of that "not true at all"?
Even neo, who doesn't hold to a literal view of Genesis, certainly believes they are true, or could be true, in some non-literal way.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Rick, let's take the matter of Jesus' confirmations of the OT as being Scripture, and that He came to fulfill the OT - how can those things be true, but not literally so? Now, I'm not asking whether Jesus was saying the Scriptures themselves were all LITERALLY true (as they can be true in various ways) - I'm asking how His CONFIRMATIONS that the OT is ALL God-given can be TRUE, without His assertions about this matter not being FACTUALLY true? Did He say this or not? Is it true or not? Because if it is not, then we have lots of creative writing and the ramblings of men indiscernibly mixed in with God's word. So which is it? Are such statements of Jesus literally true (meaning they are FACTUALLY so), or not?
Not even close. Mine was incredibly relevant, both lyrically and stylistically, to the point being made. In the most poetic fashion at that.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
Is there not an enormous problem with picking and choosing certain passages and trying to extract various specific parts and declaring them simply not true AT ALL???!!! And when we look at key passages, like the Creation accounts, Adam and Eve's creations and their falling into sin, the portions where Jesus confirms the OT and its purpose, where the Apostles re-enforce these things, the human lineages of Christ - can you claim they are untrue without ending up with tremendous theological problems, and without calling into doubt many key foundational theological understandings? Like a need for a Saviour, etc? Is it credible to think that neither any prophet, apostle or Jesus ever mentioned such an asserted problem with the truth or integrity of Scripture? Does their collective testimony not totally reject such a view as heresy???!!!
Rather than accuse, you could ask.
edit:
And for the record, I'm neither playing devil's advocate nor am secretly arguing on behalf of neo's position. But neo has earned my respect, at least, for his uncompromising commitment to trying to get at the truth as best as he understands it. He doesn't strike me as someone with a theological axe to grind or someone more interesting in proving their own position, evidence be damned, than he is in having a rational conversation. So while I have my own very deep concerns about some of his conclusions, I think rather than assume he's a neophyte (sorry, bad pun intended) who hasn't started to work though those very basic and fundamental ideas that he deserves a level of respect such that you should just ask about such things and how they fit in with the conclusions he's drawn on the matters about which you have so clearly stated your disagreements.
Totally unrelated, every once in awhile I impress myself with my ability to write a long, convoluted, and opaque sentence.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
It isn't an either/or situation ( either ALL is literal or none is).
The Bible is a collection of various TYPES of writings, we all know and agree on that.
These writings must be taken in the context of their literary genres and their intended audience.
EX:
Genesis ( and Exodus) is an ANE historical account of the origins of the Israelite people and nation.
It is written in the typical style and vein of the ANE of that time ( since it is to those people it was originally passed on to).
It is NOT:
A science book.
A history book written in modern methods with modern aims.
Philip wrote:Rick, let's take the matter of Jesus' confirmations of the OT as being Scripture, and that He came to fulfill the OT - how can those things be true, but not literally so? Now, I'm not asking whether Jesus was saying the Scriptures themselves were all LITERALLY true (as they can be true in various ways) - I'm asking how His CONFIRMATIONS that the OT is ALL God-given can be TRUE, without His assertions about this matter not being FACTUALLY true? Did He say this or not? Is it true or not? Because if it is not, then we have lots of creative writing and the ramblings of men indiscernibly mixed in with God's word. So which is it? Are such statements of Jesus literally true (meaning they are FACTUALLY so), or not?
i think the problem here is imagining that there is such a thing as objective or "factual" truth, when truth is better characterized as a moving target, perhaps; and evidenced by the "fact" that you cannot name any absolute truth, none whatsoever. Try, and see what happens. The Bible Itself will disagree with you, imo.
Philip wrote:Rick, let's take the matter of Jesus' confirmations of the OT as being Scripture, and that He came to fulfill the OT - how can those things be true, but not literally so? Now, I'm not asking whether Jesus was saying the Scriptures themselves were all LITERALLY true (as they can be true in various ways) - I'm asking how His CONFIRMATIONS that the OT is ALL God-given can be TRUE, without His assertions about this matter not being FACTUALLY true? Did He say this or not? Is it true or not? Because if it is not, then we have lots of creative writing and the ramblings of men indiscernibly mixed in with God's word. So which is it? Are such statements of Jesus literally true (meaning they are FACTUALLY so), or not?
i think the problem here is imagining that there is such a thing as objective or "factual" truth, when truth is better characterized as a moving target, perhaps; and evidenced by the "fact" that you cannot name any absolute truth, none whatsoever. Try, and see what happens. The Bible Itself will disagree with you, imo.
You do realize that if there is no objective truth and all truth is subjective ( which must be the case if there is no objective truth) then what you said is, at best, truth for you and at worse, no truth at all.
Philip wrote:Rick, let's take the matter of Jesus' confirmations of the OT as being Scripture, and that He came to fulfill the OT - how can those things be true, but not literally so? Now, I'm not asking whether Jesus was saying the Scriptures themselves were all LITERALLY true (as they can be true in various ways) - I'm asking how His CONFIRMATIONS that the OT is ALL God-given can be TRUE, without His assertions about this matter not being FACTUALLY true? Did He say this or not? Is it true or not? Because if it is not, then we have lots of creative writing and the ramblings of men indiscernibly mixed in with God's word. So which is it? Are such statements of Jesus literally true (meaning they are FACTUALLY so), or not?
i think the problem here is imagining that there is such a thing as objective or "factual" truth, when truth is better characterized as a moving target, perhaps; and evidenced by the "fact" that you cannot name any absolute truth, none whatsoever. Try, and see what happens. The Bible Itself will disagree with you, imo.
You do realize that if there is no objective truth and all truth is subjective ( which must be the case if there is no objective truth) then what you said is, at best, truth for you and at worse, no truth at all.
then i invite you to state an objective truth, and you should have no problems doing that!
