Evidence for God from Science

twinc wrote:there are Bibles many and various ad infinitum - for Catholics there are Catholic Bibles and the rule for interpretation is "the literal and obvious sense must always be accepted first unless reason or necessity dictate otherwise and the, onus of proof for deviation, from the original or obvious sense, lies with the deviator" - for the Church the majority acceptance by the Church Fathers is the norm as the faith of our fathers - come home now - twinc

twinc wrote:it seems the confusion/s is in you and not in the Bible - I find no confusion - so guess where the problem is - twinc

PaulSacramento wrote:

secretfire6 wrote:I just meant it's in the wrong location, not that its interpreted or translated wrong. it doesnt make logical sense to end one chapter and begin another in the middle of a statement. verses 1-4 are still talking about the same things as chapter 1 and in the same way, then suddenly verse 5 takes us into a whole new point of reference, into a whole new time and is a new style of writting. Thats what i mean..the verse that is labeled 5 is actually the first verse of chapter 2. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen this and I'm also sure that editors and writers of newer versions of the Bible have thought about all the complaints, accusations and threats they would recieve and weighed them against the thought of how big a deal it really is to have mislabeled verses and chapters...not too much. I never assume translators of a Bible are dummies, but I also know alot of politics and economics go into making a new Bible. What the translators present to the editors and publishers may not be what ends up in the hands of the people.
What if we do find something in the modern Bible that IS wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt? Should we carry it on for tradition's sake, but put a footnote on it, or take the risk and find the correction? Most go the footnote route, even putting entire verses and chapters in italics and noting that they may not be real scripture, but do appear in certain other versions in some places. Then you have ones that are seemingly ignored, like this: English Bibles record Jesus telling Nicodemus that "unless a man is born again, he may not see the kingdom..." but the copies of the ancient Greek scriptures record Jesus telling him "unless a man is born from above, he may not see the kingdom..." the Greek word that is there means 'from above' or 'from the heavens', but people still translate it as "again" and there isn't even a single word for "again" in Ancient Greek. You would have to have the word 'reborn' to convey that idea. Similar issue with his second statement. "one must be born from water and from spirit" is how it is in most English Bibles and gives the idea that there are 2 seperate things that must be done before you are saved, but in Greek he says "one must be born of water, even the spirit" which conveys the idea that the water and spirit are the same thing, which confirms his first statement of being born from above.
I know I may sound knit picky and OCD and I appologize for that, but if I wasnt this way, I'd still be very confused about the Bible and it's message to us and would be relying on the conflicting interpretations of differing religious branches. Until I look things up, do research and prayer and find something concrete...some REASON to understand things the way I do, I must take everything i see and hear with a grain of salt.

I understand completely, some people that the opinions and interpretations of others as "gospel" and others require more research on their own.
Many paths to Our Lord.
There are a lot of different views, even in orthodox christian teachings.
Look at evangelicals, there are different types of "milleanianists" for example.
To say that the bible gives us only ONE view of every doctrine is very mistake, because if it did, why the many denominations? why the reform movement? why the divisions within protestantisim, why orthodox and Roman Catholic?
The great thinkers and theologians of the past were NOT perfect, not even close and yet, many of their teachings are still held on to and h ave become doctrine.

RickD wrote:I just thought about this question. If the flood was truly global as some creationists suggest, and the tops of the highest mountains were covered, including Mt. Everest, then how did those on the ark breathe? If Mt. Everest is 29,000 feet above sea level, and water seeks its own level, then the ark must have been floating over 29,000 feet above sea level. How did Noah, his family, and all the animals breathe with the low oxygen levels at that height? Just a thought for the YECs to ponder. I'm sure it's been discussed before, but it's new to me.

twinc wrote:

RickD wrote:I just thought about this question. If the flood was truly global as some creationists suggest, and the tops of the highest mountains were covered, including Mt. Everest, then how did those on the ark breathe? If Mt. Everest is 29,000 feet above sea level, and water seeks its own level, then the ark must have been floating over 29,000 feet above sea level. How did Noah, his family, and all the animals breathe with the low oxygen levels at that height? Just a thought for the YECs to ponder. I'm sure it's been discussed before, but it's new to me.

these are FAQs easily answered again and again - so in return how about telling us all how long the forty days of rain of the local flood were - twinc

twinc wrote:Rick,your question was answered long ago - there was no Mt.Everest before the Flood but was created from sea level by the Flood which triggered continental drift and collosion etc - twinc