Author Topic: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED  (Read 45515 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Lefein

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1170
  • Gender: Male
Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #25 on: September 08, 2010, 02:52:15 AM »
If -GOD- created mankind via Evolution, we are the carefully sculpted images of God.
CLV: Proverbs 10:12 Hatred, it rouses up quarrels, Yet love covers over all transgressions.
KJV: Proverbs 10:12 Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.

Offline thinktank

  • Silver
  • *
  • Posts: 2672
Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #26 on: September 08, 2010, 03:14:00 AM »
If -GOD- created mankind via Evolution, we are the carefully sculpted images of God.

Not really because evolution states that the species evolves for it's own advantage or survival. But God does not look for it's own but for the benefit for others.

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #27 on: September 08, 2010, 03:17:31 AM »
Lol, I can only hope the wisdom isn't mine to begin with. :p

But thanks for the compliment anyhow!  I hope it'll be a blessing to you as it was to me.  After having long, drawn out, vicious battles with Atheists over my YEC beliefs...which have since then become "Either way, doesn't matter, God is God", it really helped me when it came to me that the beginning of the book, is fitting to be like the end. ^^

I mean do people really believe a man lived in the belly of a whale?  While anything is possible with God I am more apt to believe many of the stories are symbolic in nature.  Jesus spoke in parables...nonliteral stories to teach lessons.  Why would Christians take issue with looking at other scripture like that?

Yeah YEC has serious problems with validity.  I could more align myself with OEC...progressive creationists or even theisitic evolutionists.  I believe the book of Genesis is a nonliteral accounting of creation.  I believe the imagery is symbolic.  If it's not...then you have alot of dancing to do in order for it to make sense.  While some say science should fit the Bible.  I say science will fit the Bible...but only if interpreted correctly.

I'm certainly open to many things being symbolic.  I'm just generally not sure what is and what isn't in many places :sigh:.  I personally feel a need to be very careful picking and choosing - I believe I need deeper revelation on various issues to know which is which.

Anyway, we're in danger of hijacking/derailing this thread, and I'm participating.   :punish:  I won't vouch for its scientific accuaracy, because I just don't know.  However, I found the following interesting.  It may at least encourage us to take extreme care with what we judge as literal vs. symbolic.  If we wander too far and too long off-topic, I'll split this into another thread...

This from Michigan University Internet Church site;  "Yes, even though some may say that a whale couldn't swallow a man, as well as live in its belly for 3 days.  First of all, Jesus believed it (Matthew 12:40).  Secondly, the Creator of the universe "prepared a fish" to swallow Jonah (Jonah 1:17).  We also must realize that some species of whales and sharks can swallow a man whole.  The sperm whale, white shark, and whale shark have been found with whole animals as large or larger than man in their stomachs.  There have been recorded events in whaling history where men have been swallowed by these animals and rescued.  As far as the 3 days and 3 nights, there remains the possibility that these were not 3 entire nights and days.  It may have been an entire day and parts of 2 other days (38 hours).
 
   A man named James Bartly in 1895 is known to have survived for one and a half days before being rescued.  There is always air in the whale's belly and as long as the victim is still alive in the belly, digestive juices will not flow. If this answer does not suffice, couldn't God have performed a miracle? The last possibility was that Jonah suffered and died and the Lord raised him from the dead."

http://www.muiczone.com/FAQ_View.cfm?FAQID=23



A split might be a good idea because I really like this topic.  Question...does it really matter if we use the literal or figurative interpretation of the Jonah story?  Like I have said before, anything is possible with God.  But, either view doesn't change the message.  But, taking a literal account of Genesis then taking the YEC stance against scientific knowledge is short sighted at best.  In that sense, the literal vs figurative does matter because it makes some Christians look like consipiracy theorists.  I think it's important for us to be even minded and not reactive to new scientific data.  We should not look at science as the enemy of Christianity.  We should look at science being the word of God in motion.  

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #28 on: September 08, 2010, 03:24:59 AM »
If -GOD- created mankind via Evolution, we are the carefully sculpted images of God.

Not really because evolution states that the species evolves for it's own advantage or survival. But God does not look for it's own but for the benefit for others.

I think you are really stretching here TT.  But, I will say this...there is zero way neo-evolution happened without the presence of a creator.  I have written an article on random mutations and why that alone can disprove a creatorless evolution.  In order for evolution to have occured, there must have been a hand to guide the process. 

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9096
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #29 on: September 08, 2010, 07:12:20 AM »
Split from "I'm Finally Convinced UR Isn't True.."

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 13059
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #30 on: September 08, 2010, 08:47:38 AM »
Revelation is a (the last, the ending) book of the Bible that uses symbolic language (and literal language too) to describe literal happenings.
Must be a bad book then because the ending is in 1 Cor  :winkgrin:
Quote
Why can't Genesis, the beginning of the Bible be likewise?  A book that uses symbolic language, to describe literal happenings.
Maybe so. But that doesn't take away the strong possibility there are translation errors.
Rev speaks about a dragon. Because Rev is symbolic would you find it ok if a new translation writes about the "great hamster"?
Even very obvious symbolism should be translated as accurately as possible. Not doing so is adding or removing from the word for me.
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 13059
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #31 on: September 08, 2010, 09:01:44 AM »
And I agree with you WW Neo-Darwinism crumbles under the weight of random mutational theory.  It just can't happen.
It gets even worse if you see (microscopic) life existed in a very early stage of earth. ~3 billion years ago. The suddenly and very recently (on evolutionary timescale) many species appeared during the Cambrian explosion. Ignoring the stats of random mutations it's also impossible because the earth doesn't even have enough material ("food") to support the massive amounts of intermediate lifeforms (that never have been found)
Microbiology shows that certain algae that exist for billions of years are DNA wise far more complex than everything else on earth. Including humanity.
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 13059
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #32 on: September 08, 2010, 09:11:01 AM »
I'm certainly open to many things being symbolic.  I'm just generally not sure what is and what isn't in many places :sigh:.  I personally feel a need to be very careful picking and choosing - I believe I need deeper revelation on various issues to know which is which.

Anyway, we're in danger of hijacking/derailing this thread, and I'm participating.   :punish:  I won't vouch for its scientific accuaracy, because I just don't know.  However, I found the following interesting.  It may at least encourage us to take extreme care with what we judge as literal vs. symbolic.
It's even very difficult to define literal and symbolic.
Early lifeforms had no sexe (sp?) But after a while male and female life appears.
X-chromosone
Y-chromosone
The Y chromosone is missing a side (side=rib in Hebrew) -> Adam and Eve
If the above was true would that make the creation of (Adam and) Eve symbolic or literal?
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 13059
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #33 on: September 08, 2010, 09:26:33 AM »
I think science has a lot to offer and is solid in many aspects. However when it comes to evolution, creation etc science is a bit sloppy. How can some scientists say that the ea brarth is 6000 years old while others say it's millions and millions of years old and others say millions and millions and millions  :icon_joker:

But what other sciencench says maths 2 + 2= 4    Scientists B no maths 2+2 = 3

Only one of them is correct. But to me evolutionist scientists have much more data, time and money than the creationist scientists and so have an unfair advantage.

Aslo don't forge the implications. If God created humanity via evolution, then that means we are nothing more than evolved developed chemical formulas and not beings made in the image of God.
The first question is: are the YEC scientists really scientists?
In defence of Darwin; he saw big problems in his own theory. He hoped to resolve them (but didn't) But hardcore atheists took the ball and started pushing their agenda. Science isn't perfect. It frequently changes its views. But in the field of evolution there has been a lot of fraud.

A site you might like: http://www.doesgodexist.tv/
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 02:04:20 PM by WhiteWings »
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 13059
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #34 on: September 08, 2010, 09:29:55 AM »
Split from "I'm Finally Convinced UR Isn't True.."
You have  a sharp eye for quickly noticing off-topic threads.
Speaking about UR  :laughing7:
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 11:32:51 AM by WhiteWings »
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9096
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #35 on: September 08, 2010, 10:29:46 AM »
 :wink3:

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 13059
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #36 on: September 08, 2010, 02:22:37 PM »
Question...does it really matter if we use the literal or figurative interpretation of the Jonah story?
I think it does matter. A lot.
With wrong interpretations we will miss a lot of things. Compare it with movies. Some movies barely have a story line. The plot is obvious from watching the first 2 minutes. Some movies have several story lines. A obvious one on the surface and some more hidden story lines. If you just watch the movie with the surface-story-line you might wonder why the people in the movie do things. You missed a big part of the movie by ignoring what's beneath the surface. When we ignore literal or figurative in the Bible we get a shallow understanding of it. If fire in the Bible is only literal then we get ET views. If we can figure out fire can also mean figurative we create a foundation for views like UR.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 08:04:30 PM by WhiteWings »
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline eaglesway

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 4465
  • Gender: Male
  • Grace & Peace be multiplied unto you, in Jesus
    • Hell is a Myth.com
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #37 on: September 08, 2010, 05:28:33 PM »
I find that interpretative differences on the literal or figurative meanings in relation to the creation can co-exist with some scrutiny. How long was a 'day' before the sun was created/emerged, for instance(As WW discussed in a previous post about the meaning of 'yom'). To me the only issue that stands out as defensible and critical to the faith is this:


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (Joh 1:1-3)

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds(aions). (Heb 1:1-2)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. (Col 1:15-16)

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
(Rom 8:19-22)

These scriptures state that there is nothing that has been done/created in which God was not the imperative will- acting through Jesus, the Logos. Whether we see the processes of His creative might in the same way is not as important as recognizing that, "For from Him, and through Him and to Him are all things". In other words, there is nothing apart from God, who is the source.... and nothing apart from Christ who is the fount, the Alpha and Omega. Some things we see through a glass darkly, and always will from this side of the glass. As the process of the gathering into one of all things in Christ (Eph1:10) is completed until God is All in All(1 Cor 15:28) and the whole creation is set free into the glorious liberty of the sons of God(Romans 8:21) we have been predestined according to His purpose who causes all things to work according to the counsel of His will(EpH 1:11,12)

He is the first-born of creation, we are the first fruits- having the first fruits of the Spirit, called, chosen and predestined as sons to participate in the reconciliation of all things- the restitution of all things-the redeeming of the whole creation is into this "glorious liberty"- all things made new, the RENEWED Creation.

Only God can do such awesome and mighty wonders. Man piddles around the edges of His ways and seeks to measure himself by his knowledge- based on tiny threads sticking out from under the door of the Almighty Invisible One.
 Do pull on the threads- they lead to greater vision, but don't get to carried away with your own understanding because.....

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
(Rom 11:33-36)


« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 05:39:41 PM by eaglesway »
The Logos is complete, but it is not completely understood. hellisamyth.webs.com

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #38 on: September 08, 2010, 06:29:28 PM »
Question...does it really matter if we use the literal or figurative interpretation of the Jonah story?
I think it does matter. A lot.
With wrong interpretations we will miss a lot of things. Compare it with movies. Some movies barely have a story line. The plot is obvious from watching the first 2 minutes. Some movies have several story lines. A obvious one on the surface and some more hidden story lines. If you just watch the movie with the surface-story-line you might wonder why the people in the movie do things. You missed a big part of the movie by ignoring what's beneath the surface. When we ignore literal or figurative in the Bible we get a shallow understanding of it. If fire in the Bible is only literal then we get ET views. If we can figure out fire can also me figurative we create a foundation for views like UR.

Ok, you believe it does.  So, for you how does taking a literal interpretation vs a figurative one of the Jonas story change it's meaning?  I would like to know.  I don't want to be missing something in this story.

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #39 on: September 08, 2010, 06:34:31 PM »
I had a book by a professional scientist that explained with mathmatical proof how, due to relativity, time passing for someone inside the big bang and its subsequent universe compared to time passing for an outside observer, solves the discrepancy between the numbers.  An explanation was posted here on tentmaker not too long ago.

It does seem that the literal six days as six thousand years only applies to the re-creation of the earth according to the account in Genesis, not how long the earth or rest of the cosmos has existed.  In Genesis the universe with the water covered earth was already here.  Upon the face of that is what the Spirit was settling and brooding, as a hen over her chicks before the word, "Light be.".

$$$

Time is relative and dependent.  For instance, as you approach the speed to light time significantly slows down.  Time is a relative and not a constant.  Not to mention God's time is not our time.  It's speculated that while we are able to observe a 3D +1 world...it's a 10D +1 multiverse.  In that universe there is a blurring of past, present and future.

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #40 on: September 08, 2010, 06:41:13 PM »
Day 1:
Hedean eon: 4,600-3,900 mya => solidification of earth's crust

Day 2:
Archeozoic eon: 3,900-2,500 mya - bacteria, blue-green algae & archaens start to oxygenate atmosphere

Day 3:
Early life
Silurian period -  405-425 mya

Day 4:
Sun and Moon.
Between day 1 and 2

Day 5:
Cambrian. 600-400 million years ago

Day 6:
(40 mya)


The above is a bit tricky to summarize.
Genesis doesn't say: THE first day era, but ONE era.
God just states 6 eras. They can chronological. But likely are not.

If you take this approach how do you explain dinosaurs.  Unlike some I actually believe the scientific evidence.  If sin brought death...how would have the dinosaurs died off before man?  Despite some notions that man walked with dinosaurs I don't believe the vast body of evidence supports that. 

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #41 on: September 08, 2010, 06:47:05 PM »
And I agree with you WW Neo-Darwinism crumbles under the weight of random mutational theory.  It just can't happen.
It gets even worse if you see (microscopic) life existed in a very early stage of earth. ~3 billion years ago. The suddenly and very recently (on evolutionary timescale) many species appeared during the Cambrian explosion. Ignoring the stats of random mutations it's also impossible because the earth doesn't even have enough material ("food") to support the massive amounts of intermediate lifeforms (that never have been found)
Microbiology shows that certain algae that exist for billions of years are DNA wise far more complex than everything else on earth. Including humanity.

You know your stuff and you are indeed correct.  Neo-evolution must ignore the fossil record.  Neo-evolution must ignore the catastrophic effects of negative mutations.  The ONLY way evolution could have happened the way scientists say it happened is if the hand of God were at work.

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #42 on: September 08, 2010, 06:50:40 PM »
I think science has a lot to offer and is solid in many aspects. However when it comes to evolution, creation etc science is a bit sloppy. How can some scientists say that the ea brarth is 6000 years old while others say it's millions and millions of years old and others say millions and millions and millions  :icon_joker:

But what other sciencench says maths 2 + 2= 4    Scientists B no maths 2+2 = 3

Only one of them is correct. But to me evolutionist scientists have much more data, time and money than the creationist scientists and so have an unfair advantage.

Aslo don't forge the implications. If God created humanity via evolution, then that means we are nothing more than evolved developed chemical formulas and not beings made in the image of God.
The first question is: are the YEC scientists really scientists?
In defence of Darwin; he saw big problems in his own theory. He hoped to resolve them (but didn't) But hardcore atheists took the ball and started pushing their agenda. Science isn't perfect. It frequently changes its views. But in the field of evolution there has been a lot of fraud.

A site you might like: http://www.doesgodexist.tv/


Again you are right on.  We see eye to eye on these issues.  But, this goes both ways.  You have evolutionists pushing an agenda (funding, job security, atheistic views etc) with very poor science.  You have YEC scientists pushing back with even poorer science. 

Offline Lefein

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1170
  • Gender: Male
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #43 on: September 08, 2010, 07:05:03 PM »
Just to make it clear: When I say "symbolic language to describe literal happenings"

I am not speaking of it as "esoteric figurative language", IE: this isn't Mason rites stuff here.  But something that seems to fit with Biblical language.

"A day to God is as a thousand years!"

Well, that doesn't have to literally mean that 24 hours = 1000 years.  But it is a symbolic way of saying that what is short to God, is to us an age's worth - a literal statement, described symbolically.

As for the "Great Hamster" I'd have an issue with that, since it would be a mistranslation entirely, and wouldn't go with the rest of the Bible's descriptions of "The Serpent". :)

The problem with YEC and Atheist science is not so much that their science is wrong (indeed both are), it is their whole purpose behind their science!

YEC are trying to prove God, and do God's job of keeping his sheep away from Atheistic folds "Hopping off to Hell".  Atheists are too busy trying to replace God with the what I call "God/Goddess Chance (Fortune/Reason), and Randomocity", because God holds them accountable for their pride, and rebellion which is the fruit of it.  They are intelligent...They despise authority that might dull them, or get in the way of their success.  They think they are the best, the brightest, that they can do it better!

That's the root of it, they'd believe in God if that God would let them do what they want without consequence.

But that aside, their science is biased, both on YEC, and on Evolution.

Science had really only had its greatest leaps forward in practical, applicable, usable science - when it was someone trying to figure out from a childlike stand - "How God did it".

Not what scientists today are trying to do..."How to make it look like God did it this way / How to make it look like God didn't do it at all".

God will not be contained by any box that man makes for him.  YEC or Atheist.  Science will conform in God's due time to God's design itself, not the interpretation of Man.

Really, it all boils down to Man wanting God to give a full account of himself to them concerning his doings, on their terms.  And so they take everything as literally literal as a means of trying to control the flow of God's word, when it really is simply so that God gives what he deems is needed for his own purposes, for it is God who controls and rules the flow of his word: Even the interpretation of it!  Via his Holy Spirit.

"In the beginning God made the Heavens and the Earth"

That's all we need to know concerning that, for God has left it to us as a gift to find out "The How".

In that single portion of verse alone, could be contained the fullness of countless epochs of carefully carved, and beautifully designed physics, and material.  Just like in the single word Agape, is contained the vast infinity that is God.  God is Love/Agape.  Beginning is Vast-preparation.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 07:17:37 PM by Lefein »
CLV: Proverbs 10:12 Hatred, it rouses up quarrels, Yet love covers over all transgressions.
KJV: Proverbs 10:12 Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 13059
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #44 on: September 08, 2010, 08:14:19 PM »
Question...does it really matter if we use the literal or figurative interpretation of the Jonah story?
I think it does matter. A lot.
With wrong interpretations we will miss a lot of things. Compare it with movies. Some movies barely have a story line. The plot is obvious from watching the first 2 minutes. Some movies have several story lines. A obvious one on the surface and some more hidden story lines. If you just watch the movie with the surface-story-line you might wonder why the people in the movie do things. You missed a big part of the movie by ignoring what's beneath the surface. When we ignore literal or figurative in the Bible we get a shallow understanding of it. If fire in the Bible is only literal then we get ET views. If we can figure out fire can also me figurative we create a foundation for views like UR.

Ok, you believe it does.  So, for you how does taking a literal interpretation vs a figurative one of the Jonas story change it's meaning?  I would like to know.  I don't want to be missing something in this story.
Maybe I should have written we should try to find the meanings. I don't know the deeper meanings of many/most things. But still I try...
As for Jonas. Obviously it's linked to Jesus time in the grave. But how exactly :dontknow:
I think your interesting question is worth a new thread. Otherwise a this thread has to be split of the second time this day  :winkgrin:
PS for me literal vs figurative can change a meaning. But it can also can add a meaning.
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline Lefein

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1170
  • Gender: Male
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #45 on: September 08, 2010, 08:20:12 PM »
It helps to remember too, that everything God does is multi-faceted.

That is why the Bible is not for private interpretation, but should always be done through the partnership of the Holy Spirit (God himself, who wrote it/breathed it through us).
CLV: Proverbs 10:12 Hatred, it rouses up quarrels, Yet love covers over all transgressions.
KJV: Proverbs 10:12 Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 13059
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #46 on: September 08, 2010, 08:20:35 PM »
Again you are right on.  We see eye to eye on these issues.  But, this goes both ways.  You have evolutionists pushing an agenda (funding, job security, atheistic views etc) with very poor science.  You have YEC scientists pushing back with even poorer science.
Very true. And that's not only true for science and/or religion. Many individuals/companies try to blindly push their agenda. I wasn't trying to defend YECs. I'm a OEC. (I've read quite a few books of both sides)
I think many YECs fear old earth/science takes away the glory of God.
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 13059
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #47 on: September 08, 2010, 08:29:30 PM »
As for the "Great Hamster" I'd have an issue with that, since it would be a mistranslation entirely, and wouldn't go with the rest of the Bible's descriptions of "The Serpent". :)
You.. you! Hamster hater! :icon_jokercolor:
But what if the word serpent wasn't in the Bible. Say both the serpent and the hamster are called "animal" in Hebrew. Is a translator allowed to translate it as dragon/hamster? Same for yom. Is a translator allowed to translate it as day instead of "age" "period" or something similar?
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Online micah7:9

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 5998
  • Gender: Male
  • Mic 7:8 Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine ene
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #48 on: September 08, 2010, 08:53:14 PM »
Right On and Amen  to Eaglesway! :thumbsup:
Mic 7:8  Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine enemy, When I have fallen, I have risen, When I sit in darkness Jehovah is a light to me.

Offline Lefein

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1170
  • Gender: Male
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #49 on: September 08, 2010, 09:05:17 PM »
Quote
But what if the word serpent wasn't in the Bible. Say both the serpent and the hamster are called "animal" in Hebrew. Is a translator allowed to translate it as dragon/hamster?


My question for you would be: Is the original Hebrew that way?

Quote
Same for yom. Is a translator allowed to translate it as day instead of "age" "period" or something similar?

As long as the translation is correct.  Time = time, so long as it is time.
CLV: Proverbs 10:12 Hatred, it rouses up quarrels, Yet love covers over all transgressions.
KJV: Proverbs 10:12 Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.