Answers in Genesis and Young Earth Creationism :)

[ChuckK3]

A few subjects I would call non-debates:

1. It is more effective to treat an infection with antibiotics than with rituals to cast out "the spirit of fever." .....

                                               ------snipped for brevity--------

......And all that being said, I consider myself a Bible believing Christian, living in hope of the resurrection of all.

Amen brother!  :thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

I haven't read all the responses here,

Perhaps you shhould read them to get a better understanding of what this thread is about...

A few subjects I would call non-debates:

1. It is more effective to treat an infection with antibiotics than with rituals to cast out "the spirit of fever."

Cured is cured I would say.

2. The earth is round (The Genesis 1 account is pure flat earth imagery with everything either above or below the earth) and revolves around the sun, causing day and night (The Genesis 1 account begins with a universal day and night with the sun and moon being created later merely to rule over those periods).

I wonder where you exactly have read that.
Things can't be above and below (inside) a globe/sphere? (sitheth on a sphere)
IMO day and night doesn't tell us anything about the sun revolving around the earth or vs

3. Epileptic seizures are more effectively treated with right/left globe seperation than by driving out "evil spirits that cause fits."

Cured is cured I would say.

I could go on and on and freaking on. The Bible writers were just plain ignorant about some stuff and that shows up in the Bible. Also, they were quite poetic in some places and didn't expect us to take those writings literally-- ever see a tree of the field clap its hands?

Then the goal should be seperating the poetic from the none poetic. Or do you concider the resurrection of Jesus also as something poetic. Just because medical science can't resurrect people.

Point being: It's not a science book, not even a good history book.

No it isn't meant as that. But that doesn't mean it conflicts with history and science.
Lots of science seems to be in line with the Bible.
Archeology/history seems to align pretty good with the Bible that was written by people inspired by the HS.

[rhellis]

Was Christ's resurrection literal, or is it a poetic/symbolic thing?

I was meditating on this today-- thinking about Jesus eating those fish as he was kneeling by the sea. Peter didn't recognize him at first. Was that because it was someone else in whom Christ had taken up residence? What about when Mary Magdalene touched Christ but didn't recognize him at first? Was that because Christ had taken up residence in the gardner? What about those two disciples who didn't recognize him at first? Was there really just a stranger on the road with Christ dwelling within? The way he popped in and out of rooms?

I believe in the resurrection. But I don't fully understand it, I can tell you that. There is a strange ambiguity that runs through all four accounts?

And what of Paul's experience with the resurrected Christ? By Paul's own accounts, none of those in his company perceived the appearance of Christ in any literal sense. Relative to Paul, where was Christ revealing himself? Along the road, in the sky above, or (drum roll ) IN Paul?

But my not being sure about the precise physical definition of it all doesn't make me less than a believer-- on the contrary, it makes me a believer in realities beyond the physical, the realm to which we are called.