Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I kind of get that somewhat in the terms that God is protective for our well being, so he watches over us individually "as if" he is Jealous.
Just don't ever cross Him or that jealousy turns into wrathful anger and He does His smashy smashy thing.
Back to the bible dictating reality...that's dangerous. Only because it(the bible) is always open to interpretation. We have the law written in our hearts, that should never contradict the word written in ink if studied spiritually. Personally, I find few, non-issue type contradictions, nothing telling me to throw the whole book out.
Actually, I do know what the Bible is actually saying regarding the creation account and have already explained it. Old Testament scholars are well aware of the connection between the Biblical creation account and the other ancient Near Eastern creation accounts.
Yes the near Eastern accounts are poor versions of the reality in Genesis.
Quote:
If 24 hour days are not in view in the creation account then according to that account earth existed for an indefinite amount of time - ages perhaps, before the sun was created. That is simply not scientifically correct. But again, Genesis is not an attempt at providing a scientific explanation for how the Universe was created.
The Sun existed before or potentially at the same time as the earthy, it simply was not able to have its light reach the earth until: the cloud canopy was made clear. The account is actually plain about that.
Yes the near Eastern accounts are poor versions of the reality in Genesis.
The Sun existed before or potentially at the same time as the earthy, it simply was not able to have its light reach the earth until: the cloud canopy was made clear. The account is actually plain about that.
Expat, you are trying to impose a 21st century cosmology on a pre-scientific culture. The view you are expressing here is the day-age theory of creation that Hugh Ross propounds.
The text does not say that the Sun existed before or at the same time as the earth. The text clearly says that the sun, moon and stars were made on the fourth day and placed in the expanse.
There's another creation account in Psalm 74 which has God destroying a multi-headed sea-serpent referred to as Leviathan at the beginning of creation. That creation account isn't literal either. God did not literally slay a multi-headed sea-serpent. Psalm 74 parallels creation stories from Babylon and Ugarit.
And I'll tell you something else. I don't believe for a second that Adam was literally made or formed from the dust of the ground as a fully grown man, or that the woman was made from one of Adam's ribs. It's simply not reality, and was not intended to be understood as a literal historical event. That wasn't the point of the account.
The Biblical creation accounts are polemics designed to subvert the creation accounts of Israel's neighbors. They are not literal accounts of how God actually created the Universe. They just aren't.
If the bible tells you that God is a jealous God and also that God is love and love is not jealous then, according to those who think there are no contradictions in the bible, yes, jealous = not jealous.
If the bible tells you that God is a jealous God and also that God is love and love is not jealous then, according to those who think there are no contradictions in the bible, yes, jealous = not jealous.
So, in line with where does the bible and the written word stand in life, what if the bible stated (as fact) something completely contrary to known established fact?
Is this guy right? Is this a church you attend (or would want to attend)?
Many people are unclear how to approach the Bible. Some believe its meant to explain the natural world where every passage is taken literally and that creates a dilemma. It's a dilemma that skeptics often use as an opportunity to cast doubt on the Bible as an inspired book.
However, I recall a quote that Galileo attributed to Cardinal Baronius during a private conversation with the Cardinal which is true today as it was back then: "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go." Now, whether or not you believe in the whole "good people go to heaven and bad people don't" is not the point. The point is "established fact" lets say through science is not necessarily incompatible with the Bible. People throughout the ages have advanced our understanding of the world we live in "establishing fact" and yet viewed the Bible as inspired. However, often times it's a person's perspective on the role that "established fact" and the Bible play in one's thinking and society that needs adjustment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.