Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PhillyB

Here's an interesting article on homosexuality and biblical scholarship

203 posts in this topic

^ you really believe that's how different languages originated?

The first languages on earth yes. The proto languages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i get so confused over which parts i'm supposed to take literally and which parts i'm not.

Simply allow the Bible to interpret the Bible. What needs to be true in order for Jesus to make sense? That is how it is supposed to be taken. It's easier than what theologians make it out to be. Yet all in all, you need God to help fully understand what the Bible is saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if scientists could trace the dispersion of peoples to, say, the american continents before ~7000 ya and prove that they were linguistically adroit it would kind of blow your literalism wide open, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply allow the Bible to interpret the Bible.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

what happens when two people "letting the bible interpret the bible" come up with two completely different interpretations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

what happens when two people "letting the bible interpret the bible" come up with two completely different interpretations?

war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if scientists could trace the dispersion of peoples to, say, the american continents before ~7000 ya and prove that they were linguistically adroit it would kind of blow your literalism wide open, no?

Remember what I said about projections based on today? This is what they estimate on. You would say the universe would blow up my literalism, but I've talk about the limits of science. Yet the spreading of nations, plate tectonics and all that bit about the earth, there's a history written in Genesis that is very similar. I think Genesis has more information that current science doesn't have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"science" doesn't "have" anything be ause science is a process not an entity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

what happens when two people "letting the bible interpret the bible" come up with two completely different interpretations?

Finally with this point, because I know you're tired of discussing with me, we shouldn't come up with different interpretations concerning the history that is talked about in the Bible. There are plenty of Christians who say there is no evidence for Genesis happening, so lets just say Genesis is poetry. Saying it is poetry is putting in your thoughts, yet the Bible clearly operates on Genesis being literal history. Forget whether it's true or not, that is a different subject. How to interpret it is clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"science" doesn't "have" anything be ause science is a process not an entity

thanks for again ignoring my questions

And you ignore the limitations of science. You ignore what I said about Genesis, and what it's talking on. Why at face value, science would reject it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you ignore the limitations of science. You ignore what I said about Genesis, and what it's talking on. Why at face value, science would reject it.

Yet you want to go to Isreal to test your theories on Genesis SCIENTIFICALLY?

This is the disconnect. You dismiss anything that can be proven by Science today but then try to justify obvious "plot holes" in Genesis with psuedo-theological science: "The first humas had DNA of many nations" to justify the incest required to populate the earth contridicting God's laws. Or you would understand if you were with God..

What year are you at Bob Jones University?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites