We agree to disagree. I personally think it is offkey to speak of the evening and the morning if they were not literal days. There is no other reason to argue that aside from trying to appease science. We do not try to make the bible fit science. Science must fit the bible.
. . .
Should scientists check their findings by the Bible before they publish them, to see if they're really true?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
We agree to disagree. I personally think it is offkey to speak of the evening and the morning if they were not literal days. There is no other reason to argue that aside from trying to appease science. We do not try to make the bible fit science. Science must fit the bible.
The fact is the bible says the sabbath day was to be kept because God rested the seventh day, making it necessary the days be identical in Genesis and later in reference to sabbaths.
We agree, to disagree. Science does not fit the Bible, and the Bible does not have to fit Science.
Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.
The Bible cannot be logically and rationally explained, and if it could, there wouldn't be over 30,000 Denominations in the World. Science settles the score with a measurable and calculated answer (2+2=4). There is no such answer in Christianity.
For instance, your claim about the Sabbath; how would someone observe the Sabbath who lives in Barrow, Alaska (3 months of no sun in the Winter, and no sunsets for 3 months in the Summer)?
We agree, to disagree. Science does not fit the Bible, and the Bible does not have to fit Science.
Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.
The Bible cannot be logically and rationally explained, and if it could, there wouldn't be over 30,000 Denominations in the World. Science settles the score with a measurable and calculated answer (2+2=4). There is no such answer in Christianity.
For instance, your claim about the Sabbath; how would someone observe the Sabbath who lives in Barrow, Alaska (3 months of no sun in the Winter, and no sunsets for 3 months in the Summer)?
I never said the sabbath was for all nations to keep and for the church today. My point was that Moses spoke to Israel about Sabbath and said it was set because of the seven days in Genesis where God rested the seventh day. Day for day. Sabbath day in Moses' time equals day of rest in Genesis.
I do not believe the church keeps the sabbath. Why did you think I did, for that is the implication in your statement to me?
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
The Bible is literal, and only symbolic or metaphoric when it explicitly uses symbolism that HAS to be metaphoric(like a beast with seven heads and ten horns).
Jesus didn't tell lies to make points. Being God and having seen all people's lives throughout the ages, all of His parables literally happened at one point or another(ESPECIALLY THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS). Literal happenings can have typology connected with them and can have spiritual significance
__________________ The Truth will never be mainstream. The Truth will never be popular. Orthodox doctrine will always be false doctrine.
I never said the sabbath was for all nations to keep and for the church today. My point was that Moses spoke to Israel about Sabbath and said it was set because of the seven days in Genesis where God rested the seventh day. I do not believe the church keeps the sabbath. Why did you think I did, for that is the implication in your statement to me?
I never said the Sabbath was for all Nations. And, there are many Christians who feel keeping the Sabbath is still for today.
Regardless who is supposed to keep or not keep the Sabbath, if the sun rising and setting is how one measures this special day, there is an obvious problem if they were living in Barrow, Alaska.
This is why the Bible cannot be used as a Science Book. The probabilities, maybes, and might ifs, never end. Since the Sabbath cannot be accurately measured, men are left to their own plight of discernment and dogma that eventually puts innocent people to death.
The Bible is literal, and only symbolic or metaphoric when it explicitly uses symbolism that HAS to be metaphoric(like a beast with seven heads and ten horns).
Why couldn't there be a beast with seven heads and ten horns?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
I never said the Sabbath was for all Nations. And, there are many Christians who feel keeping the Sabbath is still for today.
Regardless who is supposed to keep or not keep the Sabbath, if the sun rising and setting is how one measures this special day, there is an obvious problem if they were living in Barrow, Alaska.
This is why the Bible cannot be used as a Science Book. The probabilities, maybes, and might ifs, never end. Since the Sabbath cannot be accurately measured, men are left to their own plight of discernment and dogma that eventually puts innocent people to death.
Ok, I see what you mean. The point is that sabbath DAY was planned for Israel alone because it would not work for parts of northern Canada and Alaska. But for Israel it did. But you are right. The bible is not meant for a science text. It is meant for salvation and merely mentioned things it did in Genesis because the information of those things somehow is required to understand salvation.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
The Bible is literal, and only symbolic or metaphoric when it explicitly uses symbolism that HAS to be metaphoric(like a beast with seven heads and ten horns).
I think it is symbolic in more instances than where IT HAS TO BE, though. That idea usually is used with Revelation. Revelation 4 shows God's throne with a rainbow around it and a body of still water before the throne. This is clearly using the symbol of the rainbow of Noah's covenant with God which was given while Noah was on Ararat with water all around the mountain peak, making it appear like an island. Could the throne literally be surrounded by water with a rainbow? Sure! But is it? I doubt it. I see it using symbolism from the Old Testament, since Revelation is rife with it to begin with.
So it is not concocting a rule like symbolism is there when it HAS to be, but reading the context of the given book to determine what we are intended to see as symbols. Revelation BEGiNS by saying it is signified. That is, symbolic using signs.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
. . .
For instance, your claim about the Sabbath; how would someone observe the Sabbath who lives in Barrow, Alaska (3 months of no sun in the Winter, and no sunsets for 3 months in the Summer)?
And how 'bout those poor astronauts? The International Space Station make 15.7 orbits of the earth per day. That's a sabbath every 10 hours. They have 15 really short sabbaths for every one of ours!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Linear Mode
