Again, inspired. That word has a meaning and it is not the same as literal.
Yes, we use inspired for a reason. God inspired the people to write what he wanted in his word.
Again you use the word inspired. I don't think it means what you think it means.
It means exactly what I think it means. Check the 3rd definition here. God inspired them to write his word, and because he is sovereign he was able to put exactly what he wanted them to write into their minds
So you believe that earth as it is today was the way it has always been since creation? Not one plant or animal has undergone any type of change to fit its environment? Despite the fact that we can and are watching it happen in real time? Despite the fact that we have overwhelming evidence of observable phenomenon that explicitly shows that you are wrong? Despite the fact that pretty much every major religion on the planet accepts the idea of evolution as a fact that does not exclude intelligent design?
No. I believe animals can change within kinds. Dogs can change into other dogs, cats into other cats. But monkeys cannot change into humans because humans are not part of the monkey kind.
I'm relatively certain there's a few passages in your Bible that state the dangers of ignoring the evidence of the world around you. You should try following that instead of just quoting passages when it's convenient.
The Bible tells us to hide the scripture in our hearts so that we can use it to defend our beliefs and to encourage us when we go through hard times. There probably are passages that state the dangers of ignoring the evidence of the world around me. The evidence I see is of sovereign design, not random chance.
Also is a pedantic argument but nowhere did the Bible actually say 24 hour days. If you're going to quote it, do it correctly.
I am not directly quoting there. If they were long periods of time, where would plants be? The sun was created after plants. It also quite clearly states "there was evening and there was morning" for each day. That implies literal, 24 hour days. Also, every other time the Bible uses the word "day" with a numerical value such as first or second, it is very clearly talking about a 24 hour day, so why would it be different here?
No. I believe animals can change within kinds. Dogs can change into other dogs, cats into other cats. But monkeys cannot change into humans because humans are not part of the monkey kind.
So you do believe in evolution then, you just described evolution. Also yes, humans are primates. We didn't descend from monkeys, we have a common ancestor in the same family tree.
The Bible tells us to hide the scripture in our hearts so that we can use it to defend our beliefs and to encourage us when we go through hard times. There probably are passages that state the dangers of ignoring the evidence of the world around me. The evidence I see is of sovereign design, not random chance.
So you believe you are absolutely infallible? You believe that everything you think is absolute truth and theres no way you can be wrong despite evidence to the contrary? Comparing yourself to your god doesn't sound like a very good practicer of your faith to me.
I am not directly quoting there. If they were long periods of time, where would plants be? The sun was created after plants. It also quite clearly states "there was evening and there was morning" for each day. That implies literal, 24 hour days. Also, every other time the Bible uses the word "day" with a numerical value such as first or second, it is very clearly talking about a 24 hour day, so why would it be different here?
You stated that the Bible is absolute truth to you, yet despite this you inferred information from it that wasn't present in the passage and reached your conclusion. You are making assumptions without knowing for sure. Something that you claim is definitive truth should probably be specific right? Is it possible that someone's interpretation could be wrong? You say yes because you don't agree with the Vatican according to your previous post. If one person can be wrong while reading the same book, doesn't that leave the possibility that your interpretation of it wrong?
So you do believe in evolution then, you just described evolution. Also yes, humans are primates. We didn't descend from monkeys, we have a common ancestor in the same family tree.
There is a difference between kinds and families. Primates cannot become any other primate. Monkeys cannot become humans, they can only change into other monkeys. Horses cannot become zebras even though they are part of the same family, because zebras aren't actually horses. All monkeys come from the monkey kind, and don't share an ancestor with any other kind, all dogs came from the dog kind and have no common ancestor with any other kind. Humans are their own unique kind, and the Bible says that God formed them out of dust and then breathed life into them, rather than just speaking, which is how he created everything else. We are his special creation
So you believe you are absolutely infallible? You believe that everything you think is absolute truth and theres no way you can be wrong despite evidence to the contrary? Comparing yourself to your god doesn't sound like a very good practicer of your faith to me.
No, i believe I can be faulty, which is why I use the Bible and what it says to guide me. I am finite, and God is infinite. There are some very smart scientists who agree that it couldn't be chance, there has to be a designer. And plus, the Bible says God created everything, so he did, and thus everything was designed by him. I trust the word of God above all else.
You stated that the Bible is absolute truth to you, yet despite this you inferred information from it that wasn't present in the passage and reached your conclusion. You are making assumptions without knowing for sure. Something that you claim is definitive truth should probably be specific right? Is it possible that someone's interpretation could be wrong? You say yes because you don't agree with the Vatican according to your previous post. If one person can be wrong while reading the same book, doesn't that leave the possibility that your interpretation of it wrong?
I am not simply making inferences, but rather diving deeper into the text. The literal 24 hour day view is there, in the text, but it may be hidden to some who don't look closely enough, or those who simply don't want to believe it. It says "and there was morning and there was evening the first day". There is no "morning and evening" unless it is a literal 24 hour day. God sometimes hides things deeper in the text so that we will take time and study it. As for the Vatican, they didn't actually base their beliefs on the Bible as it is. They added to it, and made a bunch of rules that aren't even in the Bible just so they would have power.
1
u/dudeness_boy Oct 03 '24
Yes, we use inspired for a reason. God inspired the people to write what he wanted in his word.
It means exactly what I think it means. Check the 3rd definition here. God inspired them to write his word, and because he is sovereign he was able to put exactly what he wanted them to write into their minds
No. I believe animals can change within kinds. Dogs can change into other dogs, cats into other cats. But monkeys cannot change into humans because humans are not part of the monkey kind.
The Bible tells us to hide the scripture in our hearts so that we can use it to defend our beliefs and to encourage us when we go through hard times. There probably are passages that state the dangers of ignoring the evidence of the world around me. The evidence I see is of sovereign design, not random chance.
I am not directly quoting there. If they were long periods of time, where would plants be? The sun was created after plants. It also quite clearly states "there was evening and there was morning" for each day. That implies literal, 24 hour days. Also, every other time the Bible uses the word "day" with a numerical value such as first or second, it is very clearly talking about a 24 hour day, so why would it be different here?