• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Creationism, Evolution, taking the Bible literally - here are the root of these conflicts as best I can explain it

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Ornery
The Bible states over and over that the word was made flesh, NOT that God was made flesh. There's obviously a reason that distinction is made, no matter how much the King James translators of 1604 tried to twist it.
Click to expand...

And that's something I got from watching The Passion of the Christ. I believe that Jesus was fully a man. That there was no Immaculate Conception. That he was not God in the form of man. That he only meant he was the word of God. He was nothing more than another preacher, albeit, a very charismatic and as evidenced by the last 2000 years of Earth's history, a rather important one.
 
Originally posted by: DougK62
Great thread until it morphed into something else...

Nice stuff, glen.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the morph, it is just easier to keep an older relgious thread open instead of starting a new one. It helps keep the NEFs out.
 
Magnus already pasted that 12 posts back. I know it inside out, backward & forward in Greek! It says in plain 'Old English', that God's word was manifested, NOT God. I notice that doesn't set well with a lot of people, but that's what it says, take it, or leave it.
 
Then translate 1-14 for me please. Because it says:

"...the Word was God...."
"The Word became flesh.... "
 
The Bible states over and over that the word was made flesh, NOT that God was made flesh.
Click to expand...
I can see how not making the inital conection would be confusing, don't worry, it's clear to us all that the word is God.


Jesus came back from the dead, this is what shows him to have been more than just a man.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
Click to expand...

I counter-argued against each of the points of how scripture is errant; i didn't start of believing it to be inerrant, i started thinking it was made by fillable men, but then someone tried to show me where it was in error... I've answered hundreds of 'contradictions' and not once *contrary to what I'd LIKE to see* they don't exist.
 
Not me, 'The Bible'. Take it literally or not, still seems clear to me that the writers went out of their way to convey that it was not God manifested, but his will.
 
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

then,
" The Word became flesh....

That tells me God was manifested.
 
Hah! "...may be one in us"

As they are one? Hah! That's what it says. We may be one with them, AS they are one. What a conundrum!
 
The "Body of Christ" is an analogy the apostle paul used for the body (group) of Belivers. It would in essence be considered the Christ' Church.
 
Originally posted by: przero
The "Body of Christ" is an analogy the apostle paul used for the body (group) of Belivers. It would in essence be considered the Christ' Church.
Click to expand...

How, exactly, are you certain that the analogy that the apostle paul used and this example here that Ornery is quoting have the same exact meaning, used in exactly the same context? Is that stated somewhere, or is that your interpretation? If it is your interpretation, upon what is it based?

Remember that human interpretation, any human interpretation, is fallible.
 
Originally posted by: glen

I believe in God. He has worked in my life in real tangible empirical ways. I do not hold either the Bible or the Church to be infallible, nor do I need them to be in order for me to have faith. It is ok. I gain from reading the Bible. I learn much from tradition, and I feel a peace going to church.
Click to expand...

i would be willing to bet that 90% of church going Christians are just like you. its too bad the religion haters dont realise this, but only focus on the zealots for their definition of religion and its practitioners.


 
Different religions have been killing each other and "heathens" for centuries. If they could all get on the same page, there would be a fraction of the wars we currently have. The Christian belief that Christ is/was God incarnate, drives a HUGE wedge between other religions and themselves. After studying the most accepted translation of the Christian church, the KJV, I have found it doesn't actually say that Christ was God manifested either!
 
Originally posted by: Stefan
Originally posted by: Ornery
If you can dismiss the first half of the Bible, and parts of the New Testament, then how do you take ANY lessons at all from it? What you hold to be true, I dismiss as a silly fable, so save your breath, pal.

Conversely, the flood has been pretty well documented, so I wouldn't write that off as 'Creation myth' either.
Click to expand...

The point isn't to dismiss any part of it. What you have to take from everything, bible, church, traditions, etc is the underlying messages. The messages there to guide you through life and be the best person you can be. The whole point to everything goes out the window when you start analyzing everything line by line. You will come up with one interpretation and someone will come up with something else and because of that, there is all this division.
Click to expand...

exactly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top