prayer warriors (following Jesus Christ, everyone welcome)

I don't read Mark often, this passage was used in my reading this evening and I thought I would share.

Mark 7 New American Standard Bible (NASB)


1 The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, 2 and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) 5 The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” 6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
 
The resistant bacteria isn't evolving, it is adapting. It will never become something more than bacteria. A more "powerful" bacteria, yes, but it can't evolve into, say, a cat, or even a worm. I do agree with you that that theories can certainly be tested. I believe that there are tectonic plates moving around beneath the earth's crust, and I think that Pangea was real, but Genesis 1:1 does not say, "In the beginning, some dust and molecules mixed togther and exploded, creating life, and the universe as we know it." It says "God created the heavens and the earth! He made the earth, light, water, plants, dirt, animals, and people, and on top of that he put everything in such perfect position so that we can survive on earth. I don't think that the earth is where it is by chance. Wait a second, do you believe the spiritual truth of the Bible, but not that God created the world? Genuine question here.
That is just a matter of time. What you are saying is you believe wind can erode rock but can't change its shape. Common ancesters between species shows new species can evolve. To answer your question, I believe God created the universe and everything in it. I just don't believe it happened in precisely the way the Bible says it did, because the authors never intended it to be literally interpreted as scientific fact.
While you state that you don't want to discuss evolution, you have indeed brought it up and have stated it as a truth.
I think it's best to stick to the truth. It was not me who raised it.
Let me speak to the theory of evolution. Natural selection... yes that does exist. As pointed out by your example of natural selection of bacteria to become increasingly resistant to antibiotics. That has been observed and documented. But, evolution has never been observed.
The evidence that is has occured is overwhelming.
[COLOR=660099]Evolution | Definition of Evolution by Merriam-Webster[/COLOR]

[COLOR=545454]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution
4a : descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations According to this theory, simple organisms evolved over time to become more complex organisms. Giving rise to new species. Is that not the bottom line of the theory of evolution? There has been no documented evidence of a new species arising from an older and simpler species. There have been no missing links found. Indeed when cross species breeding occurs, the offspring is often sterile, and unable to breed to carry on the line. When mutations have been documented, they almost always result in a negative consequence, often rendering the organism incapable of living as intended, and sometimes incapable of living at all.
The evidence points to the opposite of what you just said sorry.
I will ascertain that the Bible is truthful, and the scientific information it contains is accurate. To state any less is calling God, the creator of the universe a liar, or telling him He doesn't know what He's talking about.
That is insulting. I bet you don't take every part of the Bible as literally true, you pick and choose to believe one part as literal and others as not. The Bible says the sun moves around the earth and that the value of pi is 3, and you should cut your hands off if they cause you to sin. I'm sure you choose to not take those words as perfectly literally true. [/quote]
 
@MiddleWoods, you do understand that God sent us Jesus to pay our penalty for sin, right? Do you fully understand what salvation is? Do you understand the covenants? The new covenant, for example, means that we don't "cut off hands" for stealing anymore. Jesus gets HIS hands cut off in our place, if that can be understood without being literal.


Can we back off the evolution topic and concentrate in what the real problem is?


Do you have faith that Jesus will save you from your sin and restore you to God when you die? Do you have a fellowship or a study group that you can use to help understand the scripture?


If not, that's what this thread is for. To help answer those questions. There is no need to be insulting to us; we truly are trying to help.

THE ENTIRE BIBLE IS TRUE. It may not be fully understood to read it like a novel. The holy spirit guides us as we learn, and understanding can only come from study and daily spiritual "food".... The word.(the Bible)

Jeremiah 15:16

When your words came, I ate them;
they were my joy and my heart’s delight,
for I bear your name,
Lord God Almighty




If a person can't wrap their head around the "science" in the scripture, then that passage literally makes no sense. But to some of us, this passage says it all. It depends on understanding and how God deems it necessary to give you that information in HIS time.


John 1:1-14

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.


The problem isn't with the science, IMO its faith. Either we believe the whole Bible is the truth, or we don't, and if we don't think the Bible is the truth, we ARE calling God a liar, since HE'S the author of the word....

I personally believe every last word and I eat them up like candy, beginning, middle, and end..



And FYI, the reason I brought up the creation of water is because I noticed that water was one of the first things made. It didn't need to BE pointed out in scripture, because its COMMON SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE that the earths inhabitants would not survive without water, and JESUS CHRIST is the WATER of life....

It wasn't meant to be taken literally, but spiritually; I was trying to point out that just like our earthly bodies can't survive without physical water, our spirit can't survive without Jesus, the water of life.
 
Last edited:
@MiddleWoods, you do understand that God sent us Jesus to pay our penalty for sin, right? Do you fully understand what salvation is? Do you understand the covenants?

Yes

The new covenant, for example, means that we don't "cut off hands" for stealing anymore. Jesus gets HIS hands cut off in our place, if that can be understood without being literal.
Those are Jesus's words I'm referring to, where he says to cut off your hands or put out your eye if they cause you to sin, not OT style justice. Yet of course we don't take them literally because we consider what was truly meant, who he was speaking to, the cultural context etc. My point is that it is picking and choosing and totally inconsistent to not literally interpret some parts of the Bible (such as this) but insist others must be literal or else.

Do you have faith that Jesus will save you from your sin and restore you to God when you die? Do you have a fellowship or a study group that you can use to help understand the scripture?
Yes of course. Only rarely do I come across someone who reads the Bible as a scientific document with the last say on anything scientific.

THE ENTIRE BIBLE IS TRUE. It may not be fully understand to read it like a novel. The holy spirit guides us as we learn, and understanding can only come from study and daily spiritual "food".... The word.(the Bible)

Sure, but it is hard to understand and interpret, and I am not questioning it's truth but it's interpretation by individual people which is different.

If a person can't wrap their head around the "science" in the scripture, then this passage literally makes no sense. But to some of us, this passage says it all. It depends on understanding and how God deems it necessary to give you that information in HIS time.
This comes down to different interpretations and i am disagreeing with the interpretation the Bible is the most accurate authority on science because it was never intended or claimed to be, and is provably not so. Eg. pi is not 3 but if the Bible is scientific fact then there is a problem here.

The problem isn't with the science, IMO its faith. Either we believe the whole Bible is the truth, or we don't, and if we don't think the Bible is the truth, we ARE calling God a liar, since HE'S the author of the word....
No you are saying that only your interpretation of the complex text of the Bible is the correct one and bordering on speaking for God by saying that he must think I'm calling him a liar because I don't agree with YOUR interpretation.

I personally believe every last word and I eat them up like candy, beginning, middle, and end..
As do I, but I interpret a different meaning than you do. I wouldn't claim that God is going to be unhappy at you because you are calling him a liar, because only he knows the truth.

And FYI, the reason I brought up the creation of water is because I noticed that water was one of the first things made. It didn't need to BE pointed out in scripture, because its COMMON SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE that the earths inhabitants would not survive without water, and JESUS CHRIST is the WATER of life....

It wasn't meant to be taken literally, but spiritually; I was trying to point out that just like our earthly bodies can't survive without physical water, our spirit can't survive without Jesus, the water of life.
Ok, it was the further scientific discussion around this that I found confusing.

I read that first part of Genesis as "God created the universe and everything in it.". The creation story itself is a beautiful narrative conveying that truth but not a step by step description of the exact process.
 
All this, over the value of pi?

Note that the passage in I Kings explicitly gives both the diameter and the circumference. An estimate of pi is simply the ratio of the circumference to the diameter: 30/10 or exactly three. The passage in I Kings also elaborates on the depth, volume, and wall thickness of the cauldron. Rybka ignores the value given in plain words for the diameter and proceeds to develop a formula for the diameter using all the other dimensions and the totally unwarranted assumption that the cauldron was perfectly cylindrical. He converts the cubit, which was a variable unit of measure, to meters, and converts the Hebrew unit of volume, the bath, to liters. The volumes of one-bath jugs found by archaeologists give Rybka five values: 22.8, 22.9, 22.0, 22.7 and 23.3 liters. Blithely ignoring a variation of 1.3 liters or almost 6%, he averages the values to get a volume for the bath of 22.74 liters. He then puts this value into his formula and gets a value for pi of 3.143. "The calculations only warrant three-figure accuracy, however, so the final value is pi=3.14 which is identically the modern three figure value."
Now hold it a minute. First, the variation in the volume of the bath is so large that only two figure accuracy is justified, and the uncertainty is only accentuated our uncertainty as to the exact value of the cubit. Second, if the whole point of the discussion is to demonstrate the literal inerrancy of the Bible, 3.14 is just as much an approximation as 3 is. The decimal expansion of pi never ends and never repeats to infinity. (This would have been a great place to put such a statement, which would have been utterly beyond the capabilities of the ancient Hebrews, or even the translators of the King James Bible, to have known. What a stunningly convincing proof of supernatural authorship it would have been!) Finally, given a ten-cubit (about fifteen feet) diameter vessel with a circumference of fifty feet or so, anybody should be able to get at least three-figure accuracy in determining the value of pi. At the very least, anyone measuring the cauldron with even the crudest device should find a circumference of thirty-one cubits.
The clincher comes when Rybka uses his formulas to check the diameter and circumference of the cauldron. For the circumference he gets 29.97 cubits, very close to the figure of 30 given in I Kings, but he calculates the diameter to be not ten but 9.545 cubits! All Rybka has done with his elaborate manipulations is remove the approximation from the circumference to the diameter. We are told that the author of I kings did not use an approximate value for the circumference; he used an exact value but his determination of the diameter (which would by far have been the easiest dimension to get correctly) was off by about half a cubit or about nine inches!
Concludes Rybka: "Thus the Bible account is shown to be scientifically accurate."





Interpretation is going to make a difference, for sure. But I would rather stick with Gods' interpretation, not scientists. I wasted a good half my life on that rubbish and stopped wasting my time trying to fit scientific theory into the Bible and used it to unbrainwash myself of mans form of "science". It's not even the same thing, so there's no comparison in my book; now I get more out of the history and understanding what it was like back then because I want to be closer to God, not prove a theory right or wrong ;)


And I do believe with all my heart, that God would be very disappointed in me if I ever in any remote way, called him a liar, because then I would be lying lol ;)
 
Last edited:

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom