The End Times Are Very Near

[axeplayer]

There is a lot of evidence supporting the idea that the end times and the rapture are very near to happening. for example, the United Nations fulfill the prophesy that very near to the end times, the world will be united as one, and there will be peace on the earth(even though we're a long way from peace). also, barcodes, credit cards etc. are an early warning to the mark of the beast being used to pay for all of our expenses. In college station, Texas, there are stores where you can pay for your groceries, appliances, etc., with your thumbprint. So what does everyone else think? Are the end times and Judgement Day near?

[axeplayer]

Any of it, all of it.

could you explain how please? because i dont seem to understand.

Dust forms slime, slime makes primates. A primate 'in His own image' presents the same difficulty (if there is one) regardless of the method creation chosen.

are you even familiar with Genesis? God made man and animals on totally different days. it would take a primate to not understand that Creation and spontaneous generation are two completely different things.

How can light be bread? Do we eat light? Do tungsten filaments make bread? There is a contradiction, because Jesus cannot be both. He is a lamb, too.

as HappyHumanist pointed out, these are metaphors tilia. The verses where it says this even provide explanations for what the metaphors mean.

[micatala]

micatala wrote:
Many claim evolution is somehow evil, but I have never seen any argument for this that holds any water, and I have to say I am getting awfully tired of this repetitive mantra.


axeplayer:
evolution teaches things that are contrary to what the Bible teaches, such as, God created animals, and He created man from the dust of the ground. If someone does something that is contrary to what the Bible teaches (i.e. lying, or murder), than it is evil. Evolution is no different.

While I think Tilia's examples regarding bread and light etc. are metaphorical and don't really (imv) make a very good case for a contradiction in the Bible, I would agree with her that evolution is not contrary to the Bible, any more than Copernicanism is contrary to the Bible.

I would agree that in both the case of evolution and the case of heliocentrism, one can make a reasonable interpretation that runs counter to these ideas, but I absolutely disagree that this is the only valid interpretation. In the case of Martin Luther's interpretation vis-a-vis Copernicanism, we now know he was wrong, even though his interpretation was (in my view) entirely reasonable if one considered the biblical text alone.

Given the overwhelming evidence we have from God's creation that runs counter to the literal 6-day creation occurring within the last 10,000 years, I think a very good case can be made that this interpretation is as wrong as Luther's, and we have way more evidence showing evolution is a fact than Luther had concerning heliocentrism.

Even if it were contrary to the Bible, that would not necessarily make it evil.

First of all, to not engage in murder and lying are moral directives directly given to us. The Genesis passage is not giving us the same sort of moral directive, but is rather giving a (I believe metaphorical) description of creation and man's relationship to God within that creation. Murder and lying are things we do as an act of will. Evolution is not something we do as individuals at all. Evolution is not the act of anybody's individual will, as it is something that occurs only at the population level.

As far as just the act of believing that evolution is true being evil, I would ask where in the Bible does it say that matters of belief can, in and of themselves, be evil. There are certainly some places where this idea does occur, principally with respect to belief in God and Jesus as God. Where else?

It does also say that all scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching and correction, etc. Does it say anywhere that not accepting a particular interpretation of scripture is evil? Does the Bible not allow, even encourage, us to study the word and work out its meaning for ourselves the best we can (eg. work our our own salvation in fear and trembling). Does not the Bible acknowledge that believers will sometimes have different interpretations and understanding (see Romans, I think around chapter 14 where Paul discusses dietary and other practices in particular, but the application is clearly wider)?

Also, I think you are well aware of many directives given in the old testament that we do not follow today. Is it evil to mix threads of different cloth, to dance, to not follow the dietary and other rules given in Deuteronomy, to borrow and lend money, etc.? How many of us marry the widows of our brothers? I'm guessing both of us would agree we are not committing evil with respect to these directives or traditions, probably because of our not too dissimilar interpretations of these passages and their applicability to us today. However, we are clearly acting contrary to the Bible if one takes the most literal interpretation.

Although this is not directly relevant to the question "Is everything contrary to the Bible evil?" there are clearly things today we find evil that are sanctioned by the Bible, for example slavery. Would you say slavery is not evil because it is allowed in the Bible?

As another short digression, I would note that Jesus said both "He who is not against us is for us" and "He who is not for us is against us." These are actually contradictory, unless you make some additional assumptions that are not part of the text.

If you are going to claim that evolution is evil, than I think at a minimum, the Copernican issue should be addressed, and the issue of how "belief" about a matter that is not central to the faith can, in and of itself, be evil. Remember, Jesus said "my words are spirit and they are life, the flesh counts for nothing." In other words, how we got here biologically matters not one whit to God. What matters to God are spiritual things. Biological evolution is not a spiritual matter.

Otherwise, I don't see that that the 'evolution is evil' argument goes anywhere.

[Tilia]

micatala wrote:
Many claim evolution is somehow evil, but I have never seen any argument for this that holds any water, and I have to say I am getting awfully tired of this repetitive mantra.

axeplayer:
evolution teaches things that are contrary to what the Bible teaches, such as, God created animals, and He created man from the dust of the ground. If someone does something that is contrary to what the Bible teaches (i.e. lying, or murder), than it is evil. Evolution is no different.

While I think Tilia's examples regarding bread and light etc. are metaphorical and don't really (imv) make a very good case for a contradiction in the Bible,

For a literalist, they do; but YECs are inconsistent. YECs have some arbitrary rule as to what they think is literal, and what metaphorical. For them, the talking snake represents the devil, but for some reason, insist that the six day creation in the previous chapter be understood literally.

[perplexed101]

On the other hand, If professor Charles Hapgood and among others are correct then the logical conclusion would be then not to exceed that of the allegid 65 million year gap between dinosaur and man for apparently, artifacts of that magnitude would diminish macro-evolution and would place macro-evolution as being invalid. If the artifacts by what is represented as being from a frame of reference, it therefore becomes logical to conclude the age of the earth much earlier than initially theorized. Personally, im going to stick with a belief that resides in both spiritual and physical to whatever final destination that lies ahead and beyond with Jehovah and His only begotten Son to make it happen.

btw, im not a Jehovah's witness neither... sorry, Michael Jackson. Jehovah's witnesses believe only 144,000 will be saved, thats it. i dont understand why people believe there is strictly only one or three in the Godhead but when looking at biblical sound doctrine... its the Father and Son to be dignified in the Godhead, thats it.

1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
1Co 8:7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

is there any wonder why that has become so true today? On one hand people ridicule Paul but make every excuse to preach straight from the lettesr he wrote. If anyone disagrees with Paul then why dont people just oust his letters just like they did with the book of Enoch? Why not make every written work of Paul uncanonical just like the book of Enoch so the majority can feel at ease? It really irks me to have trinitarians and unitarians try and make people cower using what i like to call, the spanish inquistion tactics. i believe that God puts both spiritual and physical evidences here in this world and we use this evidence to put together sound doctrine, which of course would include both old and new testament as well.

testament in greek:

διαθήκη
diathēkē
dee-ath-ay'-kay

[micatala]

Perplexed, I have a hard time understanding what you are saying. You use "frame of reference" a lot. What do you mean? WHo is this Charles Hapgood? As far as I can tell, you are questioning that there is a 65 million year gap between when dinosaurs lived and when humans lived, but I'm not sure why you think this or what evidence you are citing.

[micatala]

Quote:

Quote:
micatala wrote:
Many claim evolution is somehow evil, but I have never seen any argument for this that holds any water, and I have to say I am getting awfully tired of this repetitive mantra.

axeplayer:
evolution teaches things that are contrary to what the Bible teaches, such as, God created animals, and He created man from the dust of the ground. If someone does something that is contrary to what the Bible teaches (i.e. lying, or murder), than it is evil. Evolution is no different.


Quote micatala:
While I think Tilia's examples regarding bread and light etc. are metaphorical and don't really (imv) make a very good case for a contradiction in the Bible,

Tilia:
For a literalist, they do; but YECs are inconsistent. YECs have some arbitrary rule as to what they think is literal, and what metaphorical. For them, the talking snake represents the devil, but for some reason, insist that the six day creation in the previous chapter be understood literally.

I agree there is inconsistency. I don't think the rules are 'completely arbitrary' but I do think there are problems, and I started the Copernicus and Darwin thread to cite but one example.

If there is inconsistency, we should be able to point it out, and I think the snake citation is a good one. In other cases, where we all agree the bible is speaking metaphorically, I don't think we should accuse YEC's of claiming the passages are literal when they do not hold this position. It is fair to ask on what basis they hold some passages as literal and others not. Genesis 1 is a little more difficult because, on the surface, it does seem to be historical and not metaphorical.

[The Happy Humanist]

What happens if the Bible contradicts what the Bible teaches? The Bible says in one place that Jesus is light, and in another that He is bread.

Wait a second...is this the same Tilia that argued in another forum that Catholics weren't true Christians? And that faith alone is sufficient for Justification?? That led me to believe you were a theist...Yet you now argue that the Bible contradicts itself?

What's the deal here?

Wait, never mind. I see what you're getting at. The differing standards of "literal." You are a theist, and you don't really think the Bible contradicts itself, but you pointed out an absurd example on purpose, to show that "literal" can be taken too far. Am I right?

[Tilia]

Quote micatala:
While I think Tilia's examples regarding bread and light etc. are metaphorical and don't really (imv) make a very good case for a contradiction in the Bible,

Tilia:
For a literalist, they do; but YECs are inconsistent. YECs have some arbitrary rule as to what they think is literal, and what metaphorical. For them, the talking snake represents the devil, but for some reason, insist that the six day creation in the previous chapter be understood literally.

I agree there is inconsistency. I don't think the rules are 'completely arbitrary'

Who are you quoting?

In other cases, where we all agree the bible is speaking metaphorically, I don't think we should accuse YEC's of claiming the passages are literal when they do not hold this position.

Of course they don't. No-one supposes that Jesus was a loaf of bread. YECs simply ignore obvious metaphor, as they may have here.

It is fair to ask on what basis they hold some passages as literal and others not.

I agree, but getting a satisfactory answer is not easy.

Genesis 1 is a little more difficult because, on the surface, it does seem to be historical and not metaphorical.

That may be your perception, but it is not that of YECs, who do not admit to metaphor in either Gen 1, Gen 2, or anywhere. It is as though they are stubbornly illiterate in anything representing higher literature, which is very ironic, as figures of the Bible have been influential in the development of figurative language in English ('pearls before swine', 'lambs to the slaughter', etc.). YECs simply do not admit that when they say that the serpent represents Satan they are using a figure of speech. They hold Gen 1 to be of the same fabric as Gen 2, but more detailed. They are simply blind to their inconsistencies, wilfully or otherwise.

[Tilia]

What happens if the Bible contradicts what the Bible teaches? The Bible says in one place that Jesus is light, and in another that He is bread.

Wait a second...is this the same Tilia that argued in another forum that Catholics weren't true Christians? And that faith alone is sufficient for Justification?? That led me to believe you were a theist...

What business is it of yours what I am?

Yet you now argue that the Bible contradicts itself?

What's the deal here?

There is contradiction aplenty in the Bible if it is all literally true. No-one is a Bible literalist. No-one thinks that Herod was a fox, but Jesus called him one. So there is a contradiction, if we are to be consistently fundamentalist; Herod was a man, and a fox.

[The Happy Humanist]

What business is it of yours what I am?

You'll note that I didn't ask. I simply stated what my impression was at one point...yet at another, I thought you were taking a non-theist stance. I became temporarily confused as to whether I was addressing the same person in both threads.

There is contradiction aplenty in the Bible if it is all literally true. No-one is a Bible literalist. No-one thinks that Herod was a fox, but Jesus called him one. So there is a contradiction, if we are to be consistently fundamentalist; Herod was a man, and a fox

You'll note that realization dawned and I edited my post to reflect this. Your point is well taken.