Theology III

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Please stay on topic. I'm sure we have plenty of other political threads for this discussion.

Now about the war in Iraq . . .

[Nurvingiel]

Haha Lief.

*ahem*

Anyway, in another thread, I asked Gwaimir if our actions did or did not influence people getting in to Heaven.

But this is open to all. What determines if someone goes to Heaven?

[Lief Erikson]

Whether or not Christ lives in our hearts.

If Christ is living in our hearts, he will fill every part of our lives and our actions will change to become good and like his.

If people claim to be Christian and live according to worldly standards rather than God's standards, their actions prove that Christ is not in their hearts.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Dying in a state of grace.

Whether my answer differs from Lief's or not, I'll let you decide.

[brownjenkins]

I might have a touch of christ in my left pinky. Then again, it may just be a splinter.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I might have a touch of christ in my left pinky. Then again, it may just be a splinter.

*nudges BJ and whispers* I think that's supposed to be a mote in your eye.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Dying in a state of grace.

Whether my answer differs from Lief's or not, I'll let you decide.

I don't think your answers are different.

So, what determines if someone goes to Hell then? Simply the opposite, or something else?


Haha Brownie.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I might have a touch of christ in my left pinky. Then again, it may just be a splinter.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think your answers are different.

They are, slightly. I don't view physical death as relevant to the issue of salvation.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

So, what determines if someone goes to Hell then? Simply the opposite, or something else?

I'll give you my perspective on it right willingly, though not all Christians are fully agreed.

If people reject God in life, they aren't going to immediately change their minds when they die. They'll continue to reject him after death, IMO, and that their sight should suddenly be clear and they should suddenly be undeceived doesn't make sense to me. Sin deceives people. Satan himself was deceived when he thought he could challenge God and win, which shows that after death, people can still be deceived. So I don't think that deception will end with death. People will still hate and reject God as they did in life, and will naturally turn toward the sinful lifestyle that they prefer.

Here's where I get to the nuts and bolts of my view. Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven is in the hearts of men. IMO, the same is true of hell. So evil folk don't go to hell upon dying so much as remain in hell.

If you have a bunch of people on Earth who are full of absolute goodness, full of God's Spirit, and they're full of love, compassion, kindness, generosity, and all manner of good attributes here on Earth, the place where the live is going to be heaven. Being in their company is going to be heaven. Even if those people are all being tortured, they rely on God and live in him, and their goodness overflows all the more in suffering. One tastes heaven in their presence, because God is inside them. Whether those people are living in hardship or abundance, they are truly joyful in Christ always and are living constantly in heaven.

People who have hell in their hearts constantly live there, here on Earth as well as afterward. Stick a bunch of wicked people together and the result is bound to be hell. That happens all the time on Earth and it's no different in the afterlife, IMO.

If one thinks about it logically, it also makes a great deal of sense that if the good people live in a separate place from the wicked people, their home would be much better built up. Think about all the time and resources that we use on Planet Earth to destroy one another! If all of that could be harnessed to good projects that benefit humanity, living in Earth would be unbelievable right now. It would literally be a physical paradise, if there was no evil and people worked together in harmony and peace. So for a spiritual home for the saints to be beautiful and full of abundance is only logical. And for a spiritual home for wicked people to be full or torture and flames is also only the logical result of their wickedness. Misery is just the natural result of all sin, whether on Earth or in the afterlife, and God wants to help people avoid that fate both here on Earth and (IMO) in the afterlife. I think there is still preaching and striving to turn people from sin in the afterlife, just as there is here on Earth, and there actually are a couple scripture passages that I think refer to it.

I'll probably quote the relevant scriptures when I respond here next. Right now my back and stomach are killing me, so I need to go lie down . . .

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Sorry you're not feeling well, Lief.
What is your acquaintance with the Jean-Paul Sartre?
Your theory is remarkably similar to "Huis-clos."

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Sorry you're not feeling well, Lief.

Thank-you . All better now.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

What is your acquaintance with the Jean-Paul Sartre?
Your theory is remarkably similar to "Huis-clos."

A Muslim chap and I debated extensively with people who agreed with Sartre in my English class, when we covered it. The Muslim and I were very agreed in disagreeing with Sartre . That was a rather interesting experience.

I'm not familiar with "Huis-clos," though. Would you care to describe it?




Here are the scriptures I was planning to cite, to support my views on conversion being possible after death:

1 Peter 3:18-20

Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built . . .

1 Peter 4:5-6

[Pagans] will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For this reason the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

A Muslim chap and I debated extensively with people who agreed with Sartre in my English class, when we covered it. The Muslim and I were very agreed in disagreeing with Sartre .

Pope Benedict proposed to Turkish Muslims that Christians and Muslims ally with each other to combat secularism; and now you're bringing it to the grass roots level.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Pope Benedict proposed to Turkish Muslims that Christians and Muslims ally with each other to combat secularism; and now you're bringing it to the grass roots level.

Thanks .


Continued from the Evolution Thread . . .

Jonathan, prepare yourself for a huge post. Your post opened a whole 'nother issue by leaving the confines of the single passage we were discussing and moving on to discuss the rest of the Genesis account. Because you took the liberty of expanding the conversation in that way, I have taken the liberty of adding Revelation into the mix .

Originally Posted by Jonathan

And as for the "coming fully formed" thing, both Adam and Eve were created as adults, weren't they?

That's not written in the scripture.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

And also, Genesis never said any thing about the sea-creatures or birds being produced by the land or anything. Here God seems to say poof again

That's an interpretation. It says God created, but it doesn't say how he created. You could say it's poof, and I could say it's evolution, but the passage itself doesn't say. The passage I quoted in the other thread is rare, in that it describes the creation mechanism a little bit.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

In adittion, according to modern theory birds evolved after land-living animals. It's the other way around in Genesis, with birds arising on the 5th day and land creatures on the 6th. I think this has been discussed in this thread or elsewhere before, but that was long ago.

I think that this is one place where modern science still has to catch up with the Bible. There have been a LOT of criticisms made about modern dating techniques, especially where they go far back in time, and I'm sure that a lot of advances have yet to be made. That's one point where I'm still just relying on faith .

But consider the passage that you just pointed out again, and note that according to it and the series of creation, life originated in the sea, and man is actually the most recent kid on the block. So there you see some significant connections to the order of evolution, though I agree with you that not everything fits yet.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

So in my mind, for the most part the Biblical creation myth isn't much more accurate than other myths when compared to modern science.

This is truly moving beyond what we were talking about in the other thread. There, you were trying to argue that the passage I quoted was not an evidence for evolution, but now you're making claims about the creation account in general, rather than about that passage. My argument there was about that passage, not about the text as a whole.

But I think that the Genesis account as a whole has a LOT of things going for it that are way beyond the descriptions in most myths. I'll point some more out:

Originally Posted by Genesis 1:6-8

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning- the second day.

According to modern scientific theory, initially the earth was covered in one superocean and chemical brew. Volcanic heat came up from the ocean floor and caused the top layer of that ocean to disintegrate and become the modern atmosphere. It separated the waters; sky and ocean became separate, though they were once unified. This is in very, very close accord with what the scripture says.

My source is a book called Ice Ages that I got from the library at one point and no longer have. I really am determined to hunt up the sources for it in more detail sometime this summer.

Originally Posted by Genesis 1:9-10

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

The water gathered to one place. One superocean. And since all the water is in one place, by necessity the land must also be in one place, rather than split up, dividing up the waters. A supercontinent.

This passage determined the medieval outlook on the origins of the Earth. The church in the medieval era wrote in extremely explicit terms that the Earth's land had, in the past, been one great supercontinent. They took this passage and interpreted it just as it says, and came up with scientific fact. It was a passage they made predictions on, and saw those predictions verified.

Because the Bible was clear on this and the church doctrine had been clear on this, when the theory that the continents had at first been one was initially proposed, scientists spurned it and made the man who proposed it a laughingstock because "it's too Christian."

And I think that this birds thing is another one that will come out. Just wait, and considering the rate of scientific discovery, I expect that within our lifetimes, we'll see the evolution order with birds rearranged so that it was sea creatures, birds and then land animals.

It might be after we're dead that this is discovered, but I bet it'll be within them.

Originally Posted by Genesis 3:14-15

So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, 'Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.'"

The serpent was cursed with crawling on its belly. If that was the curse, then before it was cursed, it couldn't have been crawling on its belly. It had to have stood upright. For this reason, a Christian once came up to me and asked in confusion about this passage, "does this mean that snakes had legs back then?"

It certainly does. And in the past, almost all of the reptiles stood upright. Now, they crawl on their bellies and eat dust, just as the scripture says. So I believe that this is a clear reference to a dinosaur.

The problem, as with the birds, lies in the fact that this serpent shouldn't have stood upright because it wasn't born 65 million years ago but more like 6,000 or so. And even if the scientific dating does adjust to back this account, it won't be viewed as more impressive than other cultures, because dragon myths are to be found worldwide, as are the worldwide flood myths. IMO, those two major, extremely consistent myths across culture are strong evidences that they are descriptions of an ancient memory of mankind.

But this is one that still requires further investigation.

Some of the other passages I want to quote, referencing their connections to science, but the scientific connections just aren't quite fully there. They're partial but incomplete, so I hesitate.

In the Book of Revelation, there are several passages that have very strong connections to various worldwide events and technologies. I'll quote a few.

Originally Posted by Revelation 16:8-9

The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

Sound similar to any modern worries that exist right now?

Originally Posted by Revelation 8-9

The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

Right now, the whole ocean is turning red and brown in color because of all the pollution that is falling in. The sea creatures too are dying. Not the ships, yet. But "Red Tide" is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon, and I am serious that it's worldwide.

Originally Posted by Los Angeles Times

Harmful algae blooms have occurred for ages. Some scientists theorize that a toxic bloom inspired the biblical passage in Exodus: " … all the water in the Nile turned into blood. And the fish in the Nile died, and the Nile stank, so that the Egyptians could not drink water from the Nile. There was blood throughout all the land of Egypt."

What was once a freak of nature has become commonplace. These outbreaks, often called red tides, are occurring more often worldwide, showing up in new places, lasting longer and intensifying.

They are distress signals from an unhealthy ocean. Overfishing, destruction of wetlands, industrial pollution and climate change have made the seas inhospitable for fish and more advanced forms of life and freed the lowliest — algae and bacteria — to flourish.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oc...530,full.story
A huge, HUGE cause of this destruction of our oceans is pollution. "And something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea."

One can nit-pick and say, "the pollution isn't physically on fire, and though the world's oceans are going to look like blood, they aren't actually going to be blood," but that really is nit-picking. The major elements of the judgment are all literally occurring.

Originally Posted by Revelation 10-11

The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water- the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the water turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1684

Originally Posted by World Watch

Toxic chemicals are contaminating groundwater on every inhabited continent, endangering the world's most valuable supplies of freshwater, reports a new study from the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington, DC-based research organization. This first global survey of groundwater pollution shows that a toxic brew of pesticides, nitrogen fertilizers, industrial chemicals, and heavy metals is fouling groundwater everywhere, and that the damage is often worst in the very places where people most need water.

"Groundwater contamination is an irreversible act that will deprive future generations of one of life's basic resources," said Payal Sampat, author of Deep Trouble: The Hidden Threat of Groundwater Pollution. "In the next 50 years, an additional 3 billion people are expected to inhabit the Earth, creating even more demand for water for drinking, irrigation, and industry. But we're polluting our cheapest and most easily accessible supply of water. Most groundwater is still pristine, but unless we take immediate action, clean groundwater will not be there when we need it."

Note that even the name of the "star" described in the passage is telling. Its name is "Wormwood." Pesticides are one of the key sources of the contamination of the world's water.

Another passage of interest would be Revelation 9:13-19. It describes four angels bringing this judgment:

"A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of [the angels' horses'] mouths." And the hourses of the angels had "tails . . . like snakes, having head with which they inflict injury." Injury coming from the tails rather than the mouths of these creatures is significant, for though the immediate destruction, the fire, comes from their mouths, the snakes being the tail end of the attack indicates that is an after effect. In the same way, the nuclear blast comes first and the radiation second.

All of these visions would, to the people of the time, have had to have been fulfilled by miracles. The people didn't know about modern events and technologies, but modern times are shaping up for many of these events to take place. And there are good reasons why those events are taking place now rather than in the past.

So what I've now shown you are most of the scriptures that strongly impress me from Revelation and Genesis, as predictive prophecies that modern science and various unpredictable events have shown are coming true or have come true. There are some others that I believe the Lord is explaining to me, but I'm still conducting some detailed historical research on the events I believe the scriptures are talking about, and so am not comfortable with presenting my partial historical findings yet.

There are a lot of prophecies that are very interesting, though, which are amazing from the scripture. The ones I showed you, I find highly impressive in the precision of their descriptions, but there are others from scripture that are at least that impressive and describe the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ. They have already been fulfilled, and one really doesn't have to look beyond them to see the truth.

[Lief Erikson]

Jonathan, most of the above monster post is to you . *Nightmares rise from the black pool as you look in horror at that length . . .*

Not that I'm excluding anyone else from responding to it .

[Jonathan]

Neat post Lief. I wonder how many inches of computer screen it measures
Alright then. Here we go…

I hope you are aware it is common that people read their thoughts, beliefs and ideas into certain books, lyrics etc. People who are fascinated with the number 23 will see that number in all kinds of places and interpret texts in such a way that 23 appears in some way or another.
People who read Lord of the Rings might read a chapter that reminds them of World War II. And suddenly the trilogy seems to be plentiful of allegories to the war. Never mind that Tolkien himself said his books weren’t allegories of any war at all.

If you specifically look for something specific in a text, you’ll probably find it - whether or not that thing was meant to be there at all. If you look for the number 23, a war allegory or even support for the theory of evolution in the Bible, you’ll probably find it
We read what we want into basically everything. It’s natural for us to do so.

You can post all Biblical interpretations you want and say they resemble moderns science (perhaps much better than any other myth). But the fact remains that these are still your own interpretations. In my mind this takes away much of the “coolness factor” of how well the Bible correlates to modern science, since it’s really your own interpretations that correlate.


I don’t think it’s necessary for me to address everything you said. But there are a few things I’d to comment on:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think that this is one place where modern science still has to catch up with the Bible. There have been a LOT of criticisms made about modern dating techniques, especially where they go far back in time, and I'm sure that a lot of advances have yet to be made. That's one point where I'm still just relying on faith .

I’d say many people cling to that criticism because they have a reason - i.e. the dating techniques contradict their beliefs. But the criticism has been blow out of proportion. The techniques are by all means reliable. But of course that still depends on who you ask.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

According to modern scientific theory, initially the earth was covered in one superocean and chemical brew. Volcanic heat came up from the ocean floor and caused the top layer of that ocean to disintegrate and become the modern atmosphere. It separated the waters; sky and ocean became separate, though they were once unified. This is in very, very close accord with what the scripture says.

My source is a book called Ice Ages that I got from the library at one point and no longer have. I really am determined to hunt up the sources for it in more detail sometime this summer.

Thanks for providing the name of your source! So because of volcanic heat, our atmosphere consists of a lot of water vapour. I think it is precipitate to equate “the atmosphere” with “the sky” but it is still an interpretation one can make. There are of course other interpretations one can make but you choose to interpret it this way. In reality, modern theories are only “in very, very close accord” with your interpretation of the scripture – not necessarily the scripture itself.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The serpent was cursed with crawling on its belly. If that was the curse, then before it was cursed, it couldn't have been crawling on its belly. It had to have stood upright. For this reason, a Christian once came up to me and asked in confusion about this passage, "does this mean that snakes had legs back then?"

It certainly does. And in the past, almost all of the reptiles stood upright. Now, they crawl on their bellies and eat dust, just as the scripture says. So I believe that this is a clear reference to a dinosaur.

As far as I know, rudimentary limbs can be found if you examine the skeleton of a snake. So snakes evolved from reptiles with legs.
First – I believe if a child back in the stone age was to ask his father “why don’t snake have legs like all the other animals? (excluding worms, fish etc.) – the father might be likely to respond “huh, the snake probably lost it legs somehow”. You don’t need a divine book to help you invent this explanation.

Second (and this is semantics really) – The snake didn’t necessarily evolve from a dinosaur specifically. Dinosaurs are just a subspecies (or something) in the reptile family. But yes, the snake evolved from a reptile at least. And yes, you can interpret the biblical text as a reference to pre-historic reptiles but it doesn’t have to be

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The problem, as with the birds, lies in the fact that this serpent shouldn't have stood upright because it wasn't born 65 million years ago but more like 6,000 or so. And even if the scientific dating does adjust to back this account, it won't be viewed as more impressive than other cultures, because dragon myths are to be found worldwide, as are the worldwide flood myths. IMO, those two major, extremely consistent myths across culture are strong evidences that they are descriptions of an ancient memory of mankind.

Consistency between different myths is easy to consider as evidence. But it isn’t real evidence. We’ve found dinosaur (“dragon”) fossils, yes. But most mythologies have stories of e.g. giants as big as houses. We’ve never found such fossils. Inter-mythological consistencies (now that’s a new word!) could have plenty of explanations other than the actual existence of e.g. giants. Giant animals seem to be popular in myths – giant humanoids, giant wolves, giant serpents so why not invent giant lizards and call them “dragons”? That’s just an example of an explanation which, to me, seems more probable than that humans and dinosaurs were contemporary.
To summarize, analogous dragon stories is not strong evidence that early humans met dinosaurs. One could come up with plenty of probable explanations.

The pyramids built by the Egyptians, Mayans and others – are they evidence that these cultures had contact with one another? Or could it be that pyramids were just the easiest construction when you wanted to build something really big?


As for all your quotes from Revelation – that whole part of the Bible is written in such a sneaky way that it is really easy to interpret it any way you want . I guess that was the purpose too. Any exact description of an event and dates of when it will happen would just result in people saying “Oh. That didn’t happen”. But vague, strange wordings will make sure Revelation keeps its great interest throughout the centuries. In the past, people have been able to connect things in Revelation with contemporary events and people in the future will be able to do that as well. The visions have already been fulfilled before and will be fulfilled again and again, thanks to how vaguely formulated they are.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Note that even the name of the "star" described in the passage is telling. Its name is "Wormwood." Pesticides are one of the key sources of the contamination of the world's water.

”Wormwood” is a plant. I don’t know its Greek name so I can’t tell what thoughts the Greek word for “wormwood” evoked in the minds of the writers of Revelation. In the English language, the word might make you think of pesticides but remember the New Testament was written in Greek.
Anyway, pesticides is one interpretation but you could easily come up with many more (“wormwood the star” could be a comet, a nuclear weapon, a virus, an alien race of intergalatctic worms etc. )
Btw the Swedish word for “wormwood” (malört) makes you think of moths rather than worms. Just a funny observation


You read the Bible with your built-in filters and I read it with mine. And everyone else reads it with theirs . I agree that the Bible has many passages that seem to fit well with modern scientific theories. However I disagree with you that these correlations are cool or amazing in any way. Because you can correlate anything with everything, really.
So posting any more scientific connections won’t change these views of mine!

Thanks for that gargantuan post Lief! A pleasure to exchanges ideas with you

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

”Wormwood” is a plant. I don’t know its Greek name so I can’t tell what thoughts the Greek word for “wormwood” evoked in the minds of the writers of Revelation.

Latin, it refers to members of the artemisia family, including several that are used in absinthe, and cause hallucinations, (with which the writer of Revelation was undoubtedly familier. ) It's been traditionally used to expell worms (hence the common name) and may have been one of the traditional "bitter herbs' used in the Passover Seder, representing the bitterness of slavery. Jeremiah 9.15 also refers to it.

Second (and this is semantics really) – The snake didn’t necessarily evolve from a dinosaur specifically. Dinosaurs are just a subspecies (or something) in the reptile family. But yes, the snake evolved from a reptile at least.

Actually, although dinosaurs are considered related to birds, there's no consensus that they were reptiles. They may have been warm-blooded, even.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Latin, it refers to members of the artemisia family, including several that are used in absinthe, and cause hallucinations, (with which the writer of Revelation was undoubtedly familier. )

So Revelation reveals that absinthe will be the doom of humanity

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Actually, although dinosaurs are considered related to birds, there's no consensus that they were reptiles. They may have been warm-blooded, even.

I think you're right. In any case dinosaurs and birds can both be said to be related to reptiles even if they don't count as reptiles themselves.

[Lief Erikson]

Here are the root meanings according to this website: http://www.the-night.net/absinthe/wormwood.htm
How reliable it is, I don't know, but I have no reason to think it's bad. It mentions the later connection to Absynth as well.

Called Absinthium by the Romans for the latin word absinthial meaning "bitter". The name Wormwood may have come from the Anglo-Saxon word wermode meaning "waremood" or "mind preserver", or the Greek word apsinthion meaning "undrinkable" (because of its bitter taste).

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Actually, although dinosaurs are considered related to birds, there's no consensus that they were reptiles. They may have been warm-blooded, even.

Quoting Jurassic Park isn't going to help . I asked my Biology professor about the dinosaurs being warm blooded a couple semesters ago, and he said that they were reptiles.

I'll respond to the rest soon.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Quoting Jurassic Park isn't going to help . I asked my Biology professor about the dinosaurs being warm blooded a couple semesters ago, and he said that they were reptiles.

Never read Jurrasic Park. http://www.dinoruss.com/de_4/5c51d90.htm
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dinosaurs/warmblood.html
I said,"there's no consensus, they may have been."

http://www.txtwriter.com/onscience/A...dinoblood.html

Both true. Your Biology professor does not represent a consensus of scientists on this point. The verdict is not yet in.

And wormwood is used as an anthelmintic. Much more logical as an explanation for the common name.

[Tessar]

Lief, if you ever write a book, you will put Robert Jordan TO SHAME.

I'm sure I'll need a U-Haul trailer to purchase the entire series.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Never read Jurrasic Park. http://www.dinoruss.com/de_4/5c51d90.htm
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dinosaurs/warmblood.html
I said,"there's no consensus, they may have been."

http://www.txtwriter.com/onscience/A...dinoblood.html

Both true. Your Biology professor does not represent a consensus of scientists on this point. The verdict is not yet in.

Okay, you've convinced me of that .

Originally Posted by Jonathan

In any case dinosaurs and birds can both be said to be related to reptiles even if they don't count as reptiles themselves.

As Sis says, the verdict is still out, but I agree that they're at least related.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And wormwood is used as an anthelmintic. Much more logical as an explanation for the common name.

It was used as a bitter medicine in ancient Egypt and by the Greeks. Its use as a drink, though, came far later.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The first clear evidence of absinthe in the modern sense of a distilled spirit containing green anise and fennel, however, dates to the 18th century but may be older. According to popular legend, however, absinthe began as an all-purpose patent remedy created by Dr. Pierre Ordinaire, a French doctor living in Couvet, Switzerland, around 1792 (the exact date varies by account).

The use of the word as a form of spirits came almost two thousand years after the Book of Revelation was written, so there's no way that it was used to refer to alcohol. Its original meaning was "bitter," and it's in that sense that it is used in Revelation.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

You can post all Biblical interpretations you want and say they resemble moderns science (perhaps much better than any other myth). But the fact remains that these are still your own interpretations. In my mind this takes away much of the “coolness factor” of how well the Bible correlates to modern science, since it’s really your own interpretations that correlate.

It really, really should not take away the "coolness factor." You're quite right that people can construct all kinds of interpretations to suit their fancies. They can interpret anything in whatever ways they wish. For that to take away the coolness is, no offense, ridiculous. For I think we can both agree that some interpretations make more sense than others. I might construct some fancy interpretation of the Bible that comes to the conclusion that God does not exist, but that interpretation clearly makes less sense than the commonly held perspective that it claims that God does exist.

Anyone can argue anything about anything. That does not mean anything can mean anything, and acknowledging that alternative interpretations exist should not keep one from finding the obvious and correct interpretation cool.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I’d say many people cling to that criticism because they have a reason - i.e. the dating techniques contradict their beliefs. But the criticism has been blow out of proportion. The techniques are by all means reliable. But of course that still depends on who you ask.

We'll see.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I think it is precipitate to equate “the atmosphere” with “the sky” but it is still an interpretation one can make.

The atmosphere is one layer of the sky. That's what the sky means. I expect that that event also was responsible for creating the other layers of the sky as well, though again, I'll need to find my source.

But it's as the scripture said, water was separated from water and the sky was made out of what originally was one big mush of water, thus separated from the seas, just as the scripture says.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

There are of course other interpretations one can make but you choose to interpret it this way. In reality, modern theories are only “in very, very close accord” with your interpretation of the scripture – not necessarily the scripture itself.

Everything anyone says about anything is interpretation. If you say, "I want some toast," I'll interpret you as wanting bread that has been toasted rather than as wanting a toasty day, or to be toasted. If you say, "I'm tired!" I'll interpret you as being physically tired rather than as being tired of me. Whenever anyone says anything, interpretation is required on the part of the one who hears it. But a lot of times, one interpretation makes a lot more sense than any other, and that's the one we go by.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

As far as I know, rudimentary limbs can be found if you examine the skeleton of a snake. So snakes evolved from reptiles with legs.

That would confirm Genesis' claims that originally, snakes stood upright.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

First – I believe if a child back in the stone age was to ask his father “why don’t snake have legs like all the other animals? (excluding worms, fish etc.) – the father might be likely to respond “huh, the snake probably lost it legs somehow”. You don’t need a divine book to help you invent this explanation.

Why do you exclude worms, fish and other such creatures? The question applies equally to them. But Genesis doesn't mention them. It mentions only the kind of animal that we know specifically had ancestors with legs.

Besides, if the Bible was trying to answer questions like, "why don't snakes have legs like the other animals?" it would probably also seek to say why humans don't have wings, or why fish have scales instead of feathers.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Second (and this is semantics really) – The snake didn’t necessarily evolve from a dinosaur specifically. Dinosaurs are just a subspecies (or something) in the reptile family. But yes, the snake evolved from a reptile at least. And yes, you can interpret the biblical text as a reference to pre-historic reptiles but it doesn’t have to be

It does have to say that snakes in the past did not crawl on their bellies, but instead stood upright. That, it does have to say, because it says that a judgment from God was that it would crawl on its belly and eat dust. That's no judgment if it always crawled don its belly and ate dust. Therefore the Bible says that in the past, snakes had legs. That's the only interpretation that makes sense.

I'd rather not respond to your point about dragon myths, for the moment, for that's a tangent issue and I'd rather focus upon what the Bible says at the moment.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

As for all your quotes from Revelation – that whole part of the Bible is written in such a sneaky way that it is really easy to interpret it any way you want .

I wish you'd respond to the different quotes more specifically. I agree with you that there's a good deal of symbolic imagery, but I disagree with you that one can interpret them in any way one wants. They describe world cataclysms, and those cataclysms are now occurring.

The sea is turning red like blood because something like a mountain fell into it, the sun is receiving power to scorch the people of the Earth, the world's rivers and springs of water are turning bitter due to "wormwood" (a remedy that historically has been used to cleanse people from parasites, and which thus is a very logical word to choose to refer to pesticides that hadn't been invented yet, and would cleanse plants from parasites), and now the technology exists for mankind to horrifically mutilate itself with fire and further injury afterward (radiation).

By the way, you haven't responded to my points about the scriptural references to Pangea and Panthalassa.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I guess that was the purpose too. Any exact description of an event and dates of when it will happen would just result in people saying “Oh. That didn’t happen”.

Actually, there are some dates and timetables given that involve some parts of Revelation, and these are very fascinating. I make one change to the actual wording of the scriptures, in my interpretation, though. I exchange the word "day" for the word "year." In a few different places, Revelation refers to events taking "1,260 days", where I think it's referring to 1,260 years.

In one passage, the scripture refers to God's people being taken to a place of safety for 1,260 days, and says that after that time is over, the devil will "pursue" the church.

In a different passage, it says that Christ and his saints will reign on Earth for "1,000 years," and says that after that time, Satan will come forth and deceive the nations. I think that "1,000" is a rounded number (like the God's prediction of Israel's time of captivity in Egypt was) and 1,260 is a precise number. I think that these two scriptures are actually referring to the same events.

The similarity between these scriptures suggests that day might mean year, but this is the shakiest part of my beliefs about Revelation. If I'm right about it, though, then a LOT of events line up with history in very impressive ways, for a number of very important scriptural events line up perfectly if given precisely 1,260 years as the timetable.

None of the apocalypse scriptures that I've quoted to you above depend on those timetables, though.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

But vague, strange wordings will make sure Revelation keeps its great interest throughout the centuries. In the past, people have been able to connect things in Revelation with contemporary events and people in the future will be able to do that as well. The visions have already been fulfilled before and will be fulfilled again and again, thanks to how vaguely formulated they are.

The problem with all the past interpretations is that they can't take these scriptures as events that impact the entire world, and that's how they're written. They have to take them as local events, and that doesn't fit with the wording.