Homosexual groups advocate at Christian colleges with Christian Council blessing

I don't know what you find funny Craig.
Jesus wasn't telling a story, an epic, a legend, or any other such thing. He was teaching and speaking the truth. He was teaching truth from the historical truth taught in the historical account of Genesis, and there is nothing in his words to indicate otherwise. He says nothing about the account not being historical. He, in fact, gives every indication that it is historical. He refers to Moses and the law as actual events not fictional. It indeed is an historical account. Prove by Jesus words otherwise.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]To argue that Jesus was both ignorant enough and stupid enough to believe that the story of Noah’s Ark is a literal account of an historic event is to argue against the divinity of Christ. Jesus was not writing a scientific treatise on the flood depicted in Genesis; He was making the point that divorce is contrary to the will of God. He used the commonly accepted interpretation of His day to make his point, but He did NOT endorse that interpretation—and he could not have endorsed it because He most certainly knew that the story was an epic tale rather than a literal account of an historic event.

 

Assumption: Craig knows the animals and weights taken on the Ark.

Dismissed: That the Ark with or without too much weight was preserved in a way that must be categorized as a miracle.

Ignored: God said it happened... so however you want to explain it- It happened.

Assumes he knows the animals that went on board, that they were conscious, that God did not superintend their behavior so that they might be preserved, that adults were taken rather than infants or even eggs,...

Craig assumes numerous straw men to justify his denial of what God declared... and several times affirmed as a literal event.

Again, assumes that God didn't intervene... after He commanded Noah to build the Ark and told him how to stock it.

Depends on God's provision... a God that didn't let a jar run out of flour and turned a few fishes and loaves into enough to feed thousands.

Why are you so quick to dismiss God's ability to do make provision for what He said happened yet so quick to accept human speculations about natural history that even if proven possible can never be proven true?

Assumes a whole bunch of things that discount both God's providential and sovereign control over the events surrounding the flood.

If you trust God then why do you always default to naturalism rather than His demonstrated ability to accomplish things above and beyond the bounds of nature?

Again full of assumptions... especially considering that the higher peaks were only 20 something feet below the water's surface.

Which is probably why God kept them on the Ark until the bird brought back the olive branch, huh?

Assumes modern species with modern limitations.

Assumes many unsubstantiated things while discounting God's ability, or even Noah's, to provide adequate separation.

a) God is fully capable of assembling any group of animals He chooses and b) only one of each kind was necessary to preserve the animals.

That is such a simple problem to solve that you'll be left to yourself.

Or one God... who created all of those "habitats" in 6 days previously.

No... God can care for sparrows.

There is more than sufficient water right now to submerge all of the land masses.

Assumes identical weather conditions.

No... rather it cannot be a historical event within the arbitrary parameters you cast over what God said He did... fully discountin His ability to do what He said and communicate it.

And just how small is this god you say couldn't do it?

No it isn't. That once again is YOU reading YOUR "infallible" bias into the account.

Jesus walking on water is a literal narrative account that doesn't directly declare how He is doing it or even that it is a miracle. You simply know it is because people can't walk on water.

Noah's flood may or may not depend on miracles... but in no way are miracles disallowed by the text or the FACT that it is a narrative.

Your efforts to preserve your own biases against God's Word are nothing short of amazing some times.

 

For you to claim that:
1. Jeus was ignorant and stupid because he believed in Noah and the flood (which by all accounts he did). He never indicated otherwise. We only have your word that he did not, which puts you in the place of God. That is the height of blasphemy.

2. You have argued against the divinity of Christ by denying the events yourself. Is Christ not divine to refer to the very events that he himself spoke about and in fact caused to happen? The Creator was speaking of His Creation.

3. His point about divorce being against the will of God, was taken from the Book of Genesis, where he clearly quoted from. It was a direct quote from an historical book--plain for all to see.

4. He was speaking literally. You say he was using the common interpretation of the day, when in fact that type of interpretation didn't come into existence until the time of Augustine. A little church history is in order here isn't it Craig?

5. Of course he didn't endorse your type of interpretation. It is wrong and he didn't use it. He spoke literally of an historical event that took place thousands of years earlier at a specific time in history.
DHK

 

Scott J wrote,

There is an indescribably vast difference between my own biases and established scientific fact! No one’s grossly ignorant interpretation the Bible is “God’s Word.”

We have the Bible, and we have countless interpretations of it. Some of these interpretations are based upon a lifetime of highly academic research and a close and personal relationship with Christ; some of these interpretations are based on the most unimaginable ignorance of God, the Bible, and science.

 

There is an indescribably vast difference between my own biases and established scientific fact! No one’s grossly ignorant interpretation the Bible is “God’s Word.”
</font>[/QUOTE]I agree on the ignorant part.
Especially when a poster posts that the ark had to have fish on it.

 

DHK wrote,

You are confusing the interpretation of Genesis in the first century with the interpretation of a Roman Catholic Bishop in the early part of the fifth century. First century Jews believed that the first eleven chapters of Genesis were an historic account of actual events and Jesus used that incorrect belief to make his point that divorce is contrary to the will of God. Paul also used an incorrect belief in his defense of the doctrine of the resurrection,

1 Cor. 15:29. Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? (NASB, 1995)

The use of incorrect beliefs and interpretations is a very common mode of argument to prove the point that one is making, and to jump to the conclusion that the individual using this mode of argument actually believed that the incorrect beliefs and interpretations were actually correct is based upon nothing but the grossest of foolishness.

 

The vast majority of the thousands of kinds of fish are extremely sensitive to changes in water chemistry and would have quickly died during the flood if they were not aboard the ark in aquariums with the necessary equipment to both monitor and regulate the water chemistry. Jesus, being divine, of course knew about salt water fish and water chemistry and therefore He of course knew that the story of Noah’s Ark was an epic tale rather than an historic account of actual events. Jesus was either divine and had divine knowledge, or he was just an ignorant fool. The Bible teaches that Jesus was divine and I believe the Bible. Perhaps someday you will too.

 

The vast majority of the thousands of kinds of fish are extremely sensitive to changes in water chemistry and would have quickly died during the flood if they were not aboard the ark in aquariums with the necessary equipment to both monitor and regulate the water chemistry. Jesus, being divine, of course knew about salt water fish and water chemistry and therefore He of course knew that the story of Noah’s Ark was an epic tale rather than an historic account of actual events. Jesus was either divine and had divine knowledge, or he was just an ignorant fool. The Bible teaches that Jesus was divine and I believe the Bible. Perhaps someday you will too.



</font>[/QUOTE]I wonder where all the different kinds of fish came from?
In fact, where did the salt water come from?
Did salt water exist before the flood?
Better think on these questions first.
DHK

 

Since God spoke the world into existance and every thing in it in 6 days time, I would say that He had the power to speak new foliage into existance when Noah and all got off that ark.

I would also say God could have fed those animals with the bare necessities just as Jesus fed 5,000 with the bread and fishes and had twelve baskets left over.

As to lifting the ark, God is able to make a hippopotamus float on a half inch of water if He so desires. So I believe that ark was lifted above the earth just as the Bible says.

 

The story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural means of an ark built by Noah and his family mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.

 

is not God capable of performing indescribably huge miracles? Or are we to limit God?

 

A literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural means of an ark built by Noah and his family mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.

 

God has healed sick of disease, cast out devils, raised the dead, yet He is not able to perform what He said in His Word He did?

Come on Craig... you and deceiving anyone but yerself.

 

The practice of homosexuality is a sin, and so are adultery, lying, envying, stealing, carousing, gluttony, drunkenness, jealousy, and all other expressions of walking in the flesh rather than in the spirit. When was the last time that Christian colleges and universities denied admittance to students who were overweight, envious of another student who didn’t have to work his way through school, or jealous of another guy because the girls thought that he was more handsome?

 

That is true.

Are you rationalizing that homosexuals should be accepted "just as they are" or just arguing for consistency?

BTW, being overweight isn't necessarily a sign of gluttony or sloth... any more than being less than a he-man renders someone effeminate or homosexual.

But more to the point, when was the last time a non-sinner was considered for admittance to any school? The question is their general lifestyle and repentance. You cannot proclaim something "who you are" or your "lifestyle" while professing to be repentant of it.

 

There is an indescribably vast difference between my own biases and established scientific fact!</font>[/QUOTE] None of what you claim is established scientific fact.

And if you don't know the difference between your biased opinions and facts... then your vanity problem goes much deeper than just lacking faith in God's Word.

Grossly ignorant? So to read the words... written as a narrative... and say "Hmmm, God must have meant what He said"... is grossly ignorant? I don't think so. Especially in the light that every mention of the events in question throughout scripture treats them as literal events and truths.

The reasons one would doubt come from the vain opinions of men operating on their biases and philosophical presuppositions.

Many of which show respect for the text of it... and many that don't. Yours don't.

Premised of course on the notion that the Bible may be wrong but man's philosophical premises and abilities to interpret evidence are reliable... especially if premised on naturalism rather than supernaturalism.

Why someone must be a fool to approach the Bible from a supernaturalist perspective... that would be "faith".

If you have a close personal relationship with someone who is leading you to have faith in men's criticism of the Bible rather than the text of what God inspired and preserved... then it isn't Christ.

No need to confess to us.

 

A literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural means of an ark built by Noah and his family mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.



</font>[/QUOTE]Following Craig's "logic" expressed here: "A literal interpretation of the resurrection does not allow for miracles since natural law must have been obeyed since the Bible doesn't expressly say it was miraculous."

"Jesus walking on the water was a narrative therefore it cannot be literal and miraculous."

"Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is given as a narrative therefore it cannot be literal and miraculous."

Now I am not accusing Craig of believing in these miracles since I have never seen him specifically claim to do so... but if he doesn't then he makes Christ a master deceiver and falsifies the Christian faith altogether.

By the same token, repudiating what God said happened concerning the Flood and Noah as given in narrative by nothing more than the authority of men (and their interpretations of nature) makes God a master deceiver.

I suspect though that Craig probably believes in these "small" miracles (supernatural acts) of the NT... but can't choke down the "big" miracles (supernatural acts) indicated in the OT.

 

Alright, who or what is Craigbythesea trying to parody? It's hilarious.

 

Scott J wrote,

“God said . . .” “God said . . .” “God said . . .” “God said . . .” “God said . . .” “God said . . .” “God said . . .” “God said . . .”

I find this gross distortion of the truth to be decidedly unchristian for two reasons:

1. God did NOT say anything of the sort.

2. If God had said anything of the sort, He would not have been God because God is neither a grammar school dropout nor a liar.

The truth is that we have today an old document commonly known as “The Book of Genesis.” We know for a fact that God did NOT write it because God is neither a grammar school dropout nor a liar, but we do not know who did write it. We know that the authorship of it is commonly attributed by the unlearned to Moses based upon ancient legends, but what could possibly be more ludicrous and lacking in any sense whatsoever than to believe that a dead man wrote about his own death! Am I replying in this thread to hopelessly ill 18th century patients in Saint Mary’s of Bethlehem or am I writing to sane people in the 21st century? (That is, of course, a rhetorical question because the answer to it could not be more obvious! ). It is true, of course, that traditional Jews and uneducated first century Christians were under the absurd notion that Moses wrote it , but none of them were so insane as to believe that God wrote it.

Contrary to the misconception of many on this message that Jesus was a grammar school dropout who believed that God put a pencil in the right hand of Moses and a pencil sharpener in the other and dictated to Moses the Pentateuch , I believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that he had enough sense and knowledge to know better than to believe such absolutely ludicrous nonsense. But, of course, both Jesus and Peter were familiar with the beliefs regarding the authorship of the Pentateuch and, rather than start an argument with the masses over the authorship of it , they spoke of it in the language of the day as being “the writings of Moses.” Needless to say, this neither implies nor suggests that either Jesus or Peter expected anyone living in the 21st century to make fools of themselves by grossly distorting the meaning of their words but expected them to recognize them as a very common form of rhetoric found in the Bible and other writings. Paul, a gifted writer who used many literary devises to express the truths revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, wrote,

1 Cor. 1529. Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? (NASB, 1995)

Paul is using here precisely the same literary devise used by both Jesus and Peter regarding the authorship of the Pentateuch. Paul did not believe in or advocate Baptizing Christians on behalf of their dead, unsaved relatives, but he knew that that was a common practice in the Corinthian Church, and rather that get into a futile and vain argument over that harmless issue, he used that belief to show the Corinthians that deep in their hearts they knew that the resurrection was a reality.

There is, therefore, absolutely no Biblical reason to attribute the authorship of Genesis to Moses, and only hopelessly ill 18th century patients in Saint Mary’s of Bethlehem could possibly come to the conclusion, contrary to both the Bible and the most basic common sense, that God put a pencil and a pencil sharpener into the hands of Moses and dictated the Pentateuch to him.