Evolution-A Religion or Not?

It takes a lot of faith to believe it

Published on June 22, 2006 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Religion

Today the local newspaper printed an editorial response by my son David and I thought I'd share it. It was pretty good and many people around town alerted him to the fact it was in there as well as my husband while out and about. It was a response to an earlier article about evolution. Anyhow here it is.

Theory of Evolution

Evolution is fact? The evolution “theory” that is taught in classrooms today is nothing more then that- a theory. There are more holes in evolution then twelve Swiss cheese sandwiches! I would love for Mr. Sares to show me the scientific law that proves life can come from non-life, the very staple of evolution. That, however, is impossible because no such law exists; there are only theories of how this may occur. Look outside. Especially here in the Mountains we should be able to see with our own eyes the complexity of our earth in its beauty with the mountains and the gorgeous sunsets.

Look at yourself. The human body is the most complex thing on earth. This wasn’t an accident. Scientists say that although the chances of evolution are impossible, given enough time this impossibility becomes a possibility. They say that if I randomly picked a card from a deck of 52 cards enough times it’s possible that I could pick the ace of spades 100 times in a row, given enough time. But what are the chances of that ace of spades growing a head, a brain, legs and arms and starting up a conversation with me? That Mr. Sares is the possibility of the “theory” of evolution.

One Creationist, Kent Hovind, stated he would give $10,000 to anyone who could prove evolution scientifically. No one has come forward yet since he made this challenge- in 1990. Mr. Sares, I challenge you to take up this task and prove to all your readers that evolution is true science. In the meantime, why don’t we continue to teach our children that they are here by mistake, with no purpose in life and let’s continue wondering why they lack self-esteem.

David

One has to wonder why, in the absense of physical substance or actual evidence (the missing link) ,is evolution not somewhat faith-based? Perhaps it is because having faith in the theory of a missing link is more acceptable than having faith in an intelligent designer?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrew 11:1

Let's face it.....evolution is indeed a religion."

Comments (Page 9)

121

bakerstreet

on Jul 01, 2006

Also, reading up on John MacArthur, I found that he has been embroiled in a little spat in the past with his denomination about whether or not Jesus has always been the 'son' of God, or whether he became the son of God when he was born on Earth. Evidently it went on for a while until he finally relented and agreed that he'd been wrong, and that Jesus was the son of God even before Bethlehem.

I suppose that our interpretation of the Bible can cause us a lot of problems, whether or not the book is infallible itself. That, if for no other reason, should give us pause in making these big judgements, wouldn't you say?

Such in-fighting over trivialities is the real fruits of seeing the Bible as inerrant. We spend all our time arguing about what his word on this page means, when people who see the Bible as man-made read it and go on. The Pharisees loved to do that sort of thing, according to the Bible. If you show me where a belief in biblical inerrancy has shown itself to be productive, I'll feel a bit better about it, but in my experience it is just something that causes division among believers, and alienates non-believers.

P.S. I found this verse from the Koran that might be of interest:

"And we have made the earth egg shaped (79:30)"

Sounds more 'round' than much you read about in the Bible.

122

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 01, 2006

you've got to be kidding!! What is it with you and the attacks Baker? You pull up some attack posted on the net on MacArthur and you run with it? He is as squeaky clean as they come. His integrity is unquestioned outside of that link you just posted. I've seen that before actually from another friend of mine who didn't like what MacArthur had to say. Of course if one is boldly speaking the truth he's going to be attacked. This is his bio....notice how long he's been preaching in that church you just mentioned

John MacArthur’s Bio Widely known for his thorough, candid approach to teaching God’s Word, John MacArthur is a fifth-generation pastor, a popular author and conference speaker, and has served as pastor-teacher of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California since 1969.John’s pulpit ministry has been extended around the globe through his media ministry, Grace to You, and its satellite offices in Australia, Canada, Europe, India, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Africa. In addition to producing daily radio programs for nearly 2,000 English and Spanish radio outlets worldwide, Grace to You distributes books, software, audiotapes, and CDs by John MacArthur. In thirty-six years of ministry, Grace to You has distributed more than thirteen million CDs and audiotapes. John is the president of The Master's College and The Master's Seminary, and he has written hundreds of books and study guides (see below), each one thoroughly biblical and practical. Best-selling titles include The Gospel According to Jesus, The Second Coming, Ashamed of the Gospel, Twelve Ordinary Men, and The MacArthur Study Bible, a 1998 ECPA Gold Medallion recipient. John and his wife, Patricia, have four grown children and thirteen grandchildren. He also serves as president of The Master’s College and Seminary.

Link

Now this guy does have credentials and yet you still go after him. Even if that what you sent is true.....it's a nonsense argument. It means nothing. Also after 40 years in the same church if this is all you can come up with.......well you know the rest. Obviously the people love him there enough to keep him there almost 40 years. I've heard it's a huge church. He's on the radio 800 times a day, listened to all over the world. That in itself means nothing really. What matters to me is that he is speaking truth. I don't always agree 100% with any preacher but he's up there IMO, and I trust him to deliver the truth. I challange you to find him on your local station and just listen to him...once. I bet you may have a different opinion.

He would be my go to guy like Ken Ham would be for Science. Both men are leaders in their fields and many many have great respect for both of them. Their interity is unquestioned and both eptiomize what a true Christian man should be.

123

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 01, 2006

ok now onto the other points you made and I believe they are valid. You brought up some good points and I would like to address them.

If you can find for me where it says that about elephants and earthquakes in the Koran, I'll offer you a sincere apology for calling the man you cite a liar. Until you do, that's what he is, in my opinion.

Ok have you checked the Hadith? Are you familiar with it? My guess MacArthur meant the Hadith which is the second source of truth next to the Koran. Actually I think they are both held up very high, maybe even equally. In that case. I have two people I can check with. One is a Muslim in Paris that I have connections with. The other is here and has just come back after being in Uzbeckistan for 14 years as a Missionary. He has a Koran and can give me the answers I need. He lived in that culture for that long. If it is in the Hadith then it would be a slip of the tongue for MacArthur. Remember this is a sermon, typed up by a stenographer and later put on the net. I may write in and alert him to that if it's indeed the Hadith but not sure if it can be changed or not given this was a sermon as is given in 1997. But this would make him far from a liar. Pretty strong language Baker and your Bias is really coming out here.

"Job 9:6. "Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."I Samuel 2:8. "..for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them."The (flat) earth in the Bible is set upon pillars

Ok, first off it says nowhere in those passages of a flat earth. That's your doing. That's called twisting scripture. This is what 1 Samuel says in entiety:

"He raises up the poor out of the dust and lifts up the beggar from the dunghill to set them among princes and to make them inherit the throne of glory for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's and he has set the world upon them."

Well who's them? This has nothing to do with pillars like what you're thinking holding up the earth. He sets the poor and sets them among the princes......makes them world leaders. It says in Proverbs that it is He who sets the kings in their places. He allows them to rule. They are the pillars. Does this make sense now when you read it in context? Also this is a song/prayer by Hannah so in context the theme of her prayer is her confidence in God's sovereignty. Here in this section she's praising him for his power. You could also look at this section as stability that God has all under control.

124

MasonM

on Jul 01, 2006

Showme a signle transitional fossil.

125

bakerstreet

on Jul 02, 2006

"Of course if one is boldly speaking the truth he's going to be attacked. This is his bio....notice how long he's been preaching in that church you just mentioned"

I try to make sure someone speaks the truth before I start taking them at their word. I can give you dozens of perfectly reasonable quotes that you would nod right along, and then watch your jaw drop when I told you who said it. If someone says a half dozen things I agree with, but most everything else they say is off the wall, I'd want to know.

Like that Hovind guy. He says a lot of things that creationists agree with, but when he starts talking about "The Hovind Theory" creationists start edging away from him in embarassment. He starts talking about giant ice balls falling from space flash freezing mammoths so fast they didn't have time to fall down and, well, come on...

The argument about Jesus being the son of God before and after Bethlehem isn't really a race I have a horse in, but I thought it showed perfectly well how literalists tend to sit around and argue about inconsequential biblical details just like the pharisees, but couldn't recognize Jesus if he was wearing a name tag.

By their fruits...

"If it is in the Hadith then it would be a slip of the tongue for MacArthur."

To my knowledge it isn't in the Hadith, either, because it is Hindu folklore, and Muslims have despised Hinduism for as long as they have had contact. It IS a grand example of people stolidly sticking to bronze age mythology in the presence of alternative fact, though the lesson would no doubt be lost on Mr MacArthur.

The issue is someone standing in the pulpit stating falsehood. If it is untrue as I am almost certain it is, he's setting up his flock to carry such lies out into the world and have the rug yanked out from under them. IMHO you don't get many pardons for that when you are making the claim that you are called to speak for God.

The Job quote and the other were intended to make you see that the Bible speaks figuratively about the 'pillars of the earth' and yet you and Mr. MacArthur doesn't grant any figurative leniency to anyone else. There's a great deal in your literally perfect Bible that isn't intended to be taken literally, isn't there?

Let's not forget that biblical scholars much more dedicated than you or I executed people for the heretical belief that the earth revolves around the sun. Therein lies the problem with the infallible Bible. In the end your interpretation also becomes infallible, and then people who interpret it make vile mistakes.

" Showme a signle transitional fossil."

Take the time to understand the theory and you'll find that they are almost ALL transitional. If you are looking for a monkey with a man's head or a tomato with watermelons for fruit you need to go back and look again.

126

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 02, 2006

In Job I do think he's using poetic license here. The Pillars denote strength and stabiity. In this section 4-12 Job is saying that God has revealed enough about Himself even through nature. Remember Job also says..."The earth hangs on nothing" 26:7

Other scripture talks about this shaking...for instance a few here

Isa 2:19 And they shall go into the holes of the rocks and into the caves of the earth for fear of the Lord and for the glory of His Magesty when he arises to shake terribly the earth.

13:13: I will shake the heavens and the earth shall remove out of her place........

Hag 2:6: For thus says the Lord of Hosts, yet once it is a little while and I will shake the heavens and the earth.....

Rev 6:12-13 ....there was a great earthquake ........And the stars of heaven fell to the earth even as a fig tree casts her untimely figs when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

I studied (not read) bit by bit, verse by verse the book of Revelation for two years. I saw that all the OT prophets spoke of this great shaking at the end times. It's all over the place and is under the "Day of the Lord" timing which is basically last day events. Much of it to me sounds like astroids and the great earthquake we're all waiting for. I mean look at the power of the tsuami in Indonesia and that is small in comparison.

I suppose that our interpretation of the Bible can cause us a lot of problems, whether or not the book is infallible itself. That, if for no other reason, should give us pause in making these big judgements, wouldn't you say?

ya I think the biggest problem tho is people pick and choose what they want and that's where the problems arise. They don't use the "whole counsel of God." But for those who do usually their debates stem around 'non essentials." I take this approach..

In Essentials-unity
In Non Essentials-Liberty
in all things-Love

P.S. I found this verse from the Koran that might be of interest:"And we have made the earth egg shaped (79:30)"Sounds more 'round' than much you read about in the Bible.

Yes, it's interesting but how can it be more "round" than the "circle of the earth?" So now ask yourself. Is the earth round or egg shaped?

Showme a signle transitional fossil.

yeah Mason *grins* Show me too!!

127

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 02, 2006

Let's not forget that biblical scholars much more dedicated than you or I executed people for the heretical belief that the earth revolves around the sun. Therein lies the problem with the infallible Bible. In the end your interpretation also becomes infallible, and then people who interpret it make vile mistakes.

yes those scholors (CC) made a great mistake and is a great embarassment to the church. I agree. But nowhere in the bible will you find such a claim. So don't knock the bible for what the interpreters interpreted. Everything revolves around the SON and the sun as well. The fault is not with the word at all. I also think that every generation has been given more light. We've found out more and more as the world goes on. Today, Revelation makes much more sense and Daniel as well. It's almost like reading the news or watching it on TV. I read alot of Matthew Henry of the 1700's and he had a very hard time grasping the prophetic scriptures without what we have for modern technolgy. Israel being in their own nation is huge as well. It makes much more sense now.

If someone says a half dozen things I agree with, but most everything else they say is off the wall, I'd want to know.

me too but Baker, who DO YOU LIKE? I've given you two great guys and they are about as straight as you can get and you are picking on them for little things. Hovind is either you like him or hate him type of guy but the other two stand out as very reliable.

The Job quote and the other were intended to make you see that the Bible speaks figuratively about the 'pillars of the earth' and yet you and Mr. MacArthur doesn't grant any figurative leniency to anyone else

I dunno Baker, the earth on elephants backs compared to pillars meaning strength and stability?

how literalists tend to sit around and argue about inconsequential biblical details just like the pharisees, but couldn't recognize Jesus if he was wearing a name tag.

pretty strong generalization here. I don't think you can generalize like that. The bible is to be taken both literally and symbolically as it is both. Some go to far either way. When Jesus said he was the door, or the bread of life. Do I think he's a loaf of bread? Or a door? No. Like I keep saying...IF IT MAKES SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE. It's a good rule to go by.

128

bakerstreet

on Jul 02, 2006

"n Job I do think he's using poetic license here. "

Oh, there are people even more literalist than you and insist that every word is literal, like the take-up-snakes-and-drink-poison folks. You just expect everyone to come to the same literal translation of figurative literature as you. Mr MacArther made that demand on the Koran with the elephants thing, but when you start talking about the earth sitting on pillars it is nitpicking to take that literally?

Can't you see what a mess that is? Go back and look at the kind of horrible cults that came to be in the early church because such verses were taken literally. We think that the Romans were burning Baptists, but in reality Romans were seeing Christians who believed in human sacrifice, cannibalism, self mutilation, suicide, etc.

So, you admit that the Bible isn't supposed to be taken 100% literally. You would differ, no doubt, with Catholics who believe that we are actually eating Christ's flesh and drinking Christ's blood during communion, but they get their belief from a literal interpretation of the Bible. Can't you see how your own flavor of Christianity came about by REJECTING literal interpretations of scripture?

"ya I think the biggest problem tho is people pick and choose what they want and that's where the problems arise."

But you'd admit that you pick and choose which parts to take literally, which parts of the Old Testament are no longer mandates, etc., based upon what you deem figurative and how you interpret the Bible.

Let's say a father, seeing his kids off for a day of swimming, made a cryptic comment. At the last moment some of the kids realized it was a warning about something in particular and the rest drowned. Would you consider that the actions of a 'perfect' father? Nor do I think God would purposely encrypt his message to mankind so that the majority of them would go to hell.

If I expect more of a fallible human being, I am not thinking very much of God to say he'd behave that way, am I? I don't think the kids who survived would feel very good when their father shrugged at the funeral and said "He that hath ears, let him hear"...

In the end what is literal isn't the Bible, it is your interpretation of what it says. When you are shown something that isn't literally true, you say it is figurative, and that my interpretation of it is flawed. Who decides what is literal or figurative, Mr MacArthur and the elephants?

So, the difference between you and people who take the Genesis story figuratively isn't much different than you and the Catholics who believe in transubstantiation, or you and the snake handlers. You aren't right because the Bible is literally perfect, you are right because you are able to interpret it and they somehow aren't.

Whereas if EVERYONE took it with a grain of salt and realized it was the word of God as funnelled through the hearts and minds of mortal, flawed human beings, there'd be a lot less arguing about whether Jesus was the son of God before he was born. Heck, there might be a lot more time then for the things Jesus actually taught.

129

bakerstreet

on Jul 02, 2006

"yes those scholors (CC) made a great mistake and is a great embarassment to the church. I agree. But nowhere in the bible will you find such a claim."

Nowhere in the Bible will you find the literal claim that the Bible is inerrant, either. Yet... we all rely on our interpretations, don't we?

The people who persecuted Galileo interpreted the scripture:

""The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved." -Psalms 104:5"

to mean that everything revolves around the sun. You see it as figurative. Many people see the creation story as figurative. How do you decide which is and which isn't? Is it the Bible that is inerrant, or is it the interpretation of scripture that is inerrent, in light of the fact that the earth does in reality move a great deal?

You interpret the literal meaning of a figurative scripture, when in reality what the scripture says is not literally true. Kind of hard to paint the Bible as literal truth when you have to work to decide what is and isn't spoken figuratively.

"I dunno Baker, the earth on elephants backs compared to pillars meaning strength and stability? "

If you lived in a poor nation with few pillars and used elephants as your animals of burden, you might see them as archetypes of strength and stability, wouldn't you? Easily as much as someone might see a pillar as such.

"The bible is to be taken both literally and symbolically as it is both. Some go to far either way. When Jesus said he was the door, or the bread of life. Do I think he's a loaf of bread? Or a door? No. Like I keep saying...IF IT MAKES SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE. It's a good rule to go by."

LOL, but you don't grant that to people who see the creation story as making no sense. You don't grant the license to accept the story of Noah figuratively. The people you quote are the ones who slam the their fists on their pulpits and decide what is inerrantly literal and figurative.

In the end, if you look very hard at the situation, you'll find that what you are seeing as inerrant is your interpretation of doctrine relating to the Bible, not the Bible itself. If that is the case, is there ANYTHING more errant than the judgement of Man?

130

MasonM

on Jul 02, 2006

#125 by BakerStreet
Sun, July 02, 2006 00:36 AM

Take the time to understand the theory and you'll find that they are almost ALL transitional. If you are looking for a monkey with a man's head or a tomato with watermelons for fruit you need to go back and look again.

Spare me the condescension, Baker. I am not uneducated and I understand the theory perfectly, thank you.

Your answer is a patent cop out. The fact remains that not a single transitional fossil has ever been discovered that would in any way support the theory of macroevolution. One would think that a process that requires millions of years would have left a few fossil remains along the way for us to find. Not a single fossil that suggests some species in a transitional phase of evolution from one type of species to another has ever been discovered. There is simply zero evidence that macroevolution has ever taken place in any species.

131

bakerstreet

on Jul 02, 2006

No, you deserve condescension, MasonM, because you are either ignorant or dishonest. The lack of "Transitional fossils" is the oldest lie of creationists. Yes, I said lie, as in liar, as in "Thou Shalt Not..."

answersingenesis.com, the very spearhead of creationism which is headed by Mr. Ham, who KFC believes to be a very reliable fellah, lists “There are no transitional forms.” as a doubtful argument that it is inadvisable for creationists to use against evolution.

Here is a FAQ on the lie of there being no transitional fossils.

Here is the Wikipedia article for honest people who want to know what a transitional fossil is, instead of just spitting the phrase as an ignorant attack on evolution.

Here's an article on the LIE at the Panda's thumb.

It's shameful when people who believe themselves to be on the side of God show so little integrity when debating. You'd think they'd want to show an honest face, and instead embrace what amounts to urban mythology and childish catchphrases. The truth isn't something creationists, of all people, should be afraid of, but they tend to dismiss everything without even looking at it because it CAN'T be true.

The "doubts" Ham and others have about transitional fossils are based upon bias and preconceived theories. They realize that their "doubts" are so based upon a priori Bible-bias that they really can't make the point scientifically, so they really would be better off keeping their mouths shut about it.

Others, though, don't mind persisting in creationist jingles that they blindly believe to be true. Creationism is about proving that one's opinion is the inerrant word of God. I can't think of anything more heretical than that.

...but in the end a lie you can spit in one sentence is always more persuasive than the truth it takes a whole book to explain. People swallow the sentence so that they don't have to read the book and decide for themselves.

132

MasonM

on Jul 02, 2006

Firstly, I am neither ignorant or dishonest. Nor do I result to the sort of insults and condescending attitude normally used by those who aren't capable of holding an open discussion without them.

The articles you linked are interesting, but I still do not see solid evidence of actual transitional forms. Many of the ones cited are dubious at best. I could just as easily claim that they are lies and you as well as those who wrote them are liars but I won't result to your infantile methods. Instead I will simply say that I find the data quite interesting but I feel that some of the conclusions are doubtful in many of the cases with regard to macroevolution.

I do however find some of the more recent fossil finds interesting and some of them may well eventually prove to be actual transitional forms. Some of them certainly appear to be so, but that remains to be seen and I'll be very interested in those results. If they do prove to be so, then I will be convinced of the validity of macroevolution theory as there will be solid evidence to back it up. I don't accept extrapolation based upon microevolution as being a valid support of macroevolution. Frankly, many of the examples cited in the linked articles seem to support microevolution completely but still fall a bit short when it comes to macroevolution.

Who knows? Perhaps genetic biology will eventually be able to prove or disprove the theory. There have been a lot of advances in that area in the past couple of years and they may well have the best shot at it as fossil remains may never be enough to do it.

133

bakerstreet

on Jul 02, 2006

"Instead I will simply say that I find the data quite interesting but I feel that some of the conclusions are doubtful in many of the cases with regard to macroevolution."

A statement which, had you said that to begin with, wouldn't have brought any condescension from me. What you said was "...not a single transitional fossil has ever been discovered that would in any way support the theory of macroevolution" which is very different, indeed. I find it hard to believe that anyone can look at Archaeopteryx and not see a transitional form.

134

Ionolast

on Jul 02, 2006

Catholics who believe that we are actually eating Christ's flesh and drinking Christ's blood during communion,

The body and blood of Christ can be bought and sold?

Romans were seeing Christians who believed in human sacrifice, cannibalism, self mutilation, suicide, etc.

And who are the cannibals?

135

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 03, 2006

Mr MacArther made that demand on the Koran with the elephants thing

I found out that there are 4 mentions of elephants in the Koran and none have anything to do with what JM said. So I will put in a question to find out why he said that. My guess? Either it's in the Hadith or as you said coming from the Hindu religion. If that's the case he misspoke. But I've listened to him for many years and have read a bunch of his books and I'm telling you he's out there not saying what people want to hear but telling it like it is. I've found him totally trustworthy in the process. In this case his sermon had nothing to do with Muslims, Islam, or the Koran but just a passing note so I'm not going to throw this guy to the lions because he mispoke. This is where a little grace comes in.

Romans were burning Baptists, but in reality Romans were seeing Christians who believed in human sacrifice, cannibalism, self mutilation, suicide, etc

How'd you know they were Christians? I have people tell me they are Christians when clearly I see no evidence of it. So I ask. Do you go to church? "No" Do you pray? "No" Do you have Christian friends that help hold you accountable? "No" Do you read God's word? "No." Then how do you know you're a Christian? I'd say the same here. Is there enough evidence to convict them of being a Christian? You will not find those behaviors mentioned as God sanctioned in scripture. In fact the early church were being killed by the thousands and they were not lifting a finger in their defense save the gospel. The blood of the martyrs was the seed of the faith.

You would differ, no doubt, with Catholics who believe that we are actually eating Christ's flesh and drinking Christ's blood during communion, but they get their belief from a literal interpretation of the Bible. Can't you see how your own flavor of Christianity came about by REJECTING literal interpretations of scripture?

No actually. Didn't I just tell you that the bible is both literal and symbolic? Haven't I been saying....if it makes sense...seek no other sense? Haven't I been saying other passages help explain what you're reading? I'm not changing here Baker. I think I'm pretty consistent. So let's take this and I'll answer you here. BTW I was a Catholic so I understand the religion totally and have very dear friends still in it.

1. When Jesus held up that bread he said..."This is my body." Now is that literal? Can it be? He was right there. His body was holding up his body? No!! His body was holding up the bread which symbolized his body. It would be like me showing you a picture and saying...."This is me." Is it literally me? No I'm right there in person.

2. What did Jesus say? Did he mean for it to be taken literally? John 6:63 (read in context) is the answer. He said..."The words I speak to you are spirit and they are life. Compare that to Phillipians 3:3. If you read John very carefully you'll see he was constantly trying to take their eyes of the physical and onto the spiritual. Remember the women at the well in John 4?

3. The NT church which is all those who profess Christ are called the "body of Christ." Is that literal or symbolic?

4. Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT Feast of Unleavened Bread of Lev 23. Moses gave 7 feasts to the Jews. 4 have been fulfilled in Christ and the 7 show his whole redemptive career and pointed to the one who would come. Passover (His death), Feast of Unleavened Bread (death) Feast of Firstfruits (resurrection) and Feast of Weeks (Gk-Pentecost-birth of church). These first 4 represented his first coming. The next Feast is called the Feast of Trumpets. I'll leave that one to your imagination.

The feasts were to be made without leaven (represents sin) except one.....Pentecost or Weeks. For this feast two loaves were to be baked with leaven as commanded by God. Funny how that was way back in Moses day. I'm sure they had no idea. Leaven represents sin and these two loaves were to be baked during the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) that's because much later the church would have sin in it and the two represent Jew and Gentile. That was the mystery that the two would inherit together God's Kingdom. So Jesus was the symbol of unleavened bread cuz he had no sin. But he surely was not a loaf of bread.

So, the difference between you and people who take the Genesis story figuratively

You know Baker, you'll have to take it up with Christ as well. He said this in Matthew 19:4-6
'Have you not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said for this cause shall a man leave father and mother and hall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder." Guess what? Jesus was quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. So he must have believe it.

I'm not making this stuff up. I'm just spreading the seed. It's up to God to proivide the warm soil for the heart and the water that is needed for growth. Not me.

Whereas if EVERYONE took it with a grain of salt and realized it was the word of God as funnelled through the hearts and minds of mortal, flawed human beings

actually it was funnelled thru flawed men but they were inspired (God breathed) to do so. But what you're saying is you'd much rather know that what we are reading is God inspired error? That makes you feel better?

This book was written by over 40 men of all different walks in 3 continents over 1500 years and yet they are in complete agreement. I don't think we could get three people on a street corner at the same time of day that witness a car accident that could be more in sync as these guys were. How about 5 sportscasters reliving the same game? Could they be so in tune like the writers of scripture? I doubt it.

oh and the Psalm you chose to use to make your point above? It's not even close to what you're portraying it to be. You want me to make such verses literal which is kind of hard when you pick something like the Psalms which tends to be very poetic. I notice you are giving me symbolic language in poetic books to try and make your points when in fact they are not meant to be taken as such. Remember those middle books are poetic books and again you have to interpret scripture with scripture. If something seems sort of cloudy you don't run with it, you find another that's a bit more clearer and put together to bring into focus.

You know Baker, you're really ruining my reputation. I thought I was the only junkyard dog with a bone on JU.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!