Angelwings_The_Faun wrote:There is a fine line though, between killing for food, and killing for fun. In my opinion, trophy hunting, poaching, ritual killings, or any other willfull destruction of life outside of necessity falls into the realm of cruelty, which is obviously, unscriptural.

I kind of disagree, I have no problem with hunting for sport as long as the meat isn't wasted. Though I do think it is unnecessary to kill something and just waste the meat.
There is also killing to protect your own animals, I kill any opossums or raccoons I see on our property because they will kill our chickens. Or setting mouse traps, it isn't necessary to kill them but they are an annoying inconvenience.
Animals are gods creature but we were given dominion over them.

Yeah. I totally agree with you Aragorn2.
I have no problem with someone hunting as long as they don't waste the meat. Although I personally don't hunt, I really don't care that much for it, I'll leave that to my brothers.

I certainly respect your opinions, however, I have a difficult time calling hunting "sport". In my personal experience, there is nothing sportsmanlike about it. I understand it takes patience and a certain amount of skill, but personally, I think a sport should consist of willful participation of both sides, and I'm fairly certain the animals aren't willingly getting shot. One of my many jobs is a veterinarian's assistant, and unfortunately, I see the result of this kind of "sport" all too often.
On one hand, I can see hunting for food should it be necessary (for instance, in third world countries where there are no wal-marts), or for maintaining a balance that has already been disturbed (for instance, the hunting of white-tail deer for population control, due to the hunting of grey wolves to extinction in certain portions of the country). Other than that, I see no use for it at all.
No disrespect to anyone who believes differently though

Oy vey. I guess you're a vegetarian then? I'm not for animal cruelty but we also have to remember that animals should never be put on the same level as human life, or above it - I'm looking at you PETA (that corporation is a complete joke).

I hope I'm not interrupting anything...

I was wondering what you guys thought about the historical accuracy of Scripture. I'm somewhat undecided at the moment. I've heard a couple of people say that the Biblical accounts of Eden, Jericho, the parting of the Red Sea etc were never intended to be taken literally.

Let me just say I am extremely skeptical about this, but I was wondering what you quote/unquote Spiritual Navy SEALS thought about the issue.

I don't have time to go into a Dr. Ransom-length post, but here is something to kick start it off. What literary genres are these stories written in? The Bible is full of different genres, narrative, poetry, prophetic, instructional letters and eye-witness accounts. Depending on the genre, you have to interpret differently. For example, you don't necessarily interpret poetry or prophecy literally, because the images used are only what the author knows, and may not actually depict what the author is really trying to say. However, narrative passages are historical accounts. They are not meant to be taken figuratively.

I've heard those arguments as well, even from some of the "Spiritual Navy SEALS" here on NWeb. Especially in the account of creation. I've heard Noah's Flood was maybe just a local flood, not world-wide. I've heard Sodom and Gomorrah was also not to be taken as a historical account as well. And in every case, it begins with attempting to fit the Bible into what they know or understand. If the Bible is inerrant, a historical document from the Bible, which is still the oldest, most documented piece of written work in history, should be taken at its word, and the outside facts should align with the Bible. Not the other way around.

Take Genesis 1-2 for example. Some of the arguments posted on this very thread suggest that Genesis 1 was written as poetry because of the repetition of theme and words. This is just speculation, but cannot be proven. The verb tenses, the usage of "day" with a number in the original Hebrew are NEVER used poetically in Scripture, but in historical, factual, literal recordings. A literal interpretation is the only one that does not leave unanswered questions with a thorough study. A figurative one leaves a LOT of unanswered questions.

As for Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah, the 10 Plagues, and the Red Sea, stuff like that, people constantly try to put scientific reasoning behind them. But we have to understand that if there is a God who created the universe in every detail, he also created the laws of science we today observe. And if he wrote the laws, he is not obligated to keep them. Now there are logical arguments to a scientific approach to the 10 Plagues through a volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean sea, but those arguments don't take into account that the plagues did not affect Goshen, where the Israelites lived. I have also heard that an earthquake may have brought down the walls of Jericho. I am not opposed to the idea that God may have used geological events like earthquakes, volcanoes, and stuff like that to accomplish his will. But we also have to understand that God can break the laws of science to prove his glory.

I could go into more, but I have other stuff I need to do in the next hour before I go depart for a 3rd viewing of VDT, and a Christmas party, and leaving my college dorm for a couple weeks for Christmas tomorrow morning. But when people do raise these questions, think about them and think about what goes along with it. Here is a question I always ask local Flood proponents: if it was just a local Flood, why did God tell Noah to build an ark? Why didn't he just have Noah move? Think about it.

^^ I very much agree with this statement, FencerforJesus.

I especially like how you pointed out that, although God does use natural elements to do His will, He isn't at all confined to them.

It's sad that a lot of people don't believe in actual miracles -- things God does outside of Science, sometimes even against Science. Really he uses both Science and miracles, depending on the situation.

A lot of people I know are very either/or. Some believe He uses only natural causes, and either can't or won't do the miraculous. Others don't believe in Science at all, and think God never uses it.
But really He uses a balance. And I'm glad He does.

~Riella

My approach to Scripture interpretation is not to take everything literally, but to believe everything the authors meant to say as literally true.

In other words, I recognize that the authors used metaphors and figures of speech, as well as literal, historical description. Our job as Christians is merely to find out what the authors meant, and to believe it.

As far as Eden, the Red Sea, etc., I think that an honest reading of the text implies that the authors were describing literal, historical events. And I belive it.

Absolutely! If Eden, the Red Sea etc. were just meant to be metaphoric abstractions of God's Truth than those accounts would read more like Revelations. As is, they read like Hebrewaic history.

One argument I have used to point out the literal scripture is how god included details that would be unnesassary were it only symbolic.

An example is the flood account. Reading it we see that the flood was begun by the fountains of the deep bursting forth. Not as so many films show with just the rain coming down. Now if it were just a moral lesson, why include such a detail? Or exact measuments for the ark itself?

Another thing to point out about the ark. The exact measurements of the ark have actually been tested as the largest possible dimensions that a wooden vessel could have and still float. Emphasis on float and not sail. Anything bigger would end up with too much torque and other odds and ends on the waves and it wouldn't hold together. Those types of details are not seen in poetic literature, and we can easily rule out that it wasn't prophetic which would be the only other type of literature that might contain any kind of details.

The Flood was a literal historical event that was world-wide. It was not a local event as some try to suggest. Evidence of a world-wide flood is seen everywhere, including folk-lore and science. Genetics show that the human race can be traced backwards to single digits about 4400 years ago. Many of our natural wonders such as the Sahara Desert, a oldest living tree, the Great Barrier Reef and such are an estimated 4400 years old each. The Chinese word for Flood literally means "8 people in a boat". A world-wide flood explains the fossil record, the geologic column, erosion patters, and it all makes sense. Every other attempt to explains these things tends to leave some unanswered questions filled with 'impossible' or 'I don't knows'. However a literal interpretation of the account of Genesis 6-8 makes perfect sense and everything adds up.

What so many people tend to get wrong is the belief that science, and the Bible are at odds. nothing could be further from the truth.
granted, we cannot through science get an explanation as to exactly how God started the flood, there are theories I know, but we can look at the evidence, and see that it happened. We can also see some of the mechanics of what happened during, and after. The frozen mamoths, and the Grand Canyon, are just examples.

^^ Yes, it would be very hard for God and Science to be at odds, considering that God made Science.
But then, it also depends on what the person in question calls "Science". If they're a person who believes in the atheistic-evolutionary Science (Note: I am not talking about theistic evolution), or believe that the only things that can exist are the things that can be studied under a microscope, then I suppose that and God would definitely be at odds.
But real Science and God are definitely not at odds.

~Riella

What so many people tend to get wrong is the belief that science, and the Bible are at odds. nothing could be further from the truth.
granted, we cannot through science get an explanation as to exactly how God started the flood, there are theories I know, but we can look at the evidence, and see that it happened. We can also see some of the mechanics of what happened during, and after. The frozen mamoths, and the Grand Canyon, are just examples.

Yes, exactly! What a lot of evolutionists, atheists, and even many branches of main line religion fail to put together is that not all things of God are mysterious or some form of magic! God created science! Thus, just because we can prove that plants turn sunlight into glucose through the process of Photosynthesis, does not mean that God didn't create plants! He certainly did, and He also created the process of Photosynthesis so that plants could be self-sustaining! The clencher for most Science vs. God debates is usually the following: No matter how hard they try, no matter how much they argue, and no matter how much "proof" they attempt to produce, NO ONE has yet to explain the fact that DNA cannot write itself. It simply cannot reproduce itself. Never has. Never will. That being said, there is no possible way that a single celled organism, no matter how microscopic, simply came into being without having been created, and there is no possible way for it to have evolved different DNA. By "Scientific" standards, this would be classified (ironically) as a miracle.

Yes, Angelwings_The_Faun, you are absolutely right. Essentially, what your saying is: "God made the rules." I am astounded that evolutionists disregard the fact that rules have to be made by someone, something living that is.

They say that we started out as a rock. After it rained for billions of years, we eventually became soup. Then the MOMENT happened -- two little particles collided in just the right way to form.... LIFE! Whoa! Back up a little. "They collided in just the right way," they say. But, who made the rule that would make life if particles "collide in the right way"? Uh, you've lost me.

See, no matter how they try to explain it, they are left with one problem: you cannot get something from nothing. EVER! It just doesn't work that way. Never has and never will.