Check out our Event Calendar! View birthdays, holidays and upcoming tournaments!
Cussing is a cultural thing... a curse word here in America can mean nothing in Tokyo.
The apostle Paul uses a very harsh slang word for "dung" which (i've heard, but i can't unfortunately back it up) was the equivalent of curse word in the original language.
Cursing is entirely situational, like lying. Sometimes it's a sin, sometimes it isn't. If you are in a situation and you need something done NOW, and it's very important, not cursing can be a sin if by refraining you aren't able to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.
Not always. Read The Hiding Place if you don't believe me, or just wait for your wife to ask her if she looks fat.
Lying is always a sin (after all, the commandment not to bear false witness has no stipulation).
But in certain cases (such as with Corrie Ten Boom in The Hiding Place, or with the harlot Rahab who hid Jewish spies (I forget where, exactly, in Scripture that's found), because God is rich in mercy, He seems not to punish sins that were used to protect the innocent.
Swearing is always a sin (after all, it goes against Colossians 3:8, et al)
I figured you'd be closed-minded, but it was worth a try. Maybe even worth one more try.QuoteLying is always a sin (after all, the commandment not to bear false witness has no stipulation).Define "bearing false witness" for me. That's legal terminology, and if you want to go all literal, that is a commandment not to lie in court. Which I agree with. Be careful before you invoke an extreme. That verse proves nothing as a too-literal reading will yield only an admonition not to lie in court, and from any other stand point it can just as easily be interpreted as a ban on lying with malicious intent or for personal gain.QuoteBut in certain cases (such as with Corrie Ten Boom in The Hiding Place, or with the harlot Rahab who hid Jewish spies (I forget where, exactly, in Scripture that's found), because God is rich in mercy, He seems not to punish sins that were used to protect the innocent.God is Holy and Just. Isn't it more likely that he "won't hold it against you" because it's not a sin?QuoteSwearing is always a sin (after all, it goes against Colossians 3:8, et al)I've already answered this, so you're being unhelpful by bringing up again without a counter-rebuttal.This paragraph I agree with. Except for the part where you insist on going with the NIV translation only.
If you want to admit you don't have an answer, admit it. Hiding behind false dignity isn't going to cut it at this point. I will, one more time, explain why you aren't making sense.I am also a literalist. I am also not presumptuous enough to assume everything is always as it appears. People have maimed themselves and others because of a too-literal interpretation of scripture. I believe that the earth was created in six days. I also believe that some or all of those days are tallied from the center of the universe, with the perspective shifting to earth no later than when man is created. That's a 100% literal interpretation of Genesis, but it's not the interpretation you make.I don't disagree with you because you are closed-minded. I gave specific, logical and spiritually sound reasons for why I disagree with you, and they did not include your closed-mindedness. And calling someone closed-minded is only an insult if taken as such. I am proud of being closed-minded about many things. You misunderstand me: if you're closed-minded about some things, more power to you. I'm just not going to waste any more of my time on debating you if this is one of the things you are closed-minded about.*EDIT* FYI nothing. In KJV and ESV it has a different phraseology that fits better with the rest of scripture.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16)
QuoteAll Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16) Way to take the verse out of context; it was written three centuries before the writings of Paul were considered to be scripture. The majority of early Christians, in fact, hated Paul. Paul is obviously talking about the Torah or Tanakh.
There is a trove of scientific archeological evidence that strongly points to an old earth. There are also even stronger anthropological evidences that point to an earth ~8000 years old (such as tracing genomes and language patterns). These sets of evidences are seemingly irreconcilable with the Genesis account of creation. How can the earth be millions of years old, but humanity be thousands of years old if it came to be six days after the creation of the earth?The answer is that time is not a constant, and that the universe is expanding. If I were to send a radio signal from the centre of the universe at creation, and then send a second one a second later, they would reach a given point on the outer expansion far more than a second apart. Therefore, a logical explaination that allows for both a literal interpretation of Genesis and acceptance of scientific discoveries is that the days in at least some of the creation account are measured from that central point. There, only days would have passed. Elsewhere in the universe, time does not follow the same path. It is faster, because the universe is expanding.I have found this to be the best way to explain why some evidences point to an old earth, and others to young humanity. And still literally interpret the bible.*EDIT* I apologize for assuming you were being snide. That seems to be the MO in internet debates and it's refreshing that you don't conform to that mold.
(who actually drinks 6oz of wine ONLY when they are drinking)