Interesting question. I think there are plenty of ways God could have done any number of things...so the fact that He didn't just tell Noah to leave doesn't really surprise me... But I've never thought about why the raven & dove... Just did a quick google search... This is from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (which I know nothing about :))... Lot of technical stuff in there...but here's the last paragraph... To sum up our discussion: we have noted that there are some scholars who believe that the raven episode is misplaced because it interrupts the literary structure of a threefold sending out of birds such as is present in the immediately following verses and in other ancient Near Eastern flood narratives. The mission of the raven is also suspect because it was considered an unsuccessful experiment from which Noah did not learn anything. The rabbis of the Talmud and the Church fathers were in agreement that the raven did not complete its mission, and this tradition may also be seen in the Septuagint, Peshitta, and some Vulgate translations that interpret the text as though the raven did not return to Noah. If the raven’s mission can be deduced from the special characteristics belonging exclusively to that bird, then the ones widely cited in modern commentaries, namely the raven’s ability to scout for land or that the raven is by nature a scavenger, would not have been the ones likely to have been useful to Noah. The trait most likely to have helped Noah is the raven’s ability to endure inclement weather conditions so that the mission of the raven was to discern what the atmospheric conditions were like. Thus, contrary to widespread assumptions, the raven’s mission can be viewed as a useful experiment and can be seen as another justification for including Noah on par with other legendary ancient Near Eastern flood heroes to whom extraordinary wisdom was attributed. I'd have to do more study to confirm any of that...but it sounds like an interesting explanation. :)

For snack we do ants-on-a-log (celery, peanut butter & raisins) carrot sticks w/ Ranch apple slices or other fruit yogurt popcorn or pretzels & raisins (one of those...not all of them every day :))

We do pbjs, tuna sandwiches, mac n' cheese, or leftovers mostly... Unless I just cut up some apples & they eat those with yogurt, crackers, pretzels, raisins...whatever we have in the house. ;) I'm looking for some new ideas, too... I don't like to make anything more complicated than box mac n' cheese for lunch. :)

Just saw this... http://www.wsj.com/articles/airasia-didnt-have-permission-to-fly-route-on-day-of-crash-indonesia-says-1420261574 Now they're saying the plane "didn't have permission" to fly that day at all??? How does that happen? I hope people quit flying with this airlines until they get this sorted out... Transport Ministry spokesman J.A. Barata said the airline was only permitted to fly the route on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. “So AirAsia has committed a violation of the route that has been given to them,†Mr. Barata told The Wall Street Journal. He said the company’s flights from Surabaya, Indonesia’s second-largest city, to Singapore had consequently been suspended on Friday.

:bigear: We're not here yet...but I am curious to hear from the Hive on this... I have been eyeing BA as a fun/challenging different-kind-of-math for when we're ready for a break from MM...

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge... Proverbs 1:7 Meditating on this phrase today...

Very neat! (I have seen many of those parallels before, but not all of them.) Genesis 3 also has parallels to I John 2:16 - the world tempts us with the lust of the eyes, (pleasant to the eyes), lust of the flesh (good for food), and pride of life (desired to make one wise). I like the bolded. That's a great point! Angels, yes... I've wondered that, too. It will be interesting to know the answers to all of these things some day... :)

Thanks. Yes, that looks pretty clear. :)

Is it ok to discuss the reading on here? Or is that more suitable for another thread... If it's OK to wonder aloud... I wonder if the universe itself was in existence before God created the "heaven and the earth"...so if the "heaven" refers to just earth's atmosphere...or our solar system...or something like that... Gen 1 seems to indicate there was darkness and water... Any speculation or theories about what it was like b4 day 1 of Creation? Thanks for posting the Every Day in the Word reading, Slache. I'm going with that one. :)

Looks great. Thanks, slache. :)

*Sigh* I think you are reading a lot into her tone. That's what you walk away with...and I think I've personally learned some things in this thread about how to avoid that take-away... but, with respect, IMO your post reads with a much more patrionizing and condescending tone. Teannika is defending the Bible...you are mocking her for it. I think you should let her define her terms. What does she mean by "rejecting the Bible"? Your issue with Christianity runs much deeper than your allegations that the Bible contains contradictions/error. Faith is a danger to society? Really? I totally agree that faith in a message of "go out and kill people" would be dangerous...but does it follow that faith is dangerous? I don't follow your logic. So all religions must be false because some religion could use faith to make people do bad things? Yeah...I'm not really wanting to tackle all of this... Just when I thought I was done with this thread. :) Um...I don't think our different methodologies are problematic. Like I said, there is more than one way to resolve "problems" in the Bible. I don't claim to have the only possible solution. I'm saying some of the passages are not meant to be chronological...Teannika said the passages must be understood in proper context & time. I don't see that as "diametrically opposed." I'll let her answer the rest... Just one other note, the original manuscripts do not exist. That's why she said he cannot have seen them. Neither has Teannika, but I don't think she's claiming to have. ;) Okay...I've spent yet another entire naptime on the Hive... Gotta go, folks! Happy New Year! :)

Sorry, don't know why the font size went wacky in the pp.

Is it fair to say that there's a difference between believing the Bible to be true and believing the Bible to contain truth? I see a significant difference between them. If believing the Bible contains truth but is not necessarily entirely true is a liberal interpretation, then, no, I don't think that has to be from a foundation of unbelief, distrust or disrespect. But unbelief is relative and pretty broad. :) I'm an 'unbeliever' if that means I don't believe the KJV to be the inspired Word of God. Does that make sense? I see now... It's this quote: He can say, I choose to read these verses as contradictory instead of complementary...recognizing he has a bias against the Bible and that is coloring his lens...and I can say that I choose to read them as complementary rather than as contradictions, recognizing I am a "Bible-believer"... It may frustrate you that Bible-believing Christians have a convenient answer for every "error" :)...but we do have an answer. So....then it's up to you to take your pick. Either believe the Bible, or don't. :) I need to clarify. I wrote the above assuming that he was not a Christian. That's probably my fault for not reading more closely... His tone caused me to make the assumption. That's why I distinguished the Bible-believer vs. (presumably) non-believer. And I'm not trying to say that Christians either believe the Bible or don't. I just didn't effectively communicate what was going on in my brain. :/ I was trying to say that in all fairness a person has to weigh both sides of the argument. Yes, Noah stayed in the ark for a year when the rain only lasted 40 days. Contradiction? Maybe...but at least consider that the rest of the text tells us...that he waited for the waters to abate before leaving the ark...there were 150 days that "the water prevailed on the earth"...then 2 months later the mountains are visible...etc. When you consider both sides of the argument (and there are at least two sides to any of the contradictions, etc he presents) you are then able to choose to believe the biblical text as true/accurate, or to believe them to be contradictory/inaccurate. So...now I understand he is Christian, I wouldn't differentiate between him & me, referring to myself as a "Bible-believer." Does that make sense? I would probably have said something like "I believe the Bible to be without error"... Well...he seldom quotes directly from the Bible. But he misreferences it. He claims the Bible has vegetation created after sun/moon/stars in Genesis chapter 2, which would contradict Genesis 1 which says God created sun/moon/stars before plants. But that's not what Genesis 2 says. It says God "planted a garden eastward in Eden." He's making a logical assumption - and he's not acknowledging his assumption. He does this repeatedly throughout the article. I'm not making any assumption here. I'm only quoting the text. Does that make sense? Thanks for taking the time to dialogue. :)

We have weekly "Bible institute" classes (usually 2-3 classes a semester) that meet in the evening. They provide more focused training on a variety of topics including book studies, Koine Greek, sign language, Eschatology, prayer, etc. The classes are well attended, and have been extremely helpful. Some are more informational (sign language) and others focus more on helping us to have a better relationship with God. We often have members of neighboring churches take the BI classes as well. This has been a great alternative to those without the time or means to take actual college classes... Also, I think a preacher who uses expositional teaching (teaching that actually explains the Bible as he preaches) is key...and a culture of being approachable...so people feel like they can voice their questions without being shot down. My pastor used to use the second Sunday service as a more informal "teaching" service. He would walk us through a passage or a topic week by week, and allow for questions/comments as we went along. It was very helpful, and I enjoyed learning from the discussions.

I don't think the bolded is necessarily true. I'm not sure what I think about a liberal interpretation of the Bible & how it relates to the following. I'm only speaking for the Newsweek author's approach to the Bible. He did come across as disrespectful in his tone, and seemed to have a lack of trust in the reliability of the biblical text. If I'm misreading the article, I apologize. I was only trying to point out where I think he is wrong - by showing what the text actually says. (With my biases ;)) [FWIW, I don't think that a non-literal interpretation is founded in unbelief either. I don't think the entire Bible should be taken literally. I don't know anyone who thinks that (but I'm sure there's someone out there...). :) ] When I say that I believe the Bible is true, I believe that it (the original manuscripts) is/are an accurate record of what the Holy Spirit moved those men to write. I guess I've never thought of "the Bible is true" being equivalent to "the basic gist of what Jesus said is right and the idea of a loving God in heaven is right, too, but a lot of the other stuff is inaccurate/made-up/etc." I have understand "true" to mean reliable, trustworthy, accurate, etc. And when I say, "the Bible is true" I mean that not just the basic concepts, or certain passages are true, I mean the Bible as a whole (that's not the same as believing it should be taken literally). By my definition, the article's author does not believe the Bible is "true." And, by my definition, I think he would agree with me. So...how should I better say it? ETA that I'm not trying to elevate one view above another here...just trying to clarify the difference between them.

Thanks for sharing that, Jenny! Your explanation of your journey is very helpful. I do apologize if I came across as hostile. :) I don't agree with the article - but I am glad it makes you feel more comfortable reading the Bible. I am taking to heart what you said... Thanks for the post. :)

Did they ever reach a conclusion about what happened to the last plane?

Oh no!

I'm in. :) I can't guarantee how faithful I'll be to the forum through the entire year... Maybe this will keep me tuned in. :) I'll probably do canonical this year bc it's just easiest for me to keep track of where I'm at...but I might start with NT, since the kids & I are studying through the OT in Bible... Thanks for the thread! :)

Now, in answer to your statements here... The Mosaic Law... Here a quote from the article... Some of the original disciples said yes, an opinion that seems to find support in words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets....†The author of Matthew made it clear that Christians must keep Mosaic Law like the most religious Jews, in order to achieve salvation. But Paul, particularly in Galatians and Romans, says a person’s salvation is won by his or her faith in Christ’s death and resurrection—nothing more. Those who try to follow Mosaic Law, Paul believed, risked losing salvation. Now, the burden of proof is on him to show where "the author of Matthew made it clear that Christians must keep Mosaic Law...in order to achieve salvation." He has quoted Jesus in Matthew 5:17, but he stops before finishing the verse... Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets: [remember, the book of Matthew was specifically addressing Jewish audience] I came not to destroy but to fulfill." Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the OT Law. In verse 20, Jesus says, "For I say to you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven..." He then proceeds to quote the OT Law, and demonstrate His higher standard. The Law said, Do not kill. Jesus says, If you are angry without cause you are in danger of damnation. The Law said, Do not commit adultery. Jesus says, If you have lust in your heart, you are guilty of adultery. He concludes in verse 48, "Be therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect." This is no way contradicts Paul's writings. The book of Romans (chapters 1-5) beautifully expound on this idea...that Jesus came to fulfill the Law, because we cannot. The Law is a higher standard than can be humanly kept. No human being can be perfect as God is perfect. And so we are all disqualified from eternal life. The only way any person can have eternal life is through faith in the work that Jesus Christ did on the cross. His death satisfied the wrath of God for my sins. His righteousness enables me to have a relationship with God and eternal life. In both Romans and Galatians, Paul addresses those Jews who had believed in Jesus, but were still holding to their Mosaic Law rituals. In Galatians he teaches that those who taught that new believers should also be circumcised, etc. [aka, keep the Mosaic Law] were clouding the doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone.