PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Genesis?



rondoman
May 3rd 2009, 01:51 AM
Genesis says the Light was created on the first day. It says he separated day from night on this day.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. But.... days and nights are only a product of the rotation of the earth. The Sun never stops shining. If we were in outer space, there would be no day or night. So, days are just an illusion created by the rotation of planet earth. But if the Earth isn't formed yet until DAY 3, then when God created light (Sun isn't created yet, so what light is Genesis referring to?), how could he possibly create day and night?
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. My next problem is : Water, then sky, then water above the sky? We know for a fact there is no large expanse of water above the sky. There is atmopshere (sky), then there is outer space. Was this a primitive explanation for rain?
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. My next problem is here... God creates the Earth on the third day. and creates all plants and fruits on Earth on the third day...... but doesn't create the Sun until the fourth day... 1) We know that vegetation on land needs the Sun for photosynthesis, to create energy. So how can it possibly be that the plants were on Earth but there was no Sun? 2) If the Earth is created on the third day, and the Sun is created on the fourth day, then that means the Earth is older than the Sun... but don't we know that to be false? 3) If all the Stars are created on the fourth day along with the Sun, that means Earth is older than all of the stars in the sky too.... and we know for a fact that is false... What is the explanation for all of this?

fuzzi
May 3rd 2009, 02:16 AM
Genesis says the Light was created on the first day. It says he separated day from night on this day. But.... days and nights are only a product of the rotation of the earth. The Sun never stops shining. If we were in outer space, there would be no day or night. So, days are just an illusion created by the rotation of planet earth. But if the Earth isn't formed yet until DAY 3, then when God created light (Sun isn't created yet, so what light is Genesis referring to?), how could he possibly create day and night?
I have a question for you, rondoman:

Do you believe the Bible? Do you have faith that it is God's word?

If not, then I don't see much point in trying to explain what I understand about what you're asking.

If you do believe in the truth of the Bible, I'll be glad to share with you what I've learned.

Let me know. :)

Gulah Papyrus
May 3rd 2009, 02:53 AM
God created light on the first day, but He didn't create the sun until the 4th day...I think?:hmm:

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.(Genesis 1:14-19)

fuzzi
May 3rd 2009, 03:02 AM
God created light on the first day, but He didn't create the sun until the 4th day...I think?:hmm:
Yep, that's correct.

ƒσяєяυииєя
May 3rd 2009, 05:16 AM
Hi Rondoman:


Genesis says the Light was created on the first day. It says he separated day from night on this day. But.... days and nights are only a product of the rotation of the earth. The Sun never stops shining. If we were in outer space, there would be no day or night. So, days are just an illusion created by the rotation of planet earth. But if the Earth isn't formed yet until DAY 3, then when God created light (Sun isn't created yet, so what light is Genesis referring to?), how could he possibly create day and night?

○ As far as I understand on this first day light was made separated from the "lights in the firmament of the heavens" which were created till the third day. So time (the evening and the morning) existed even before the lights in the firmament of the heavens were made.

Therefore probably later He did note that the lights in the firmament of the heavens were needed in order to divide the day from the night (light from darkness).

There are also object lessons hidden in this book of Genesis- Such as:


For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:6


My next problem is : Water, then sky, then water above the sky? We know for a fact there is no large expanse of water above the sky. There is atmopshere (sky), then there is outer space. Was this a primitive explanation for rain?


"...for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. Genesis 2:5,6."

"There is a very interesting book which touch these matters widely, I could handle you a copy in MS word format."

The waters which were above the firmament did cause the temperature of the earth to be perfect not only over one area of it but all around the earth. So when, where did all that waters above the firmament were joined to the waters under the firmament?


And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth,.. Genesis 6:17


My next problem is here... God creates the Earth on the third day. and creates all plants and fruits on Earth on the third day...... but doesn't create the Sun until the fourth day... 1) We know that vegetation on land needs the Sun for photosynthesis, to create energy. So how can it possibly be that the plants were on Earth but there was no Sun?

"Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth. Genesis 1:11"

Thus as Adam was not made as a child but as a grown man, there were also grown trees which could bear it till the next day when the "lights in the firmament of the heavens" were created.


2) If the Earth is created on the third day, and the Sun is created on the fourth day, then that means the Earth is older than the Sun... but don't we know that to be false?
3) If all the Stars are created on the fourth day along with the Sun, that means Earth is older than all of the stars in the sky too.... and we know for a fact that is false... What is the explanation for all of this?

I don`t know much about this... there is a few info may be related to it, excuse me if not (again it`s a lot better explained in the mentioned book):

"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

God bless

Gulah Papyrus
May 3rd 2009, 05:28 AM
"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

Hi Forerunner, where exactly did you get these quotes...can you send PM or post a link(s)?

Thanks,
GP

crossnote
May 3rd 2009, 06:11 AM
Genesis says the Light was created on the first day. It says he separated day from night on this day. But.... days and nights are only a product of the rotation of the earth. The Sun never stops shining. If we were in outer space, there would be no day or night. So, days are just an illusion created by the rotation of planet earth. But if the Earth isn't formed yet until DAY 3, then when God created light (Sun isn't created yet, so what light is Genesis referring to?), how could he possibly create day and night? My next problem is : Water, then sky, then water above the sky? We know for a fact there is no large expanse of water above the sky. There is atmopshere (sky), then there is outer space. Was this a primitive explanation for rain? My next problem is here... God creates the Earth on the third day. and creates all plants and fruits on Earth on the third day...... but doesn't create the Sun until the fourth day... 1) We know that vegetation on land needs the Sun for photosynthesis, to create energy. So how can it possibly be that the plants were on Earth but there was no Sun? 2) If the Earth is created on the third day, and the Sun is created on the fourth day, then that means the Earth is older than the Sun... but don't we know that to be false? 3) If all the Stars are created on the fourth day along with the Sun, that means Earth is older than all of the stars in the sky too.... and we know for a fact that is false... What is the explanation for all of this?

Your assumption that the physics then are the same as today leads you into these perplexities. Obviously they weren't, and if they were your first objection should be "How can light come from speaking?" If you answer 'well, it was God who spoke' then I would say 'there is your answer'!

Br. Barnabas
May 4th 2009, 05:42 PM
Read Genesis 1:1 if you are going to take all this a literal, the Earth was created before the 1st day of creating. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Then the Ru'ach Elohim ("Wind of God") hovers over the waters. Then we launch into the creating of light. Can light exist without a celestial source? I would say that it can. In Revelation we don't need the sun or stars or anything like that because God is our Light. Look at it more as God seperating Good from Evil. Light with an "L" from Darkness with a "D."

Ancient Israel comosology said that there were waters under the ground and waters in the sky when the great flood happened all the water in the sky was emptied. There is also water on the earth; oceans, lakes, rivers other bodies of water.

God only creates or not even really creates but makes or provides a place for not-water or dry land on the 3rd day. And makes plants raise up could not the Light of God provide for them.

Really you just need a closer reading of the texts because the Earth was around in Genesis 1:1.

But really what all boils down to is understand that this is all really allegory. It is not meant to be literal history. It is meant to show that God is always existed he did not have a creation story unlike other Ancient Near Eastern gods. Also humans are the hight of God's creation, instead of being slaves to the gods or bodily fluids that missed the mark when two gods were having relations, like humans are in other ANE stories.

fuzzi
May 4th 2009, 10:27 PM
But really what all boils down to is understand that this is all really allegory. It is not meant to be literal history.
Nope, sorry, I disagree.

But then again, I'm a Bible believer. :)

Br. Barnabas
May 4th 2009, 10:56 PM
Nope, sorry, I disagree.

But then again, I'm a Bible believer. :)

I am also a Bible believer also.

fuzzi
May 4th 2009, 11:30 PM
I am also a Bible believer also.
I think we're talking about two different things, here.

You believe that the Bible is allegory, or parts of it are, correct?

I believe the Bible is God's word, and to be taken as He wrote it: literally.

:)

Br. Barnabas
May 5th 2009, 12:14 AM
I think we're talking about two different things, here.

You believe that the Bible is allegory, or parts of it are, correct?

I believe the Bible is God's word, and to be taken as He wrote it: literally.

:)


So parables are they to be taken literally? Overstatements? What about Hyperboles? Metaphors? Are these to be taken literally? What about poetic language?

We can't take all the Bible literally or else we would all be walking around without eyes, hands, or families, just to name a few things.

If we can prove somethings scientifically or by reason/study of other cultures then maybe we should use the knowledge, wisdom, and reason that God gave us to better understand the Bible and what it teaches us.

TheAnswer99
May 5th 2009, 11:10 PM
I think we're talking about two different things, here.

You believe that the Bible is allegory, or parts of it are, correct?

I believe the Bible is God's word, and to be taken as He wrote it: literally.

:)


So I wonder how you are reading this since you surely have cut out your eyes. :hmm:

fuzzi
May 6th 2009, 01:13 AM
So parables are they to be taken literally? Overstatements? What about Hyperboles? Metaphors? Are these to be taken literally? What about poetic language?

We can't take all the Bible literally or else we would all be walking around without eyes, hands, or families, just to name a few things.

You said:


But really what all boils down to is understand that this is all really allegory. It is not meant to be literal history. It is meant to show that God is always existed he did not have a creation story unlike other Ancient Near Eastern gods. Did you or did you not mean what you said here, that the Bible is allegory?

I said that the Bible should be taken literally.

If you believe that God wrote the Bible, that it is His words, then why would you doubt what He said about how He created all?

Why would you discount how Jesus Christ confirmed the Genesis and Flood 'stories' as being truth, as having really happened?


If we can prove somethings scientifically or by reason/study of other cultures then maybe we should use the knowledge, wisdom, and reason that God gave us to better understand the Bible and what it teaches us.
And if you can't prove something scientifically, or by your reason, do you think that therefore it's not true?

That's why I was surprised that you said you were a Bible-believer. You don't appear to believe the Bible except where you choose to.


So I wonder how you are reading this since you surely have cut out your eyes. :hmm:
Is this type of answer necessary? Why direct that type of comment to me, for saying that I take the Bible literally?

I believe the Bible, I believe God's word is truth, as He said "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17) And unless it is obviously meant to not be taken literally ("I am the door"), then I take it literally.

Feel free to believe differently, that's your freedom, your liberty.

dljc
May 6th 2009, 01:37 AM
So parables are they to be taken literally? Overstatements? What about Hyperboles? Metaphors? Are these to be taken literally? What about poetic language? What about hyperboles? I've seen this word used several times recently and I go to dictionary.com to see what it means and this is what I get:

No results found for Hyperboles
No results found for Hyperbole

What is a hyperbole?
Please give a link to the official definition. :D

tgallison
May 6th 2009, 01:39 AM
So parables are they to be taken literally? Overstatements? What about Hyperboles? Metaphors? Are these to be taken literally? What about poetic language?

We can't take all the Bible literally or else we would all be walking around without eyes, hands, or families, just to name a few things.

If we can prove somethings scientifically or by reason/study of other cultures then maybe we should use the knowledge, wisdom, and reason that God gave us to better understand the Bible and what it teaches us.

Uriel greetings

God is not the author of confusion. When you read a parable you know it is such because the Bible presents it as such. And that which is presented as literal, is literal. You shouldn't be so easily confused.

Would it be better to be sightless and on your way to heaven, then to have your sight and be on your way to Hell?

Best regards, Terrell

BrckBrln
May 6th 2009, 01:45 AM
And that which is presented as literal, is literal.

Who decides that Genesis 1-11 is literal?

tgallison
May 6th 2009, 02:21 AM
Who decides that Genesis 1-11 is literal?

If your reading from a new translation, it may be Cardinal Carlo Martini.

Br. Barnabas
May 6th 2009, 03:23 AM
Fuzzi I was only saying that the part that I was referencing was allegory. I have explained numerous times on these forums, in the last few days in fact, what Genesis 1 and 2 are really about.

I believe in miracles but when things can be explained or science and reason prove otherwise then I do not think the miraculous should be forced on to the event. All the Creeds and the church throughout the centuries have required is the belief that God created the world. We don't have to believe that it was done in the way that Genesis 1 and 2 say it was done. Otherwise what creation account should we believe the one in Genesis 1:1-2:4a or the one from 2:4b to the end of the chapter?

I believe what the Bible implies and what it says I just don't take it all to be literal history where it is not necessary.

Do you know that orthodox Jews (in the general sense not referring to the Hasidic group) and many of the early church fathers did not take Genesis 1 and 2 to be literal? If some of the pillars of the church and Christianity do not believe it to be literal and if the people to whom the Torah was given don't take it to be literal why do we Christians say it has to be taken literal. We can see throughout the Bible other places where things are not to be taken literal, why are so many hung up on this one part being taken literal. This belief only became popular in the 19th and 20th centuries when Biblical Criticism started, and frankly I believe it is an over reaction to Biblical Criticism.


dljc

Hyperbole is a Greek transliteration. You can find more about it at Wikipedia. But really it is a form of overstatement or exaggeration. For example saying "Those books weigh a ton!" is a form of hyperbole. That is meant is the books are heavy but it get the point across better if we use hyperbole. Another example for the Gospels is Matthew 23:23-24: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!" Hope that helps.


tgallison

I don't feel that Genesis 1 and 2 are presented as literal. As I have pointed out I believe that they were written to show how our God is different from the gods of the other ANE societies. If you want to take it as literal that is fine. I don't take it that way, I think the way that I have presented it makes better sense than the way that others have. You will notice that I have never suggested a way in which God could have or did create the world. What really matters to me is not the way in which the world was created but that it was created. And that it was created by one God and that humans are the height of creation. Which is what I have been saying all along is what the Genesis 1 and 2 stories put forth.


To all:

If you want to take Genesis 1-11 as literal then take it that way. I do not you are not going to convince me or brow beat me into taking it literal. I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. I am a very traditional catholic Christian, I believe in the creeds of the 4 Ecumenical Councils of the church and hold to every matter of doctrine that they espouse. I believe in Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God, without him I am nothing. I will not have any doubt my commitment to God or Christianity, just because I do not agree with them on a passage of scripture that does not hold eternal significance.

tgallison
May 6th 2009, 02:46 PM
tgallison

I don't feel that Genesis 1 and 2 are presented as literal. As I have pointed out I believe that they were written to show how our God is different from the gods of the other ANE societies. If you want to take it as literal that is fine. I don't take it that way, I think the way that I have presented it makes better sense than the way that others have. You will notice that I have never suggested a way in which God could have or did create the world. What really matters to me is not the way in which the world was created but that it was created. And that it was created by one God and that humans are the height of creation. Which is what I have been saying all along is what the Genesis 1 and 2 stories put forth.



Uriel greetings

Faith believing, even when it does not seem possible, is what saves us.

Abraham believed God, even when it was impossible for Sarah to have children due to her age. He offered up his only son trusting God. Noah by faith built an ark, though knowing it had never rained. Without faith it is impossible to please him.

You cannot know God with your mind, for it is impossible with our carnal minds to understand heavenly things, therefore God is only known by the heart, as He reveals himself in your heart, by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ is good, He and the Father are one.

Love and truth in Christ, Terrell

fuzzi
May 6th 2009, 11:30 PM
Fuzzi I was only saying that the part that I was referencing was allegory. I have explained numerous times on these forums, in the last few days in fact, what Genesis 1 and 2 are really about.

I believe in miracles but when things can be explained or science and reason prove otherwise then I do not think the miraculous should be forced on to the event. All the Creeds and the church throughout the centuries have required is the belief that God created the world. We don't have to believe that it was done in the way that Genesis 1 and 2 say it was done. Otherwise what creation account should we believe the one in Genesis 1:1-2:4a or the one from 2:4b to the end of the chapter?

I believe what the Bible implies and what it says I just don't take it all to be literal history where it is not necessary.

Do you know that orthodox Jews (in the general sense not referring to the Hasidic group) and many of the early church fathers did not take Genesis 1 and 2 to be literal? If some of the pillars of the church and Christianity do not believe it to be literal and if the people to whom the Torah was given don't take it to be literal why do we Christians say it has to be taken literal. We can see throughout the Bible other places where things are not to be taken literal, why are so many hung up on this one part being taken literal.
I choose to believe God's word as it is written.

Interestingly enough, our Lord and Saviour also believed it as written.

Jesus believed in Genesis 1 and 2, literally:

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female," (Matthew 19:4)

Jesus believed in the literal Noah and the flood:

"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matthew 24:37-39)

And Jesus believed in the literal Jonah:

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40)

I certainly don't put any faith in men and what they believe or teach, I put my faith in my Lord, my Saviour, and His word. Jesus was not impressed by the Pharisees, He rebuked them for what they taught:

"And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." (Mark 7:9)

Even Paul didn't think so much of those that taught after the traditions of men:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8)

And Peter put it well:

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)

I choose to believe and obey God, and His word, rather than trust in fallible and sinful men.

Athanasius
May 6th 2009, 11:45 PM
I choose to believe God's word as it is written.

Interestingly enough, our Lord and Saviour also believed it as written.

Jesus believed in Genesis 1 and 2, literally:

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female," (Matthew 19:4)

Jesus believed in the literal Noah and the flood:

"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matthew 24:37-39)

And Jesus believed in the literal Jonah:

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40)

I don't see how you can logically infer Jesus believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis merely because he quoted Genesis. If, as some would say, the first eleven chapters of Genesis have theological importance - rather than being an accurate historical account - then it occurs to me that 1) He wouldn't go around modifying the Genesis account and 2) He'd quote it exactly as it's found in Genesis. A metaphor quoted to an audience who understands the metaphor can still sound extremely literal to an outsider.

Case in point; the second coming of Christ will not literally be the same as Noah. The metaphor (theological importance) drawn from the comparison, however, is quite powerful and that's the point. Is the 'whales belly' the same as the 'heart of the earth' or is there a metaphorical comparison being drawn (yes!).

It really all depends on how the Jews viewed and interpreted the creation narrative.



Even Paul didn't think so much of those that taught after the traditions of men:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8)To be fair, Paul was referring to false (empty) philosophy. He wasn't entirely against philosophy.

Scruffy Kid
May 7th 2009, 12:33 AM
Hi fuzzi! :)
Blessings upon you!

I very much appreciate your earnest zeal to understand and obey the Bible, and all that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ taught.

But we aren't in agreement about every point of interpretation.
That's not surprising, and it's OK, because we are mere human beings
God will help us through one another, even though disagreements are sometimes difficult to live with!!


The importance of humility in living as Christians
and in learning from the Bible

Paul tells us each "not to think more highly of yourselves than you ought to think" and again tells us " Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves."


Christians have various faithful ways of reading the Bible

I understand that you think your way of reading the Scriptures which God gave us to be the correct one, and all other ways to be wrong. But many other Christians, who put their faith in Christ just as you do, and who believe the Bible also, affirming it as God's word, and wholly inspired by God, understand it somewhat differently than you do.

You say
I choose to believe God's word as it is written. Good. So do I. But when you say this, what you actually seem to mean is that the way you understand the bible -- in particular, which parts are literal and which are not -- is the only faithful and believing way to read it. I disagree. I think that some others read the Bible faithfully and come to different conclusions about these things than you do, as some on the thread have said that they do.


The way Jesus quoted the OT does not convince me about whether or not
His view of the "literalness" of various passages was the same as yours


You think that your understanding of what is literal is the way that Jesus, our Lord and Saviour, understood that matter. I'm unconvinced that you have demonstrated that.

Your argument is that Jesus said "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female," and "in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away" and "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." These things which Jesus said mean, you think, that "Jesus believed in Genesis 1 and 2, literally" and "believed in the literal Noah and the flood" and "believed in the literal Jonah"

You seem to suppose that these are novel and compelling arguments. But they are quite familiar arguments, and -- whether or not you are right about these things being what you call "literal" -- as arguments they do not seem to me to show very much. Many people who suppose Genesis 1-4 to be a true and inspired account which is presenting truth to us by the use of symbolic language would speak of it exactly as Jesus did. Similarly, people who suppose Jonah is a teaching story which was not intended by its author as a historical record account, in referring to it would nevertheless talk about what Jonah did in going into the ship to sleep, or in getting angry about the fig tree. Talking that way would not show that they think that the book of Jonah was intended historically rather than as a teaching story.

People do speak about stories which are well known and fictional without bothering to make that point explicitly. If I were speaking about family relations, and chose to use an illustration from Shakespeare's Hamlet I might well say "Hamlet's conflict with his stepfather is typical of what often happens in families" or "Ophelia committed suicide because her boyfriend Hamlet's behavior was so upsetting to her." That wouldn't indicate that I thought the play was historical in intent; it would just mean that I assumed it was well-known to the people I was speaking to, and that it would be tedious and unnecessary to go into the fact that Shakespeare wrote the play as a work of fiction. Thus, from the statements of Jesus which you quote, I get very little indication of whether or not Jesus looked at the Scriptures in Genesis 1-2, and about Jonah, and Noah thinking the same things as you do about the sense in which they are to be taken in the way that you call "literally". Perhaps He did; perhaps He didn't.


All of us -- including you -- are fallible and sinful human beings
We all learn from one another in reading the Bible
That's how God intended it, so that so we could help each other.

You seem to identify your way of reading the Bible with a kind of perfection of faith on your part. "I certainly don't put any faith in men and what they believe or teach, I put my faith in my Lord, my Saviour, and His word." This you seem to contrast with others' reading of the Scriptures, as if you were Jesus, and others were the Pharisees whom He rebuked. Similarly you say "Even Paul didn't think so much of those that taught after the traditions of men." (In my view, Scripture is Scripture, and God inspired it; so I'm not sure exactly why you say "even Paul" -- but never mind.) And you quote Luke's account of the apostles saying "We ought to obey God rather than men." The implication seems to be that your way of reading is perfect, and represents the one infallibly correct understanding of the scriptures, while others who disagree with you -- at least on the point of what is what you call "literal" -- are following "the traditions of men." Thus you conclude by saying "I choose to believe and obey God, and His word, rather than trust in fallible and sinful men."

Please forgive me, and correct my error, if I have misunderstood you, but that is what you seem to me to be saying.

But no!! Whether or not you are right about the "literalness" of these passages, you are, I think, quite wrong in saying that you "choose to believe and obey God, and His word, rather than trust in fallible and sinful men." It may be true that you want "to believe God ... rather than trust in fallible and sinful men" or that you try to choose "to believe God ... rather than trust in fallible and sinful men." But every time you endeavor to understand the Scriptures faithfully, you do so not by God's special and unique illumination, which He gives specially to you, but by the use of your mind and heart to try to understand those Scriptures. It is just the same for me and for others on the thread. We too try to understand the Scriptures just as God means them to be understood. But to do so we have to use our hearts and minds to seek to understand. And, as James notes, we all make many mistakes. We -- I and others on the thread -- trying our best to understand what is written in the Bible, are yet fallible and sinful men trying to understand. Our best efforts may go awry.

And the same is true of you. You are a fallible and sinful man just like the rest of us. Your best efforts to understand what is written in the Bible may go awry just as ours may.

Also: the way in which you read the Bible is influenced by your having learned the Bible, and the Christian faith, in the faith communities in which you came to faith. For instance, you read the Bible in translation. But each translation must render words and phrases into a different language which doesn't have exact equivalence for the words of the original language. And each is made by human beings, as a part of faith communities they are in, and these men and women are fallible and sinful, as we all are. Apart from issues of translation, the way we read the Bible depends on where we put the emphasis, on what we take to be the main point of various passages, and so on. We all learn these things -- and should learn them -- as part of the church, the people of God. Our understandings are fallible, and get corrected by the readings of other faithful Christians. God did not intend us to operate as lone rangers reading the Scriptures by ourselves, but as part of the body of Christ, in which we learn from one another in many ways. Thus learning from one another, and from Christians throughout history, is not some kind corruption which is opposed to hearing from God in the Scriptures, but an important part of how we learn from the Scriptures. Thus, our best efforts to understand what God has given us in the Bible must, necessarily, by influenced by faith traditions and church contexts, which, by God's grace, we may hope are on the whole working for his kingdom, even though our churches are all composed of fallible and sinful men. We have no other option, really, because if one relies only on his own personal insight into Scripture, he is relying, even more problematically, on one lone fallible and sinful man -- namely himself!

In friendship, :hug:
Scruffy Kid

embankmentlb
May 7th 2009, 01:00 AM
It is a real quandary. The evidence is there that says the earth is billions of years old, Of course that in no way fits the view of creation written in the Bible.
The only way i can make it fit in my mind is to say that The Bible's view of creation is the account God wanted us to know. Why would God leave us with a story of creation that apparently is not true? We don't know. It may be that dinosaur's & such add nothing to our understanding of salvation. It may be that if God relayed to us the untold story of the universe no book or number of books could ever contain all the words. What importance would that serve other than to make him less important?
It may be that science has it all wrong. I don't believe that, but at any rate, sciences job is to observe & explain the physical world. The Bible deals with the spiritual world.

Scruffy Kid
May 7th 2009, 01:27 AM
It is a real quandary. The evidence is there that says the earth is billions of years old, Of course that in no way fits the view of creation written in the Bible.
The only way i can make it fit in my mind is to say that The Bible's view of creation is the account God wanted us to know. Why would God leave us with a story of creation that apparently is not true? We don't know. It may be that dinosaur's & such add nothing to our understanding of salvation. It may be that if God relayed to us the untold story of the universe no book or number of books could ever contain all the words. What importance would that serve other than to make him less important?
It may be that science has it all wrong. I don't believe that, but at any rate, sciences job is to observe & explain the physical world. The Bible deals with the spiritual world.

Hi embankment!
And thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

I fully agree that the Bible is giving a Spiritual account. Its purpose is not to help us with biology, or geology -- things that, given time, we can find out for ourselves, and things that are not necessary to our salvation. Rather, IMO, the purpose of the Bible is to give us an accurate, penetrating account of the essential truths we cannot necessarily work out for ourselves, because they go beyond the depth of the human mind, and because they concern our fallenness and God's actions in making us and saving us, which are both beyond our level of comprehension, and also things that, because of our fallenness, we resist, or can't get right.

Genesis 1 & 2 is telling us that God made all things, according to a good, orderly, and unified plan, and governs all things. It tells us, in detail, that God established heaven and earth, and that God is the source of light. It tells us that God made all things good, and governs them in accord with His will. It presents humanity as the crown of creation, made in God's image, and given authority and responsibility to rule and take care of our world and our own hearts, under God's authority and in obedience to His commands. And it tells us that all humanity is fallen, seriously messed up, because of our disobedience which arose from a sinful desire to exceed our place and be like God, defining for ourselves what is right and wrong. It shows that our disobedience leads to more and more alienation and confusion and brokenness in human affairs, and that God graciously intervened, from the beginning, also telling us that, ultimately, He would send a Savior. Of course, these are just some of the highlights: there is much much more.

These things do not conflict with standard scientific accounts of the world and its age and its origin. Nor, in my opinion, were they intended to give us the kind of information that those scientific accounts do.

Thus while I fully agree with you when you say the following things:
The evidence is there that says the earth is billions of years old, ...

... The Bible's view of creation is the account God wanted us to know.

Why [then] would God leave us with [the] story of creation that [He did]?

It may be that dinosaur's & such add nothing to our understanding of salvation. It may be that if God relayed to us the untold story of the universe no book or number of books could ever contain all the words. What importance would that serve other than to make him less important?

... It is sciences job is to observe & explain the physical world.
The Bible deals with the spiritual world.

I don't agree that the scientific view that the universe is billions of years old "in no way fits the view of creation written in the Bible." I don't see a contradiction, and never have seen one.

Thus I don't think that "It is a real quandary."

I don't wonder "Why would God leave us with a story of creation that apparently is not true?" because I think that the Genesis 1 and 2 account is exactly, precisely, and profoundly true -- I just don't think that it is intended to give us a detailed history of how God went about creating! I think it is intended to give us an account that reveals God's purposes, the central principles of design He used, His sovereignty and graciousness and goodness as Creator (and as Redeemer, in Genesis 3 and 4), and so on.

I see no need for Genesis to be "wrong" for the standard scientific accounts to be more or less accurate; and no need for the standard science to be wrong for Genesis to be utterly and completely true.

Br. Barnabas
May 7th 2009, 03:09 AM
I choose to believe God's word as it is written.

Interestingly enough, our Lord and Saviour also believed it as written.

Jesus believed in Genesis 1 and 2, literally:

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female," (Matthew 19:4)

Jesus believed in the literal Noah and the flood:

"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matthew 24:37-39)

And Jesus believed in the literal Jonah:

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40)

I certainly don't put any faith in men and what they believe or teach, I put my faith in my Lord, my Saviour, and His word. Jesus was not impressed by the Pharisees, He rebuked them for what they taught:

"And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." (Mark 7:9)

Even Paul didn't think so much of those that taught after the traditions of men:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8)

And Peter put it well:

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)

I choose to believe and obey God, and His word, rather than trust in fallible and sinful men.

Ok it seems that in all the passages that you quoted from Matthew that in these passages Jesus is not taking these passages literal but referencing them so that he might teach the people from a text that they know in order to deliver a message. Such as the Matthew 19, Jesus is teaching on divorce and he states God made male and female. Just stating that God created, not saying that Genesis has to be literal. God alone created is the entire point of Genesis 1 and 2, which I have been saying all along. I do not need to repoint out what Scruffy already said about Matthew 24. The Matthew 12 passage you quoted about Jesus being in the belly of the earth for 3 days and 3 nights if it is not suppose to be taken figurativly then it makes Jesus out to be a liar. Because he did not spend 3 days and nights in the tomb or She'ol. He spent 2 nights and really only 1.5 days in the tomb. Thus it seems he is referencing the story in order to make his own statement about his death and resurrection not saying that Johan literally spend 3 days and nights in the belly of a fish.

Many believe that the language of Genesis 1 is poetic and follows a type of repeating/complementing. I will explain that here:
A: Creation of Light
B: Creation of Sky and Sea
C: Creation of Dry land and plants
A': Creation of light producing celestial bodies (Sun and stars and moon [we now know it does not produce light but reflects it])
B': Creation of water dwelling animals and flying animals
C': Creation of land dwelling animals and humans

We see that it follows a pattern there is the larger creation of things such as Light, the Sky and Sea and Dry land. Then there is the creation of things to reflect or fill the spaces created. So the creation of light is reflected by the creation of the Sun. As the creation of the Sea and Sky are filled with water dwelling creatures and flying creatures. These complement each other. So that A and A' (A prime) complement each other.

But if you want to read it as literal then go for it I don't really care! I am just trying to provide what I feel to be a much richer and fuller understand of Scripture because it gets at what I feel to be the author's intent. For me seeing it as poetry is so much more beautiful and interesting than reading it as literal history.

embankmentlb
May 7th 2009, 11:23 AM
Hi embankment!
And thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

I fully agree that the Bible is giving a Spiritual account. Its purpose is not to help us with biology, or geology -- things that, given time, we can find out for ourselves, and things that are not necessary to our salvation. Rather, IMO, the purpose of the Bible is to give us an accurate, penetrating account of the essential truths we cannot necessarily work out for ourselves, because they go beyond the depth of the human mind, and because they concern our fallenness and God's actions in making us and saving us, which are both beyond our level of comprehension, and also things that, because of our fallenness, we resist, or can't get right.

Genesis 1 & 2 is telling us that God made all things, according to a good, orderly, and unified plan, and governs all things. It tells us, in detail, that God established heaven and earth, and that God is the source of light. It tells us that God made all things good, and governs them in accord with His will. It presents humanity as the crown of creation, made in God's image, and given authority and responsibility to rule and take care of our world and our own hearts, under God's authority and in obedience to His commands. And it tells us that all humanity is fallen, seriously messed up, because of our disobedience which arose from a sinful desire to exceed our place and be like God, defining for ourselves what is right and wrong. It shows that our disobedience leads to more and more alienation and confusion and brokenness in human affairs, and that God graciously intervened, from the beginning, also telling us that, ultimately, He would send a Savior. Of course, these are just some of the highlights: there is much much more.

These things do not conflict with standard scientific accounts of the world and its age and its origin. Nor, in my opinion, were they intended to give us the kind of information that those scientific accounts do.

Thus while I fully agree with you when you say the following things:

I don't agree that the scientific view that the universe is billions of years old "in no way fits the view of creation written in the Bible." I don't see a contradiction, and never have seen one.

Thus I don't think that "It is a real quandary."

I don't wonder "Why would God leave us with a story of creation that apparently is not true?" because I think that the Genesis 1 and 2 account is exactly, precisely, and profoundly true -- I just don't think that it is intended to give us a detailed history of how God went about creating! I think it is intended to give us an account that reveals God's purposes, the central principles of design He used, His sovereignty and graciousness and goodness as Creator (and as Redeemer, in Genesis 3 and 4), and so on.

I see no need for Genesis to be "wrong" for the standard scientific accounts to be more or less accurate; and no need for the standard science to be wrong for Genesis to be utterly and completely true.
Yes, Great comments, The other conflict deals with the age of man. The Bible says men are thousands of years old vs. science saying we are millions of years old.
This difference i have not fully resolved. I understand why us Christians have such a dilemma combining the two. The account of Adam & Eve, is fundamentally tied to Jesus & our salvation experience. Once you put into question the accounts of the garden of eden the Bible itself comes into question.

crawfish
May 7th 2009, 02:25 PM
I don`t know much about this... there is a few info may be related to it, excuse me if not (again it`s a lot better explained in the mentioned book):

"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

God bless

You couldn't test something freshly dead. The tests could not be accurate until the body's carbon had broken down over enough time.

Explain this: an argon-potassium dating of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius showed the exact date that was indicated in ancient writings. Sounds pretty accurate to me.

crawfish
May 7th 2009, 02:27 PM
What about hyperboles? I've seen this word used several times recently and I go to dictionary.com to see what it means and this is what I get:

No results found for Hyperboles
No results found for Hyperbole

What is a hyperbole?
Please give a link to the official definition. :D


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole


1. obvious and intentional exaggeration. 2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

fuzzi
May 7th 2009, 04:17 PM
The account of Adam & Eve, is fundamentally tied to Jesus & our salvation experience. Once you put into question the accounts of the garden of eden the Bible itself comes into question.
Yep. Absolutely right.

Unless it is very clear that something in the Bible is identified as a parable, or meant to be taken in something other than a literal manner, I believe it should be taken literally.

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17)

fuzzi
May 7th 2009, 04:55 PM
I don't see how you can logically infer Jesus believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis merely because he quoted Genesis. If, as some would say, the first eleven chapters of Genesis have theological importance - rather than being an accurate historical account - then it occurs to me that 1) He wouldn't go around modifying the Genesis account and 2) He'd quote it exactly as it's found in Genesis. A metaphor quoted to an audience who understands the metaphor can still sound extremely literal to an outsider.
Thank you for your kind reply.

It doesn't matter what I think, or what you think, or what someone draws logically from the Bible. The Bible is the word of God, and is referred to as truth throughout the Scriptures.

If God said His word is truth, then I believe it, and don't try to rationalize a compromise between what worldly scientific 'types' claim, and what God's word says. The latter always triumphs over mankind's puny efforts at wisdom.


It really all depends on how the Jews viewed and interpreted the creation narrative.
What difference does it make what the Jews thought? They copied accurately what God had spoken, and were very careful in transcribing it.



To be fair, Paul was referring to false (empty) philosophy. He wasn't entirely against philosophy.
It's philosophy that we are warned against, not false philosophy.


I very much appreciate your earnest zeal to understand and obey the Bible, and all that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ taught.

But we aren't in agreement about every point of interpretation.
That's not surprising, and it's OK, because we are mere human beings
God will help us through one another, even though disagreements are sometimes difficult to live with!!
Thanks, I appreciate all my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I don't always have to agree with them. If we disagree, that's okay. We each have God's word and the indwelling Holy Spirit to interpret it.


... Thus, from the statements of Jesus which you quote, I get very little indication of whether or not Jesus looked at the Scriptures in Genesis 1-2, and about Jonah, and Noah thinking the same things as you do about the sense in which they are to be taken in the way that you call "literally". Perhaps He did; perhaps He didn't.
Well, considering that He spoke it, I would think that what He spoke was truth, and not some sort of story to teach and amuse us.


All of us -- including you -- are fallible and sinful human beings
Yep. I agree.


We all learn from one another in reading the Bible. That's how God intended it, so that so we could help each other.
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that concept. Could you provide BCV?


You seem to identify your way of reading the Bible with a kind of perfection of faith on your part. "I certainly don't put any faith in men and what they believe or teach, I put my faith in my Lord, my Saviour, and His word." This you seem to contrast with others' reading of the Scriptures, as if you were Jesus, and others were the Pharisees whom He rebuked. Similarly you say "Even Paul didn't think so much of those that taught after the traditions of men." (In my view, Scripture is Scripture, and God inspired it; so I'm not sure exactly why you say "even Paul" -- but never mind.) And you quote Luke's account of the apostles saying "We ought to obey God rather than men." The implication seems to be that your way of reading is perfect, and represents the one infallibly correct understanding of the scriptures, while others who disagree with you -- at least on the point of what is what you call "literal" -- are following "the traditions of men." Thus you conclude by saying "I choose to believe and obey God, and His word, rather than trust in fallible and sinful men."
I do not believe that I am perfect, only God's word is.

I pray for the Lord to make His word clear to me, through the Holy Spirit. If I do not understand something, and after study and prayer I still do not understand, I allow that perhaps the Lord doesn't want me to understand something right away, and I wait on Him to illuminate.

It's not arrogance, I don't think I'm better than anyone else, I just allow the Holy Spirit to make God's word clear. If I'm wrong, I pray He will correct me.


Please forgive me, and correct my error, if I have misunderstood you, but that is what you seem to me to be saying.
I do not think highly of myself: I am no scholar, I am only a small, weak, imperfect child of God, who wants to know Him more perfectly. I trust that He will instruct me through His word and His Spirit.


But no!! Whether or not you are right about the "literalness" of these passages, you are, I think, quite wrong in saying that you "choose to believe and obey God, and His word, rather than trust in fallible and sinful men." It may be true that you want "to believe God ... rather than trust in fallible and sinful men" or that you try to choose "to believe God ... rather than trust in fallible and sinful men." But every time you endeavor to understand the Scriptures faithfully, you do so not by God's special and unique illumination, which He gives specially to you, but by the use of your mind and heart to try to understand those Scriptures.
I have said what I have said: I choose to believe God rather than men.

If someone has a problem with that, I am sorry, but even if I unintentionally offend someone, it is not going to change how I feel about God and His word.


It is just the same for me and for others on the thread. We too try to understand the Scriptures just as God means them to be understood. But to do so we have to use our hearts and minds to seek to understand.
And that's where I disagree. I let the Lord make His word clear, I do not rely on my own intelligence, wisdom, knowledge or interpretation.


Also: the way in which you read the Bible is influenced by your having learned the Bible, and the Christian faith, in the faith communities in which you came to faith. For instance, you read the Bible in translation. But each translation must render words and phrases into a different language which doesn't have exact equivalence for the words of the original language. And each is made by human beings, as a part of faith communities they are in, and these men and women are fallible and sinful, as we all are. Apart from issues of translation, the way we read the Bible depends on where we put the emphasis, on what we take to be the main point of various passages, and so on. We all learn these things -- and should learn them -- as part of the church, the people of God. Our understandings are fallible, and get corrected by the readings of other faithful Christians. God did not intend us to operate as lone rangers reading the Scriptures by ourselves, but as part of the body of Christ, in which we learn from one another in many ways. Thus learning from one another, and from Christians throughout history, is not some kind corruption which is opposed to hearing from God in the Scriptures, but an important part of how we learn from the Scriptures. Thus, our best efforts to understand what God has given us in the Bible must, necessarily, by influenced by faith traditions and church contexts, which, by God's grace, we may hope are on the whole working for his kingdom, even though our churches are all composed of fallible and sinful men. We have no other option, really, because if one relies only on his own personal insight into Scripture, he is relying, even more problematically, on one lone fallible and sinful man -- namely himself
I am going to disagree with you again here, brother.

I was saved at a very late age, and do not have 'traditions' that have shaped my beliefs, but have based all my beliefs on God's word.

When I have read what others have said about the Scriptures, I always compare what they say to what God's word says. If they don't match, I discount what men say.

You may doubt God's ability to keep His word pure and perfect, to supply our need of an infallible Bible in our native English, but I don't. God wants each and every one of us to search the Scriptures, to learn of Him, and it would be unlike His nature to burden us with learning other languages in order to know what He wants us to know, or to rely on sinful and fallible men to teach us. The latter has caused untold misery and atrocities in history, in the form of 'cults' and oppressive 'religions'.

The Muslims teach that unless you know and read the Koran in the original language, you don't have Allah's word. Isn't that interesting...? :hmm:


Ok it seems that in all the passages that you quoted from Matthew that in these passages Jesus is not taking these passages literal but referencing them so that he might teach the people from a text that they know in order to deliver a message. Such as the Matthew 19, Jesus is teaching on divorce and he states God made male and female. Just stating that God created, not saying that Genesis has to be literal. God alone created is the entire point of Genesis 1 and 2, which I have been saying all along. I do not need to repoint out what Scruffy already said about Matthew 24. The Matthew 12 passage you quoted about Jesus being in the belly of the earth for 3 days and 3 nights if it is not suppose to be taken figurativly then it makes Jesus out to be a liar. Because he did not spend 3 days and nights in the tomb or She'ol. He spent 2 nights and really only 1.5 days in the tomb. Thus it seems he is referencing the story in order to make his own statement about his death and resurrection not saying that Johan literally spend 3 days and nights in the belly of a fish.

Many believe that the language of Genesis 1 is poetic and follows a type of repeating/complementing. I will explain that here:
A: Creation of Light
B: Creation of Sky and Sea
C: Creation of Dry land and plants
A': Creation of light producing celestial bodies (Sun and stars and moon [we now know it does not produce light but reflects it])
B': Creation of water dwelling animals and flying animals
C': Creation of land dwelling animals and humans

We see that it follows a pattern there is the larger creation of things such as Light, the Sky and Sea and Dry land. Then there is the creation of things to reflect or fill the spaces created. So the creation of light is reflected by the creation of the Sun. As the creation of the Sea and Sky are filled with water dwelling creatures and flying creatures. These complement each other. So that A and A' (A prime) complement each other.

But if you want to read it as literal then go for it I don't really care! I am just trying to provide what I feel to be a much richer and fuller understand of Scripture because it gets at what I feel to be the author's intent. For me seeing it as poetry is so much more beautiful and interesting than reading it as literal history.
Thank you also for your reply. We agree to disagree, then.

Athanasius
May 7th 2009, 05:06 PM
T
It doesn't matter what I think, or what you think, or what someone draws logically from the Bible. The Bible is the word of God, and is referred to as truth throughout the Scriptures.

If God said His word is truth, then I believe it, and don't try to rationalize a compromise between what worldly scientific 'types' claim, and what God's word says. The latter always triumphs over mankind's puny efforts at wisdom.

It doesn't matter if I'm drawing a logical inference or if you're drawing a logical inference, we're both still drawing inferences. Your logical inference (which is how you're interpreting the text) is that because Jesus quoted Genesis verbatim He believed the account literally. My objection is that in no way can you conclusively say such a thing simply because Jesus quoted Genesis verbatim.

I have no disagreements with you, God's word is the truth. We aren't objecting to what God said. We'd be objecting to your interpretation of what you believe God said.



What difference does it make what the Jews thought? They copied accurately what God had spoken, and were very careful in transcribing it.

They were the original recipients of the creation account which means it would have been written in a form decipherable to them. I'll go out on a limb and say that the ancients had a very different view of reality and the world that we do now. Literalism is a fairly Western phenomenon. We tend to miss a lot of the nuances of scripture because we're so literalistic.



It's philosophy that we are warned against, not false philosophy.

Look at the Greek, it's empty, vain, false, etc. philosophy that Paul is warning us against. Paul was a follower of Christ, a Theologian and a philosopher. He wouldn't be warning us against just philosophy or else he would be warning us against himself.

crawfish
May 7th 2009, 05:46 PM
And that's where I disagree. I let the Lord make His word clear, I do not rely on my own intelligence, wisdom, knowledge or interpretation.

Others have answered your other points well, so I'll just comment on this one.

EVERYBODY who reads the bible interprets scripture. Depending on your intelligence, wisdom, education, culture and other attributes, you will actually see scripture than others with different attributes. For me, it was truly interesting to study scripture from the basis of another culture - both Chinese and African application of scripture differ from US interpretation, and I could not say which one was more correct.

I believe there are two levels of understanding scripture. First is the "real" meaning - what the author intended. We achieve this understanding through study - contextual, historical and literary analysis. Second is the "Holy Spirit" interpretation - not necessarily what was meant or intended, but how scripture is to be applied to my life. This is intensely personal, and my "interpretation" is not necessarily the truth for others. I believe the Holy Spirit may cause two different people to see the same scripture in completely different, contradictory ways that aid each of them in their own life struggles. The latter interpretation should not be enforced by any sort of corporate entity, although the individual should be free to share their experience with others inside of the corporate entity.

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77