Latro, when you take an “all or nothing” approach to Biblical interpretation, you are making an assumption that the Bible is all one homogenous work which must all be read exactly the same. As Poly said, the Bible is not one book but a library of books. It’s many different works of sacred literature preserved over centuries and comprising many different genres, intentions and POV’s. Some of the books are intended to be historical, some are poetry, some are folk tales, some are legal codes, some are prophetic sermons and some are intentional myths. I don’t use the word “myth” in a dismissive, trivializing manner to simply mean “made up,” I’m using it to indicate a specific genre of literature which tells allegorical stories to make religious points.
The question about which parts of the Bible to believe as history are dictated to a large extent by the genre, context and intention of the book. For instance, the book of Job is understood to be a folk tale even by most conservative Biblical scholars. That is the book’s intention and that’s how it should be read. That’s not to say that it doesn’t mean anything to its audience or convey any truths only that the truths which it does convey are not - and are not intended to be - historical.
So it is no contradiction for Christians to read the words of Jesus as authentic but to read Genesis as a parable (a genre which was favored by Jesus himself). Genesis is in a different section of the library.
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Well, earthworms do turn the soil over and help to keep it fertile so that vegetation grows well. And all animal life is ultimately dependent on vegetation for survival. Eagles are sometimes scavengers (and sometimes thieves from other birds) and help clean up, but bacteria also do this job.
“Up” and “down”, “more” or “less” valuable are so loaded with human values that I have a hard time agreeing that eagles are “up” and earthworms are “down.”
Then why create such extinct creatures to begin with? Seems like an awful waste of time and energy to me. Why would an omniscient god let dinosaurs rule for 300 million years, when the desired end result is <10,000 years of human dominance? Doesn’t sound like much of a divine plan to me. Sounds like a big “oops!” at best.
Yes, Diogenes I know the bible is a library of books of differing genres and intent.
My point is that, if you know that it’s not all Holy, that even the ‘doctrinal’ points don’t add up under scrutiny. That even parts of what count as ‘His Teachings’ (the last resort of anything resembling holyness about the book) are sometimes insertions of a later date with a political intent. How can you be sure what his teachings were, exactly.
They weren’t just written down ‘so we may remember His Words’, sometimes it was written (made up) to shut up those blasphemers in Syria or to combat Arianism or the Jews or whomever.
If you know this and cling to a few (as yet) undisputed lines in that vast library but regard the rest as ‘just ancient texts’ are you still a Christian?
Is this not a valid question?
Christianity, as it is today, has had a long retreat. A Christian from the 1920’s or so (or a fundie for that matter) would have a hard time grasping Christianity in the form it survives today.
In what way are the surviving Christians still Christians, compared to just a few decades ago.
Letting go of Creation is just one step.
Maybe your form of Christianity would; mine wouldn’t. The Book of Common Prayer has only been updated once in 1923 and it remains much the same in substance. If you like, when I get home, I should be able to give you sections from both the 1923 version and the current version (as it happens, I own both) so you can see for yourself.
Look, I’m told there are some forms of Christianity which are so strongly against alcohol that they don’t even use wine at Communion, instead they use grape juice. To me, that’s a bit ludicrous and goes directly against what Christ commanded at the Last Supper. Nevertheless, while I may be amazed and confounded at this belief, I would not say these people aren’t true Christians or that their faith is somehow weak or damaged; I just wouldn’t invite them to a wine and cheese party at my church.
I think it’s about time I recommended a book called The Battle for God, even though I haven’t finished reading it. The part I have read talks about how, with the advent of the Age of Reason, a separation came about between story telling and Truth and that things could only be one or the other, not both. To force the Bible to be either only myth or only Truth is to do it a disservice. While Job may have been fictional, the story of Job contains a Truth that sustained me during the worst times of my life. Jesus, Himself, used stories in the form of parables to provoke people to think and arrive at the Truth. I believe God reaches each of us in the way we need Him to. For some, a born-again, road-to-Damascus type experience is what it takes. For me, that would have done even more damage to a soul already endangered, so He took a less dramatic, more gentle approach. The two stories in Genesis were appropriate to the world in which they were told and written, given the facts available to people at the time. Is it so unreasonable to think that evolution is now inappropriate to us given the facts available?
You left out the possibility of tradition. The bible does not lay out and explain the details of all truth, it encapsulates the core truths understood by the believing community at the time that the community chose to establish a canon. It does so using a wide variety of literary forms with separate presentations and intentions spanning a period of several hundreds of years. Tradition can be handed on in many ways. Islam includes the Hadith. Judaism includes the Talmud, (with the Mishnah and Gemara), the commentaries on Halakah, and the later Midrash. Christianity includes the Patristics, the councils (both ecumenical and parochial), and the commentaries of theologians and mystics. And while each of these he taken written forms, there is no bar to an oral tradition, as witnessed by the formation of the Talmud with its own multiple century oral tradition.
Now, one can certainly stand outside the believing commuity and ascribe all the expanding commentary and tradition to changing culture or politics while the believers will attribute that growth to the direction of the spirit of God. However, a claim that only a literal acceptance of the words printed in any group’s scripture is valid is contradicted by many hundreds of years of historical reality.
Polycarp, my friend, calm down. You have to realize that many people have been raised on a limited declaration of sola scriptura (or an even more limited view of that position when viewed from outside the community). It is not an attack on your beliefs, but a simple failure to comprehend your perspective that prompts the remarks which have been riling you up, lately. (And by a “failure to comprehend” I do not imply an inability to comprehend, simply a lack of experience that would currently allow the person to grasp your point. My point, of course, is not applicable to Nolies who has chosen to steep himself in the “gotcha” tradition of belief with his reliance upon the Divine Weasel. But I see no reason to lash out at Latro or others who simply approach the issue from a different perspective.)
[QUOTE=Latro]
I’m with Nolies, 50mil and the other fundies.
QUOTE]
Wow, I guess I really did a good job of wording the OP without giving away my stance, which was part of my goal. I hadn’t visited upon this discussion in a while because it had evolved/devolved beyond anwering the OP.
I think I’m what would be considered the exact opposite of a “fundie”. I believe absolutely not one word of the Bible. I think that all religions are equally ridiculous, but I live in the deep south so I’m especially aggrieved by Christianity because I’m surrounded by it.
All that being said, I have new found respect for believers based on Duck Duck Goose and others ability to put forward a rational, coherant, and logical argument on behalf of their beliefs.
If this God that you says knows everthing even before it happens really exists. Why did it repent him that he had made man if he knew it was going to go so bad? If he knew it was going to happen? What is there to be repentant about?
But if you create a free will being then you can’t know or it isn’t a free will being.
Now if you know that something is going to go bad and you do it anyway that is something more along the lines of man not God. That is that the all knowing God you speak of…
It’s not a Biblical doctrine issue, it’s a “social mores” issue–my denomination is strongly, fanatically, “temperance”, dating back to the 19th century. Nothing to be done about it, 'cept live with it, basically.
And I’d rather not tell you which denomination, as it’s the only one in Decatur and I prefer a bit more anonymity.
Well, glad to hear it. We’re not all Jerry Falwell, ya know.
And that’s a mistaken assumption. You’re ignoring the fact that the Bible wasn’t written to be a science resource book–it was written to be a doctrinal resource book. 2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
Scripture is for doctrine, for teaching, for correction. Not for “proving” scientific, factual things.
The Book doesn’t fail me on any issues. The Book apparently fails you on a number of issues, and I think that’s your problem.
Genesis does try to give answers to the question, “Where did we come from?” but not in a science context. The answers are in a religious context. As has been exhaustively pointed out, the Bible is not a science textbook. There is no science in the Bible. There was never intended to be science in the Bible–it’s a book of instruction, of guidance, of religious advice.
It’s like you’re complaining that we ignore the science context in Chicken Soup for the Soul–there is no science context in Chicken Soup for the Soul. It wasn’t intended to be a science resource.
None of them are “scientifically wrong”–they are “scientifically inexplicable”. “Inexplicable” isn’t the same thing as “wrong”.
They are all part of the doctrine called “miracles”, which my First Grade Sunday School teacher’s guide defines as, “Something you can’t explain any other way.” Part of the proof that Jesus was the Son of God is that He performed “things we can’t explain any other way”, like walking on water and rising from the dead.
However, the Six-Day Creation as outlined in Genesis does not lack an alternate explanation and therefore does not need to be defined as a “miracle”, as “something that we can’t explain any other way”. There’s a perfectly good, widely accepted (and by mainstream Christianity, too) explanation for it–it’s simply an allegory. Even my mother, born and raised a Southern Baptist, didn’t have any problem with this idea.
The difference between the two things is that the Six-Day Creation is not something that Jesus performed in order to provide evidence that He was indeed God, and this is why it isn’t necessary to believe in a literal Six-Day Creation in order to be a Christian. But you do have to believe that Jesus was God in order to be a Christian, which means that you–sorta, kinda, pretty much–have to believe that He did miracles. Or at least one, that of rising from the dead.
So, are you listening to your common sense?
We’re not saying the Six-Day Creation in Genesis is wrong–we’re saying it’s not literally true. There’s a difference. Our position is that Genesis 1 is like Beowulf or The Iliad–Beowulf is not “wrong”, it’s just “not literally true”.
And we’re not saying here that there are any things in the Bible that are “proven wrong” in the sense of being “blatantly, factually incorrect”. Saying The Iliad is a story poem is not the same thing as saying that it’s blatantly, factually incorrect.
If you really can’t understand the basic qualitative difference between “science” and “religious doctrine”, then this whole discussion is pointless.
Well, it helps if you know something about how we got the book we call the “Bible”. I suggest you go do some research. Short version: 300 years of brisk yet thoughtful doctrinal debate among serious, scholarly, faithful men.
All the rest of that stuff is implicit in the verse:
[ul]
[li] You cannot confess that Jesus is Lord without believing that He is Lord. There’s a ton of baggage and subtext and implication here in this one little phrase. When you confess that Jesus is Lord, what exactly are you testifying to? You’re testifying that you believe that He’s worthy of being Lord of your life, and that implies that you believe that He’s exactly who He said He was–the Messiah, the Son of God who died and rose again. And why did He do this? For the redemption of sin. And who forgives sin? God. And the Messiah was the person who God sent to redeem us from sin so that He could forgive us. It’s all there, the whole “Christian” package, in that one itty-bitty phrase. If you confess that Jesus is Lord, you’re saying that you’re buying the whole package, it’s a kind of verbal shorthand, you don’t have to list all that Apostle’s Creed stuff. [/li][li] Ditto believing in your heart that God raised Him from the dead. If you believe that God did this, then the implication is that you believe all the baggage that goes along with it, the reasons for it.[/li][/ul]
Yes, but the specific point we’re addressing here is that Jesus Himself does not talk about Creation. Yes, we’re to believe the Old Testament, too, as doctrinal guidance, but again, that’s irrelevant: here we’re discussing whether Jesus mentioned Creation, and He didn’t.
You’re saying that you’ll only believe in Yahweh and His “you must be born again” New Testament agenda if He was the kind of god who could “poof!” everything into existence in only six days, but that if He had to use four billion years of evolution to do it, then He’s not worthy of your belief and worship?
Well, heck, if this god had to use six whole days to do it, sounds like kind of a slacker to me. I bet there are other gods who could’ve pulled it off in only the blink of an eye…
Well, I see you know how to use a concordance. Let’s examine these passages, shall we? Come, let us reason together…
Mark 10:6 – “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’” – does not specify the means of creation, nor offer any commentary on the book of Genesis vis literal/figurative language. And if you note the context, Jesus is rebuking a Pharisee, a group known for their strict adherence to the letter of the Law, a zeal not shared by Jesus.
Mark 13:19 – <in part> “in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now” – also makes no mention of the duration or method of creation. Jesus could just as well have been referencing the Big Bang as Genesis 1-2.
2 Peter 3:4 – <in part> “ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation” – what’s interesting here is that these are not the words of Peter. Rather, here he is quoting “the scoffers” whom we are not to believe! Later in this chapter, Peter does say, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”, a caution not to take scriptural statements regarding time literally! (To sum up, Peter is saying, don’t worry when scoffers ask why Jesus hasn’t come yet although he promised to return before this generation passes away, because the words of the Lord are not as the words of men.)
Rev 3:14 – “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation’” – if you can parse this passage, you’re a better man than I. However, I will note that this verse is immediately prefaced by the phrase “He who has an hear, let him hear…” which was used by Jesus to frame his parables. After telling the parable of the sower, for example, we get this:
And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables.
I think you’ve pretty much hoist yourself by your own petard.
This has to be the most pointless, “totally missing the point” group of cites produced to back up an argument that I have ever seen. Well, good for you, you know how to use a concordance. :rolleyes: Trouble is, none of them are addressing the central issue here, which is whether or not the world was created in six literal days, and whether there was discussion in the New Testament on this issue. All your cites simply have the word “creation” in them. Big whoop.
God exists outside of Time. Time does not exist for God. To God, there is only Now. There is no Past, no Present, no Future. Only Now.
In “Now”, God created Man to have free will. He hoped that Man would make the right choice in what would be Future to Man. But in “Now”, God saw Man make wrong choices, and was sorry He’d ever begun the project, back in the Past that was not the Past because it was Now.
“Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you’re so high and mighty you couldn’t look past my religion and just be my friend back. You’ve got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls.” - South Park
No offence on the “suck my balls” bit, I just didn’t want to cut the punchline off of the joke.
Christians believe in this stuff because it works for them. Sure, maybe Jesus never actually said “Love thine enemy as you love yourself.” So what? It’s still a damned good idea. The Bible doesn’t have to be divine, or accurate, or non-fiction, to be true.
Well, one could point out the number of times eternal life is promised to those who follow Jesus. But perhaps the best cite of all is Deuteronomy 33:27, “The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.”
Eternity.
Speaking of false beliefs, are you prepared to renounce any of yours yet?
John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
God made everything.
“Everything” would include Time.
If God created Time, that would mean that He existed before Time did.
If God existed before Time did, that would mean that He doesn’t require “Time” in order to exist.
If God doesn’t require “Time” in order to exist, that would mean that Time is irrelevant to God.
If Time is irrelevant to God, that would mean that God exists outside of, and apart from, Time.
Genesis 18:14 Is anything too hard for the LORD?
We’re not all Jerry Falwell, ya know. 