The literal and figurative portions of Genesis?

[Willtor]

No, in the last 1700 years or so, the Bible hasn't changed. But I think you'd be surprised to see the difference in interpretation between then and now. The reason is that the simple act of reading the Bible involves more than one might think. "Common sense" is not so common as it sounds.

Again, read some ancient Scriptural interpretations (especially of Genesis). I don't think "the Bible is unchanging" takes enough information into account to argue for one particular interpretation over another.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

"Common sense" is not so common as it sounds.

most of the principles of modern evangelical and fundamentalist hermeneutics stem from the Princeton theology which in turn is deeply effected by Scottish Realism philosophy's ideas on common sense.

it is curious that since about the time of Darwin science ceased to be fundamentally common sensical and is now rather contrary to common sense. about the same time as gifted amateur, often clergy, lost their position as cultural shapers and professional scientists became a social class and rose to replace the clergy in several of their previous functions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The Mosaic authorship of the (whole) Torah has been questioned by Christian and Jewish scholars for well over a thousand years with no intent to denigrate the text as inspired scripture.

Moses may have been just as poor in written composition as he was in speaking skills. If so he could have had several chief scribes, as well as others, do the actual composing and writing, subject to his final approval of course. Some could have been replaced, retired, etc. while the whole thing was being recorded. This would account for different styles, as well as the recording of Moses death.

 

[Pats]

i'm interested in and teach a sunday school class on american presbyterian history.
my list of micro denominations, all conservative in their approach to the Bible, all reformed numbers 38.
i had to eliminate those of just 1 pastor or 1 church and stuck to those with 3 pastors and a functional presbytery.

I am not disputing that Christian denominations and theologies do not vary, widely. Even concerning interpretations of the scripture.

how many types of quantum physics do you think we have in science?
or how many schools of organic chemistry?
or how many denominations of mathematicans?
not even to mention the way theologians and churches fight over who is true and right.

Scientists have over time come up with may teachings, theories, and the like that were later discovered to be wrong. If you would like me to make a detailed list, I will do so in another thread at a later time.

and again.
i did not say:
science more consistent than the scriptures is laughable

i said
the interpretation of Scripture or the interpreters of Scripture.

And, actually, I meant to include the word "interpretation," I'm overtired. Perhaps you are not the only person forgetting key words today. Please consider this before belittling me:

please pay attention. it helps the discussion get useful work done.

btw
thanks for quoting my posting. i left off an important NOT....fixed in the original now.
i belong to a church that teaches an infallible Scripture and i really wouldn't want that error getting around as what i believe....

I'm interpreting the word "thanks" here as sarcastic. I have no need to debate points you did not mean to make. I have edited my post to reflect your edit.

People do quote one another here. I don't see any reason for offense to be taken by it, or for it to cause sarcasm toward one another.



I do have respect for your position, and realize that it has not been taken lightly and is the fruit of lengthy study.

I have put my own research into my own theological standpoint. I have no problem considering the areas where it may need fine tuning, and I have demonstrated that here in more than one post. You, however, always seem to think your POV is the only correct one, and your posts tend to come off condescending. None of this helps the work get done any faster

I still hold that God created us. I don't know if it was in 6 days, I'm not sure if it was 6,000 some odd years ago, but I feel very certain that humans did not descend from apes. I feel to say otherwise if refuted scriptually. Any other interpretation has to take away from the text, IMO.

Therefore, I am a creationist. I do not have anything against science, particularly not the clearer sciences, such as mathmatics.

Evolution is certainly a respectable science that is not entirely flawed. It does make some great suppositions with wich I do not agree, and I do not see the theory of common descent as completely sound.

I feel a careful interpretation of scripture does not support man descending from lower forms, animals.

I think to base my faith in science would be building my house on sandy ground. If I am wrong, I will find that out one day, as none of us can ever fully grasp origins during this lifetime without God himself coming down and explaining it. Even then, I doubt we could grasp it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Scientists have over time come up with may teachings, theories, and the like that were later discovered to be wrong. If you would like me to make a detailed list, I will do so in another thread at a later time.

it is curious. there are two ways of looking at the unity of science versus the diversity of theology. One is over time, that is the topic of historical theology and the history of science, the second is at the same time, that is the topic of denominationalism and the current state of each science. it is mixing things up to compare the two different ways. science has changed over time, so has religious traditions. i'm more interested in the present day divergence of opinion and how this represents a significantly different domain that either investigates.

in any case the extraordinary unity of science, across the global, between very different cultures is extraordinary, especially when compared to the current state of any Christian tradition, i just take the one i am most familiar with-Presbyterian and sadly sigh.





I'm interpreting the word "thanks" here as sarcastic.

i try to consistently mark sarcasm, irony, sic etc with *grin*. it was a genuine thank you. i missed the NOT on my first reread.

 

[Pats]

Scientists have over time come up with may teachings, theories, and the like that were later discovered to be wrong. If you would like me to make a detailed list, I will do so in another thread at a later time.

it is curious. there are two ways of looking at the unity of science versus the diversion of theology. One is over time, that is the topic of historical theology and the history of science, the second is at the same time, that is the topic of denominationalism and the current state of each science. it is mixing things up to compare the two different ways. science has changed over time, so has religious traditions. i'm more interesting in the present day divergence of opinion and how this represents a significantly different domain that either investigates.

in any case the extraordinary unity of science, across the global, between very different cultures is extraordinary, especially when compared to the current state of any Christian tradition, i just take the one i am most familiar with-Presbyterian and sadly sigh.

This state of the "broken" body of Christ, if you will, is one that sadly drives people away. It is religious politics, as opposed to personal relationship with Christ. I am not good state of mind to continue this line with you, and it's getting so far off the OP, it probably needs its own thread.

I'm interpreting the word "thanks" here as sarcastic.

i try to consistently mark sarcasm, irony, sic etc with *grin*. it was a genuine thank you. i missed the NOT on my first reread.

That is why I stated to you how I took what you said. I am glad we cleared up that misunderstanding.

 

[gluadys]

It IS our attention to creation that tells us it was created.

And that is why Christians here are theistic evolutionists.

Scientific "interpretation" of imperical data changes all the time. The Bible does not change.

Empirical data does not change. The interpretation of empirical data does. The Bible does not change. The interpretation of the Bible does. The correct comparison is of creation to scripture and the interpretation of creation to the interpretation of scripture.


It is a fallacy to compare/contrast scripture as a God-given revelation to the interpretation of the facts of nature. The correct correlate of God-given scripture is God-given creation.

It is just as much a fallacy to insist that we only know creation as it is interpreted while forgetting that we only know the Bible as interpreted as well.

 

[gluadys]

Moses may have been just as poor in written composition as he was in speaking skills. If so he could have had several chief scribes, as well as others, do the actual composing and writing, subject to his final approval of course. Some could have been replaced, retired, etc. while the whole thing was being recorded. This would account for different styles, as well as the recording of Moses death.

Possibly, but that is speculation. Come back when you have developed the textual, linguistic, historical and social evidence for your thesis as biblical scholars have done for their hypotheses.