I wouldn't say we are 'distorting' the bible, just interpreting it differently.
Well, if I were to interpret
Peter Pan as differently from what the book actually says as non-literalists interpret the Bible, I could easily proclaim that it was a story about a god who showed children supreme truth.
When a book claims that the Earth lies stationary and immovable, that's what the book means -- the planet doesn't move. When you interpret it otherwise simply because the planet it known to be moving at 66,000 miles per hour, you're distorting what the book says, not just interpreting it differently.
Not all christians believe the bible is inerrant and infallible.
This is true. There are nearly as many levels of belief concerning the Bible's accuracy as their are Christians. And this is likely because each Christian is trying to find a way to reconcile the Bible with reality, and finding it nearly impossible to do.
The bible never claims to be.
When a book claims to be the word of the one and only God, and further claims that this God is "perfect", I'm not sure you can accurately say that it's not claiming to be absolutely infallible.
I do think Genesis was inspired by God but I don't see why that means we should take it as authorative scientifically.
This is pretty simple really. When any document makes scientifically testable claims, it has suggested itself to be scientifically authoritative. And there was no real need for the Bible to do this, other than as an attempt to gain credibility by pretending to know what could not be known by any man of the time. And it appears to have worked. But man now knows enough to recognize the misinformation presented. Refusing to see that doesn't make it go away.
If God inspired goatherders x thousand years ago I don't see why he'd try to explain the advanced science behind how the world got here (but the theology behind it is vitally important to our religion).
That's exactly the point. Why try to explain it if it's not necessary or pertinent to the overall message? But this is exactly what was done. And if you're going to try to give details and a chronology even when one isn't required, why not strive for accuracy? Why purposely make claims that are wrong? I'm not talking about one or two very small, highly detailed errors. I'm talking about major false claims and a chronology which is so completely flawed as to make the entire account notably false. If I claim you took an unloaded gun, shot a man to death, then loaded the gun and drove to the man's location, there are some pretty obvious problems with my assertion. But such an example is no more flawed than is the first page of Genesis which has Earth covered with water before it had an atmosphere, the Earth being formed before the sun, plants growing without the sun and the sun, moon and stars all being formed within the Earth's atmosphere.
To me it's quite obvious that the early chapters of Genesis are rich in symbolism and imagery (read Genesis 3 and ask yourself why christians think the serpent was the devil).
There are really only three choices, the one I made, that which you present and that which most Creationists follow. The first choice is to note how demonstrably incorrect Genesis is. The second is to decide that every obvious error is, in reality, symbolism or metaphoric. The third is to decide that the standards by which the flaws can be shown to be flaws are the ones in error, no matter how demonstrably correct they are.
If I were to read
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy but wouldn't allow myself to believe that it was fiction, I'd have little choice but to see it as obvious that the book was filled with symbolism and imagery. And it really wouldn't matter what piece of fictional literature I chose. As long as I refuse to accept that it is fiction, I must insist that the words in the book don't really mean what they say.
So tell me, what is the importance of the symbolism in claiming a completely inaccurate chronology in the formation of the Earth, sun, stars, plants, atmosphere and the water on Earth? What purpose does that serve?
What is the deeper meaning or symbolism behind claiming a global flood which never occurred? Some say they believe it was a local flood but the men who wrote about it didn't understand the scope of the Earth. But that removes God from the whole process. Isn't God supposed to have influenced the story? Wouldn't God know the difference between a local flood and a global flood?
So others proclaim that the global flood story is but a parable -- a story designed to teach a valuable lesson. What is the lesson behind a story where God floods the whole planet, utilizing naturalistic means, with the intent of nearly wiping out all life and therefore the evil presented in that life, and then promising never again to do what he never did in the first place? It's meaningless. But different cultures present a number of similar flood stories and many people of that time accepted them as fact. So what's wrong with following the evidence and concluding that the authors of the Bible were no more aware that the flood story was fiction than were the men of many other cultures? So thinking it was true, they embellished the story and included it in their writings. The biggest problem with such a conclusion is that it exposes the authors as the source of their writings rather than God. So those who want to believe the Bible was inspired by God reject the most supportable conclusion because it would violate the beliefs they wish to hold.
With that in mind I don't see why an uber-literal reading is 'more loyal'.
There is nothing "uber-literal" about reading a story built upon a six day timeline, which defines a day not once, but no less than three times, as the period between morning and night, and deciding it means what it says. If you can read Genesis 1:5 and Genesis 1:8 and try to claim that the word "day" means other than what we know as a "day", that's an uber-distortion of what the book says.
I'm honestly glad you asked. Yes I think you are off base.
And this, of course, doesn't surprise me. But I think I can support my reasons with greater credibility than you can defend against them. So perhaps I'm not so off base as you would like to believe.
You using creationism to illustrate how all religious beliefs are removed from reality, to me, is similar to me using the atheist who hasn't read the bible and thinks all religious people are brainwashed to show how all atheists are ignorant, or Stalin's regime to show how all atheists are removed from morality.
On what evidence do you assert that the atheist to which you refer hasn't read the Bible? From what I've seen on these threads, many of the atheists seem to know the Bible better than do many of the Christians here.
I don't have to use creationism to demonstrate the distance between claims of the Bible and reality. All I have to use is the Bible and reality. Compare the two and you find they're terribly inconsistent. The Earth didn't form before the sun. Plants weren't growing on the Earth without the sun. The Earth didn't capture and retain liquid water without an atmosphere. The sun, moon and stars could never have existed within the Earth's atmosphere, even though to the casual observer, it might look as though that's where they are.
Again, I don't think we are 'changing' or 'discarding' the bible.
The Bible says the Earth was formed, covered in water on Day 1. It says the atmosphere formed on Day 2 to separate the water on the planet from the water above the atmosphere, (which was never there). It says on Day 3 the Earth brought forth grasses, herbs and fruit trees and then says the Sun was created on Day 4. It also defines the length of a "day" three different times in the first eight verses.
When you can read that and proclaim that it's not saying the Earth's water wasn't captured by the atmosphere, that there is no claim plants were growing without heat and light and the Earth wasn't created before the sun, you're changing or discarding what the book says.
Maybe we are reinterpreting it in the light of modern science, but if we believe science is the study of God's creation why wouldn't we?
That's the whole point. Science is the study of the physical, (which is all that has ever been shown to actually exist). So if God created that reality, why would his word be so completely flawed concerning the account of that creation?
It's very easy to say the only correct interpretation of the bible is the one that gives you ridiculous beliefs but I think it's intellectually dishonest. Do you really think you know what the correct interpretation is better than someone who actually believes the words?
I know what the book says and I know what it doesn't say. I know that what it says is demonstrably incorrect on a number of pertinent points. I know that people avoid, twist and distort those points because to analyze them objectively gets in the way of believing the book is what they wish to believe it to be.
You are trying to use creationism as a strawman (though a real one) to defeat all religion, it won't work you have to attack our actual beliefs.
I have no need to attack your actual beliefs. All I need to do is show that your beliefs contradict one another. You believe that the Bible is the word of God. You believe that science is correct in its conclusions concerning the order in which the sun, Earth, atmosphere and plants came to exist. You need to pick. Is the Bible the word of God and science all wrong, or is science correct and the Bible not the word of God? Trying to assert that both are true requires denial of what the Bible says and that also runs against belief in God and the Bible as his word.
Look to the evidence. Who is most often purported to be the author of Genesis? Moses.
And what else can we find out if we look to the character of Moses. We know that he was raised as the son of an Egyptian Pharaoh and we know that the Egyptians had a working knowledge of static electricity.
Now look to the claim Moses made that God gave in instructions on the building of an ark to house the power of God -- the Ark of the Covenant. But the Bible clearly details the construction of the Ark and shows it to be purely consistent with a large capacitor, which, when carried upon wooden poles, through a dry and windy desert, would develop a very sizable charge differential between the gold lining and the outer layer of gold. So it wouldn't be unexpected, that if a man were to touch the top of the Ark where the two surfaces were insulated by a gap, there would be an instant discharge through his body.
We can look to Leviticus 14:1-9 and again see where Moses claims to have received information directly from God. But when we look at the nature of the claim, Moses is telling us that God recommended a ritualistic ceremony in place of a medically sound practice. And in that ritual, it was suggested that blood from a freshly killed bird be dripped upon a patient who would in many cases, have open skin lesions.
When you take this into consideration along with the knowledge we have today, how much credibility can be given to the claims of Moses to have been provided with any kind of information by God? What is the most logical conclusion?
A. Moses got his inaccurate information directly from God
B. Moses didn't get his information from God
C. Moses got his information from God but mixed it all up and God didn't care
D. Moses was very clever and used his knowledge mixed with intentional deception to gain a following.
.
