Is the Bible reliable?

[MKJ]

I can agree with this, but it's really a personal decision, rather than something everyone must be forced to do. The principal of subsidiarity applies. FWIW, I understand that there's a political agenda in the fossil fuel industry. Every industry has a political agenda. We do need to move forward, and use less fossil fuel. But we cannot, and should not, as a nation, do social engineering to force people to do it.

The thing about subsidiarity is really that it is about finding the lowest appropriate level.

When we are talking about environmental questions that impact others, often the individual is not going to be the appropriate level if people aren't for the most part doing the right thing.

As well, with things like cars, it is not true even now that decisions really come from the individual. Who pays for the transportation infrastructure? Well, the government does, which is what makes it easy for people to make the decision to drive. So - why should the government make the decision to organize that, rather than a more efficient train service? Isn't building public roads social engineering?

And who is it that will be paying to deal with the results of high pollution? In many cases that too will fall on the government, because it is impossible to attach actual pollutants to millions of individual users. But why should someone who doesn't pollute much pay higher taxes to support someone who does? But if you can effectively attach a tax or cost to the product or activity, than you are getting closer to users paying.

And importantly, that means the real costs will influence behavior. If you have to pay all the costs of heating a large house, maybe you are more likely to think twice about doing it.

 

[BobRyan]

During our Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) program, about the third week in, we teach the catechumens and candidates (and any observers who come along without necessarily intending to become Catholics) that sacred scripture is to be read literarily (coining an adjective) but not literally. The difference we seek to instil in them is that literal reading which follows the words of the text without taking proper account of the kind of literature will mislead whenever the literature is anything other than a simple prose description. The moment the literary form becomes poetic, gospel, apocalyptic, moral-lesson story or any of a number of other forms common in sacred scripture a literal reading will not serve well.

And just how "far" can the text be "bent" when it is one of those "myth" categories listed above???

Yes, I think we are mostly on the same page here. Our Holy Church is clear that agreeing with the conclusion that humans evolved from earlier apes is OK,
...
I agree that it is certainly required to believe in Adam and Eve in some
sense. One of the most common Catholic positions I've heard is to see Adam and Eve as the first hominids in the ape to human transition to "cross the line" to being human,

How then does "Hominid crossing from ape to human" manage to "make a mistake" for which you and I must be born into a sinful world - doomed to the lake of fire -- and in need for God Himself to come and die in the place of that poor, ignorant just barely human ape-hominid?

What sort of mockery does that TE view make of the actual Bible?

any ideas?

Maybe Darwin had it right - about just how much of a mockery that makes of the Bible and all of Christianity.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[gluadys]

As I said, I'm all for conservation, but if you think an electric car can get you conveniently from San Francisco to New York as fast as a fossil fuel driven car, you have another thing coming.

Hey, Root of Jesse, look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri2BG2qOvCg&index=4&list=TL3PgFlVym6YI

You can plug it in wherever you can plug in a cell phone.

I understand it is sold in the U.S. but, ironically, not yet in Canada, (except British Columbia).

 

[BobRyan]

I could ask you the same thing about your knowledge of Catholicism. I haven't seen you deny what I wrote, though.

I deny it every time I respond to you on that subject - how do you keep missing it?

Even you admitted (apparently) in your last post to me that the the view I have been stating is not the one you are "claiming for us" to believe.

Meanwhile I show you a HUGE gap for Catholics - and I quote your OWN Catholic contributors on this very thread -- making the Gospel a category of myth where they explain that "myth" means you can take the clear history of Gen 1-2:3 and bend-wrench it to ape-hominid "made some mistake" and now God the Son has to save real humans from the real lake of fire due to something he blames us for -- done by ancient ape-hominid almost-man.

At some point you need to wake up and smell the coffee - you can't be swallowing all that stuff as if it is nothing. Please be serious.

Ellen White taught and believed that Jesus was Michael the Archangel incarnate. Yes or no?

There is no such thing as Ellen White claiming that an Angel was ever incarnate. But she does claim that infinite God has appeared in the form of a man - for example in Genesis 18 - just as Moses tells us.

Now lets contrast that to "Ape-hominie-almost-man" and "Gospel as myth".... you are straining at a gnat and swallowing ten camels my friend.

I've seen and heard former SDAs who talk about this.

"former" SDAs are not my text. They might be yours - but I prefer the actual author when I accuse the author of saying this or that.

I don't really know or care,

I would say you have confessed to making an accusation about which "you don't know or care".

I prefer you pick something that makes a difference to you - so that when it is proven to be false - it "makes a difference" instead of just moving on - casting about you for another example.

I just want to know what you mean by your salutation.

My signature line is related to 7 points that Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, SDAs etc all hold in common regarding the TEN Commandments being applicable to all saints in all ages.

Here is a link explaining the 7 point list -- #1

Here is an example of someone trying to avoid the details in that post - #221

A small but vocal group opposes all 7 points. I oppose only 1 of the 7 - by contrast. That is another subject.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But since you asked

The angels prostrated themselves at the feet of their Commander and offered to become a sacrifice for man. But an angel's life could not pay the debt; only He who created man had power to redeem him. Yet the angels were to have a part to act in the plan of redemption. Christ was to be made "a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death." Hebrews 2:9. As He should take human nature upon Him, His strength would not be equal to theirs, and they were to minister to Him, to strengthen and soothe Him under His sufferings. They were also to be ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who should be heirs of salvation. Hebrews 1:14. They would guard the subjects of grace from the power of evil angels and from the darkness constantly thrown around them by Satan.


When the angels should witness the agony and humiliation of their Lord, they would be filled with grief and indignation and would wish to deliver Him from His murderers; but they were not to interpose in order to prevent anything which they should behold. It was a part of the plan of redemption that Christ should suffer the scorn and abuse of wicked men, and He consented to all this when He became the Redeemer of man.
Christ assured the angels that by His death He would ransom many, and would destroy him who had the power of death. He would recover the kingdom which man had lost by transgression, and the redeemed were to inherit it with Him, and dwell therein forever. Sin and sinners would be blotted out, nevermore to disturb the peace of heaven or earth. He bade the angelic host to be in accord with the plan that His Father had accepted, and rejoice that, through His death, fallen man could be reconciled to God

 

[BobRyan]

A few more ...

"There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ."—Evangelism, p. 615.

"Those who proclaim the third angel's message must put on the whole armor of God, that they may stand boldly at their post, in the face of detraction and falsehood, fighting the good fight of faith, resisting the enemy with the word, 'It is written.' Keep yourselves where the three great powers of heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, can be your efficiency. These powers work with the one who gives himself unreservedly to God. The strength of heaven is at the command of God's believing ones. The man who takes God as his trust is barricaded by an impregnable wall."—The Southern Watchman, Feb. 23, 1904, p. 122.

"Our sanctification is the work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is the fulfillment of the covenant that God has made with those who bind themselves up with Him, to stand with Him, with His Son, and with His Spirit in holy fellowship. Have you been born again? Have you become a new being in Christ Jesus? Then co-operate with the three great powers of heaven who are working in your behalf. Doing this you will reveal to the world the principles of righteousness." —The Signs of the Times, June 19, 1901.

"The eternal heavenly dignitaries—God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit—arming them [the disciples] with more than mortal energy, . . . would advance with them to the work and convince the world of sin."—Evangelism, p. 616.

"We are to co-operate with the three highest powers in heaven,—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,—and these powers will work through us, making us workers together with God."—Ibid., p. 617.

[FONT=&quot] I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus' countenance and admired His lovely person. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Father's person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, "If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist[/FONT][FONT=&quot]." [/FONT][FONT=&quot]{FLB 40.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]4}[/FONT]

Just in case your "ex-SDA friends" are up for a bit actual facts on who was incarnated as a man.

I am not saying that God has not presented himself in a form of a man as in Gen 18 already pointed out - and likely to Angels as a supreme Angelic form purely for the purpose of "The Word" who conveys infinite God to finite beings (and all Angels are finite beings they do not have infinite power, or knowledge, or ability)

Now back to our subject of whether one believes the Bible details to be myth or not... be that the virgin birth, the incarnation, the resurrection of Christ, his bodily ascension or His claims to have made all life on this world in 7 days.

#522

in Christ,

Bob

 

[SkyWriting]

If God is not "able" to create all life on earth in 6 days - then why does He present such false marketing in the Bible itself?

Time causes decay - The law of thermodynamics

"Decay" did not begin until Adam separated himself from God's side in the Garden.

At that point, time began.

The seven day creation story is God's model for humans. It's kind of hard for man to comprehend the Creation process without time so God molded the story for us to follow a 7 day path complete with light and dark.

But Creation took place before "the clock started ticking" so it doesn't follow a biological or chronological time frame that makes much sense. Even us fundies can't explain why it took a whole week. Or why it looks really old.

 

[BobRyan]

Time causes decay - The law of thermodynamics

"Decay" did not begin until Adam separated himself from God's side in the Garden.

At that point, time began.

Certainly Romans 8 agrees with you on the subject of death, disease and corruption starting at the fall of Adam.

However time is not defined by decay. As long as there is a "sequence" of events - there is time. "And God Said" in Genesis 1 points to time - a time before He said it, a time when he said it, a time after He said it and the change that it made.

The war in heaven of Rev 12 required a sequence of events to take place.

The Gen 1:1 "in the beginning God made" means there is a time before the beginning where God existed before - and time when God spoke something into existence - a time when all the universe then existed.

A sequence is all that is needed for time to be defined.

The seven day creation story is God's model for humans.

The story is given in the Bible as a historic account as are all the accounts in Genesis 1-11.

one may choose not to believe in the accuracy (historicity) of the account -- but "the kind of literature that it is" - is a historic account. Just as we find in Genesis 1 --> 2Kings.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Papias]

ROJ wrote:

Here is a list showing acceptance of evolution by our Holy Church:
1. Humani Generis, an official papal encyclical by Pope Pius XII which allows evolution.
2. Interpretation of Humani Generis by Pope John Paul II, just in case anyone was unclear that Humani Generis allows for evolution.
3. The fact that evolution is openly taught by Catholic teachers to Catholic students in Catholic Universities and Schools.
4. Confirmation of open support of evolution by the Vatican in a commissioned report chaired by Pope Emeritus Benedict, saying evolution is "virtually certain".
5. Pope John Paul II (on track now for sainthood) stating that evolution is an "effectively proven fact."
6. Many of the most outspoken evolution supporters are Catholic, such as Ken Miller, Dr. Ayayla, etc.

The list includes at least three popes, an official encyclical, a Vatican commission report, and the actions of thousands of Catholic officials doing their jobs, right now.

No, the Church doesn't say that we can believe we evolved from earlier apes.

ROJ, I gave you clear evidence with a range of Vatican statements, Papal statements, an official Encyclical, and so on (many available online if you are not aware of them, including #4, here: Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution , and you simply deny the voice of our Holy Church? If you'd like to support your claim, please do so. If you'd rather leave your statement unsupported as it is now, OK, but then you are making a baseless claim.

As for Adam and Eve, everything our church has told us above is consistent with both our evolution from earlier apes as well as with Adam and Eve. Would you like more explanation about the "first hominid to cross the line to being human" description?

Bob wrote:

One of the most common Catholic positions I've heard is to see Adam and Eve as the first hominids in the ape to human transition to "cross the line" to being human,

How then does "Hominid crossing from ape to human" manage to "make a mistake" for which you and I must be born into a sinful world - doomed to the lake of fire -- and in need for God Himself to come and die in the place of that poor, ignorant just barely human ape-hominid?

At some point in our evolution, humans gained the ability to rebel against God, as other animals do not have the mental ability to do. When that happened, and Adam did rebel, then the fall occurred. This shows how impoverished a literal reading is - that one would ascribe the fall to magical fruit, instead of to the willful rebellion against God.

In Christ-

-Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

At some point in our evolution, humans gained the ability to rebel against God, as other animals do not have the mental ability to do. When that happened, and Adam did rebel, then the fall occurred. This shows how impoverished a literal reading is - that one would ascribe the fall to magical fruit, instead of to the willful rebellion against God.
In Christ-
-Papias

So God gave us permission to eat animals because......they are God's chosen children and rebels get to eat them. And Jesus declared he was only here for the rebels to be saved because the eaten ones already are saved and with the Father? I'll have to look into this enlightened idea further....

 

[elliott95]

So God gave us permission to eat animals because......they are God's chosen children and rebels get to eat them. And Jesus declared he was only here for the rebels to be saved because the eaten ones already are saved and with the Father? I'll have to look into this enlightened idea further....

Originally, God's plan was vegetarianism. It was only after the recreation of the world with the Flood that God prescribed the limits in which mankind was allowed to eat flesh.

Jewish sages, in their typical hyperbole, surmised that the change came because people began to have sexual relationships with animals, and God needed a way to teach people the differences between themselves and the animal kingdom.

There is no Biblical basis for the idea of mankind having sex with animals. There is however a Biblical basis for Eve choosing to 'engage' with the :most magnificent of beasts' at the beginning of the Fall and chose to listen to him over what God had instructed her to do through Adam.

 

[BobRyan]

During our Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) program, about the third week in, we teach the catechumens and candidates (and any observers who come along without necessarily intending to become Catholics) that sacred scripture is to be read literarily (coining an adjective) but not literally. The difference we seek to instil in them is that literal reading which follows the words of the text without taking proper account of the kind of literature will mislead whenever the literature is anything other than a simple prose description. The moment the literary form becomes poetic, gospel, apocalyptic, moral-lesson story or any of a number of other forms common in sacred scripture a literal reading will not serve well.

And just how "far" can the text be "bent" when it is one of those "myth" categories listed above???

Yes, I think we are mostly on the same page here. Our Holy Church is clear that agreeing with the conclusion that humans evolved from earlier apes is OK,
...
I agree that it is certainly required to believe in Adam and Eve in some
sense. One of the most common Catholic positions I've heard is to see Adam and Eve as the first hominids in the ape to human transition to "cross the line" to being human,

How then does "Hominid crossing from ape to human" manage to "make a mistake" for which you and I must be born into a sinful world - doomed to the lake of fire -- and in need for God Himself to come and die in the place of that poor, ignorant just barely human ape-hominid?

What sort of mockery does that TE view make of the actual Bible?

any ideas?

Maybe Darwin had it right - about just how much of a mockery that makes of the Bible and all of Christianity.

==========================

At some point in our evolution, humans gained the ability to rebel against God, as other animals do not have the mental ability to do. When that happened, and Adam did rebel, then the fall occurred. This shows how impoverished a literal reading is - that one would ascribe the fall to magical fruit, instead of to the willful rebellion against God.

In Christ-

-Papias

I think all can agree that your bible does NOT say --

"Hominid crossing from ape to human" managed to "make a mistake" for which only the Son of God could atone for - or else all mankind would have to be doomed to the lake of fire is not found in the actual Bible.

The idea that the fate of the entire human race, all of the planet, generations upon generations - rested on the most animal-like, least-human, least informed about infinite God - most ill equipped to deal with abstract concepts... is not something we find in the actual Bible.

Why make stuff like that up???

What does it gain you??

What sort of mockery does that TE view make of the actual Bible?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[elliott95]

Both 'evolution' and 'not evolution' are derived from outside of the actual text of the bible.
To either fit evolution into the sacred history of the Bible, or to use the Bible to twist the natural history of the earth is to go outside of the questions and themes and problems that the Bible poses to us, as beings who struggle with finding our way in a world ruled by the existence of good and evil.

If we either use the Bible in a way to explain where Adam and Eve fit in the evolution of human life on earth, or to deny that such a natural history exists, we have placed our understanding well outside of the themes of the biblical text themselves.

 

[Papias]

I think all can agree that your bible does NOT say --

"Hominid crossing from ape to human" managed to "make a mistake" for which only the Son of God could atone for - or else all mankind would have to be doomed to the lake of fire is not found in the actual Bible.

The idea that the fate of the entire human race, all of the planet, generations upon generations - rested on the most animal-like, least-human, least informed about infinite God - most ill equipped to deal with abstract concepts... is not something we find in the actual Bible.

Why make stuff like that up???

What does it gain you??

What sort of mockery does that TE view make of the actual Bible?

in Christ,

Bob

I think all can agree that your bible does NOT say --

"Earth spins on its axis" or "disease can be cause by autoimmune responses" or any other such non-scriptural hogwash.

The idea that the earth is a planet like the others, that stars are much larger than the earth, or most of the ideas of modern medicine... is not something we find in the actual Bible.

What part of "her eyes are doves" (Ss 1:15) do you not understand?

Why make stuff like that up???

What does it gain you??

What sort of mockery does you non-literal view make of the actual Bible?

Are you being consistent, or are you only literal when it suits the human-inspired interpretations you have been taught?

in Christ,

Papias

 

[BobRyan]

I think all can agree that your bible does NOT say --

"Earth spins on its axis" or "disease can be cause by autoimmune responses" or any other such non-scriptural hogwash.

The idea that the earth is a planet like the others, that stars are much larger than the earth, or most of the ideas of modern medicine... is not something we find in the actual Bible.

What part of "her eyes are doves" (Ss 1:15) do you not understand

What part of "SS 1 is not in gen - through 2Kings" and not in "Gen 1-11" did you not understand???

What part of --

============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

is too complicated to follow?

I will explain it if you will just point to the difficult part.

The fact that you want to argue against the earth rotating on its axis is your own issue not mine.

What you do to undercut your own argument is attempt to equivocate between statements made to support the text as it is written and as even the hebrew scholars of all world-class universities agree in terms of the "kind of literature that it is " - vs your own "wild story" about ape-hominid man in an effort to wrench the text entirely out of context and eisegete in what your faith in evolutionism "needs" no matter what the text says to the contrary.

My statements merely add already-agreed-upon facts that support leaving the text as it is.

Your statements about ape-hominid-man dooming all mankind to the lake of fire - are merely wild stories not even remotely present in the text -- you simply make it up as if that will suffice as a replacement for the text -- and we simply won't notice.

Why then go on to equivocate between the historic of Gen 1-11 and "Song of Solomon" -- why shoot your own argument down like that??

What does it buy you??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[elliott95]

 

[elliott95]

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm



Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BobRyan]

mischaracterization of the Bible is the bread and butter of our atheist friends. I think both sides of this present debate will admit to that obvious fact.

 

[elliott95]

Mischaracterization of the Bible is what the Christian literalist does, and it is they who provide the fodder that has made atheism such a force to be reckoned with with their insistence on archaic understandings.

Literalist interpreters of Genesis are by definition flat earthers, and if not, they are not literalist interpreters of the bible in the first place. Indeed, their claims to a literalist reading cannot be taken seriously because nobody believes in that kind of cosmos any more.

 

[BobRyan]

hint -

============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================