Adam was made from the dust of the ground.....

[Kenny'sID]

I am not in the least bit interested in disproving God, or the Bible for that matter. Just the fundamentalists' interpretation of it.

I don't believe you. But either way, same question remains...why do you even care what our interpretation is?

God Made Adam from the dust of the ground...how would you expect a Bible believing christian to interpret that?

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't believe you.

You can please yourself about that.

But either way, same question remains...why do you even care what our interpretation is?

Because I care about the future of Christianity, and it is about time some people left the nineteenth century behind.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Because I care about the future of Christianity, and it is about time some people left the nineteenth century behind.

If you cared about the future of Christianity, you would care about preserving the Bible as the truth, because if the Bible isn't true, what reason have we got to believe Christianity has any viable basis?

The Bible says we are not to lean upon our own understanding, yet you choose to do that over what the Bible says, so what am I supposed to think here?

 

[lesliedellow]

If you cared about the future of Christianity, you would care about preserving the Bible as the truth, because if the Bible isn't true, what reason have we got to believe Christianity has any viable basis?

Did I say the Bible wasn't true? No, I said your interpretation wasn't true.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Did I say the Bible wasn't true? No, I said your interpretation wasn't true.

And I said why do you care about our interpretation, as well as how do you expect any bible believing Christian to interpret Adam was made from the dust of the earth??

 

[lesliedellow]

And I said why do you care about our interpretation,

Because if people in the twenty first century are told that, in order to be a Christian, they have got to turn their back on established scientific truths, which almost every biologist on the face of the Earth agrees are beyond reasonable doubt, then they will turn their backs upon an obscurantist Christianity instead.

as well as how do you expect any bible believing Christian to interpret Adam was made from the dust of the earth??

I expect them to ask themselves what it was that the author was trying to say, and realise that he wasn't trying to give them a physics or biology lesson.

 

[expos4ever]

The Bible says we are not to lean upon our own understanding, yet you choose to do that over what the Bible says, so what am I supposed to think here?

But there is a rather obvious problem here. Clearly anybody's understanding of the Bible is "their own" in the sense that we rather obviously bring our own understanding of what words and concepts mean to the very act of reading.

I cannot imagine how this can be denied.

So there is no particular reasoning for us to assume your interpretation - and make no mistake your view of the Bible has to be an interpretation - is the correct one.

I confess that I am not exactly sure what that text you refer to really means (the one about not leaning on your own understanding). However, it certainly cannot mean that there is way of reading scripture that bypasses the interpretive infrastructure that the very act of reading anything requires us to use.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Because if people in the twenty first century are told that, in order to be a Christian, they have got to turn their back on established scientific truths, which almost every biologist on the face of the Earth agrees are beyond reasonable doubt, then they will turn their backs upon an obscurantist Christianity instead.

And if the are told they have to turn their back on the bible in it's entirety, that only leaves them with non christian beliefs. The Bible is never going to be thought of as true beyond a reasonable doubt to scientists who don't believe in it, and they will almost always conclude science right over the Bible...you should know that already.

We can't have it both ways, or better put, serve 2 masters.

I expect them to ask themselves what it was that the author was trying to say, and realise that he wasn't trying to give them a physics or biology lesson.

Really? I would expect any Bible believing Christian to believe the bible, lean not unto their own understanding and see Adam was created from the dust of the earth as "Adam was created from the dust of the earth".

I think what you are doing is suggesting they think the way you choose to, and you are not really expecting that, because it's just not natural for them to think what you expect if they are out to believe in God and his word, not unless it's been suggested by you and others often enough to where they are actually foolish enough to believe it. However, those who are swayed to other than the Bible or to only believe part of the Bible will show their true colors...all part of the process.

The bible is either correct or it isn't.

 

[lesliedellow]

I confess that I am not exactly sure what that text you refer to really means (the one about not leaning on your own understanding).

I would understand it to be a recommendation to humility in the face of Revelation. For example, the Bible seems to teach both preordination by God (Judas' betrayal was preordained by God) and that we are responsible for our actions (Judas experience is unlikely to be a good one when he stands before God). It is not easy to see how both of those two things can be true, and yet the Bible says that they are both true, and so it is incumbent upon us to accept that both are true.

Similarly, you would be likely to reject the doctrine of the Trinity, if you relied upon your own understanding.

 

[lesliedellow]

I think what you are doing is suggesting they think the way you choose to

I am suggesting that they thought like people living two to three thousand years ago, and not like present day fundamentalists.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So there is no particular reasoning for us to assume your interpretation

Did I even hint you personally should do that? I suggest you read it for yourself and either believe it or not. If you choose not to or to teach others to go against what the Bible says, up to you and IMO, your problem, not mine.

I confess that I am not exactly sure what that text you refer to really means (the one about not leaning on your own understanding).

I mean our own understanding as in what people say science says. As in us drawing our own conclusions as opposed to believing what the Bible says as the OP is doing. If you choose not to believe that verse too or my interpretation of it, up to you.

How would you interpret the verse Proverbs 3:5?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I am suggesting that they thought like people living two to three thousand years ago, and not like present day fundamentalists.

Or to lean to their own understanding and not to the word of God...right?

God nor his word changes with time, and no amount of knowledge will change that. Knowledge may fool those with little faith into thinking it changes things, but that doesn't make it so. Conform to the world if you like...or not, your choice.

 

[lesliedellow]

Did I even hint you personally should do that?

Yes, repeatedly, and it is about the only thing fundamentalists ever do say:

"If you do not believe the Bible...."

Which means:

"If you do not accept my understanding of the Bible...." [Because I, of course, am endowed with the gift of infallibility.]

 

[AV1611VET]

Kenny, I see I was born one day before you (May 29, 1954).

Lest I forget: HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yes, repeatedly, and it is about the only thing fundamentalists ever do say:

OK, let's say I said you, as in everyone who claims to be a christian should believe the bible. That works fine for me.

Which means:

"If you do not accept my understanding of the Bible...." [Because I, of course, am endowed with the gift of infallibility.]

First, pleeeeze come up with something more original there, I could say the exact same thing about you but I don't feel I have to "try" to make someone feel small in order to make my point. But if you are that insecure with your teachings and feel you must, have at it.

My understanding?

Did you ever answer my question on how I as any Bible believing Christian is supposed to understand "Adam was made from the dust of the ground?" Or did you bypass that altogether?

 

[lesliedellow]

God nor his word changes with time, and no amount of knowledge will change that.

To quote John Walton, "The Bible was written for us, but not to us."

It was written so that people living two to three thousand years ago could understand it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Kenny, I see I was born one day before you (May 29, 1954).

Lest I forget: HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

Then that makes you the geezer and me the youngn'.

And a Happy birthday to you too.

 

[Kenny'sID]

To quote John Walton, "The Bible was written for us, but not to us."

It was written so that people living two to three thousand years ago could understand it.

Your own understanding. Just something that sounds wise but has no validity whatsoever and doesn't phase some of us in the least.

 

[KWCrazy]

reason forces us to conclude that all references to a 7 day creation event are not to be taken literally.

So the 4th Commandment is based on a lie?
Reason forces me to conclude that when the theories of man conflict with the word of God then man is wrong.

 

[expos4ever]

Did I even hint you personally should do that? I suggest you read it for yourself and either believe it or not. If you choose not to or to teach others to go against what the Bible says, up to you and IMO, your problem, not mine.

You appear to assume that there is a way to read "what the Bible says" that does not require an act of interpretation.

This is clearly not the case - words on the page are given meaning by you the reader, along with a host of other interpretive acts you make. There is no such thing as an "objective" reading of the Bible.

How would you interpret the verse Proverbs 3:5?

My answer would be the same as given by another poster - the guy whose head is sideways - in post 69.