Another look at the moon landing.

[trophy33]

There is no wrong reading of Genesis 1

There are many wrong readings of Genesis 1, for example the literal one.

to think otherwise is to deny the whole Bible.

This does not follow. Bible is not a domino or a house of cards. If even just one sentence of it was meant literally, then it would be the correct reading to read the one sentence literally, but not the others.

 

[Apple Sky]

This does not follow. Bible is not a domino or a house of cards. If even just one sentence of it was meant literally, then it would be the correct reading to read the one sentence literally, but not the others.

So in other words pick & choose.

 

[trophy33]

So in other words pick & choose.

As you said before - discernment. We must know what we are reading and what was its purpose.

Some places are obviously meant literally, some are obviously not meant literally, some were probably meant literally but were based upon limited knowledge (like the firmament).

And the majority of the text is in a grey area in which we must individually judge and we will disagree frequently. No two Christians agree about the precise meaning of even one chapter in the Bible, because our minds work differently.

 

[Apple Sky]

Some places are obviously meant literally, some are obviously not meant literally, some were probably meant literally but were based upon limited knowledge (like the firmament).

How convenient for you space & globe believers.

 

[trophy33]

How convenient for you space & globe believers.

I would rather say that being free of dogmatism is useful.

 

[Apple Sky]

I would rather say that being free of dogmatism is useful.

I'd say that being pragmatic is more useful.

 

[trophy33]

I'd say that being pragmatic is more useful.

And being a pragmatic Christian is being a minimalist regarding dogmas. For example, look at how short the Apostolic creed is.

It does not even mention anything about biblical inspiration. It actually does not mention the Bible at all.

Being pragmatic will save you from fighting against the objective reality just because of some bronze-age biblical detail.

 

[Apple Sky]

Being pragmatic will save you from fighting against the objective reality just because of some bronze-age biblical detail.

It's not just some bronze age biblical detail is it ?

 

[trophy33]

It's not just some bronze age biblical detail is it ?

It is, its totally irrelevant for Christianity. Thats why its not in any creed. But you fight for it like it was some basic doctrine.

 

[Apple Sky]

It is, its totally irrelevant for Christianity. Thats why its not in any creed. But you fight for it like it was some basic doctrine.

Are we still talking about Gen1 ?

 

[trophy33]

Are we still talking about Gen1 ?

Specifically the firmament and similar details. These are totally irrelevant for Christianity.

Genesis as such is useful for Christianity, but still not necessary. You can be a Christian without Genesis, even without a Bible. Most Christians did not own any Bible for the most of history.

 

[Apple Sky]

Genesis as such is useful for Christianity, but still not necessary.

I reckon you are wrong here, all of the Bible is necessary for Christianity.

You can be a Christian without Genesis, even without a Bible. Most Christians did not own any Bible for the most of history.

I do know my history about the Bible & how people were persecuted for owning a Bible. But why do you emphasize Genesis in in your first sentence ?

 

[trophy33]

I reckon you are wrong here, all of the Bible is necessary for Christianity.

Hardly. Christianity was there before the Bible. You can actually read it in the Bible, what the apostles preached to Gentiles. Also, check the Apostle Creed.

But why do you emphasize Genesis in in your first sentence ?

Because you asked specifically about Genesis. If you think that for example the book of Ruth is necessary for Christianity, I will also disagree.

Christianity can be fine with like one A4 page of events and teachings. Its useful to have more sources, but not necessary.

 

[Strong in Him]

Mythology is from the Greek mythos for story-of-the-people, and logos for word or speech, so the spoken story of a people. The idea regarding Genesis is that it's the word of God, not a story created by people.

It's the word of God because it's inspired by God.

But it's not a detailed account of how God created the world, written in the first person.
Somebody else, possibly Moses, wrote about creation. And they wrote in a way that people of the time would understand.
Neither he, nor God, wrote a science textbook or blow by blow account of how stars, the sun, animals, trees, fish, digestive systems etc etc were made.

Gen 1 almost reads like a poem, with it's repetitive verses "then God spoke", "and it was so," "there was evening and there was morning" and so on.

Most books of the Bible are stories. The books of Esther, Ruth and Jonah are the stories of Esther, Ruth and Jonah. Psalms are poetry and yet they tell the stories of factual events. Parables are stories with teach a truth.
All these are still the word of God.

A story is a tale ie fiction.

Not at all.
There are many stories from the war, about monarchs and accounts of history. They are all fact.
I can tell many stories from my life.
The story of deciding to go to college, what happened when I got there and why I left again.
The story of what happened when I got M.E, how people reacted to it and treated me and what I learnt during those 18 years.
I used to tell my nieces and nephew stories about their fathers, and my dad told me stories of his childhood.
All were/are 100% fact.

Genesis is an accounting of what actually happened.

No, it isn't.

It doesn't tell us HOW stars, fish, people etc were made; only that they were.
We can't read Genesis and find God's instructions for creating a plant from nothing. There are no details about how he created animals, trees or people, how he chose colours for the flowers, how he even created colours.

God created the universe; that's all we need to know.
It came into being because God said so - which implies that God wanted it.
It is sustained, and held together, by God's word - see also Colossians 1:17.
There was an order and method to creation - God didn't throw lots of atoms in the air and improvised with what came out.

Of course Genesis 1 is God's word - he spoke, and we had life.

The definition of myth is not 'a description or accounting of what actually happened'.

If Genesis was a factual, scientific account of what happened and how, it would be a science textbook.
It is not.

 

[Strong in Him]

So in other words pick & choose.

No - discerning through careful study and with the help of the Spirit.

But it might seem like picking and choosing to some who have decided to take it all literally.

 

[Apple Sky]

But it might seem like picking and choosing to some who have decided to take it all literally.

It does, to me anyhow.

 

[keith99]

No - discerning through careful study and with the help of the Spirit.

But it might seem like picking and choosing to some who have decided to take it all literally.

And at the extreme hinging an entire argument on one preposition in one translation into English where the preposition is not even there in the original language.

 

[ozso]

It's the word of God because it's inspired by God.

But it's not a detailed account of how God created the world, written in the first person.
Somebody else, possibly Moses, wrote about creation. And they wrote in a way that people of the time would understand.
Neither he, nor God, wrote a science textbook or blow by blow account of how stars, the sun, animals, trees, fish, digestive systems etc etc were made.

Gen 1 almost reads like a poem, with it's repetitive verses "then God spoke", "and it was so," "there was evening and there was morning" and so on.

Most books of the Bible are stories. The books of Esther, Ruth and Jonah are the stories of Esther, Ruth and Jonah. Psalms are poetry and yet they tell the stories of factual events. Parables are stories with teach a truth.
All these are still the word of God.


Not at all.
There are many stories from the war, about monarchs and accounts of history. They are all fact.
I can tell many stories from my life.
The story of deciding to go to college, what happened when I got there and why I left again.
The story of what happened when I got M.E, how people reacted to it and treated me and what I learnt during those 18 years.
I used to tell my nieces and nephew stories about their fathers, and my dad told me stories of his childhood.
All were/are 100% fact.

No, it isn't.

It doesn't tell us HOW stars, fish, people etc were made; only that they were.
We can't read Genesis and find God's instructions for creating a plant from nothing. There are no details about how he created animals, trees or people, how he chose colours for the flowers, how he even created colours.

God created the universe; that's all we need to know.
It came into being because God said so - which implies that God wanted it.
It is sustained, and held together, by God's word - see also Colossians 1:17.
There was an order and method to creation - God didn't throw lots of atoms in the air and improvised with what came out.

Of course Genesis 1 is God's word - he spoke, and we had life.


If Genesis was a factual, scientific account of what happened and how, it would be a science textbook.
It is not.

From a purely scientific view, that doesn't touch upon Genesis at all, there's a short version of how the world was created and a very lengthy complex detailed version of how every last little thing came into being. Is the short version mythology?

 

[ozso]

No - discerning through careful study and with the help of the Spirit.

But it might seem like picking and choosing to some who have decided to take it all literally.

And at the extreme hinging an entire argument on one preposition in one translation into English where the preposition is not even there in the original language.

Here's the problem. This is where Christians start appealing to the atheist view. Where they both start sounding alike.

 

[ozso]

For example, the Law about divorce was given by Moses, not by God.


Dynamically - in Hebrew its literally kidneys, in our culture we say "heart".. But heart is also scientifically wrong.


Agreed.


Natural theology will give you quite precise ideas about the highest God. Polytheism is basically just superstition and foolishness, even more if some silly idols are involved. The Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH does not change anything.


If by the human perspective you mean the bronze age Mesopotamian human perspective, agreed. It was not written from our 21st century western human perspective, though.


Partially agreed. We now know more, thats why we can see that some descriptions and concepts the Hebrew writers used were limited by their era.

All of the Law was given by Moses though God. If you go though all of scripture pertaining to the Law, you'll see that. If you put yourself in a single verse bubble, you won't. By human perspective I mean how to this day we say "sunrise" and "I know in my heart" etc.