Any other book

[Catherineanne]

Context, context. Augustine does not claim the account of Genesis to be not literal. In his work "On the Soul and It's Origins" he certainly claims it. In it's work that you quote, Augustine attempts to address the often asked questions "Who made it?" "How?" and "Why?". All of his answers as based on the Genesis account. Furthermore, other early church fathers and medieval church fathers confirm the literality of Genesis. Check out Iranaeus, "Against Heresies", Justin Martyr, "Hortatory Address to the Greeks", Anselm, "Monologiom", Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Theologia", etc. etc. etc.

I leave you to your research.

This is all anachronistic nonsense.

When the church fathers say the Bible is true they do not mean literally true. They mean spiritually true; true in the sense that it is intended to be true.

Augustine, Ireneus etc were many things, but literalists? No such thing. You may like to consider the concept of allegory in relation to the concept of a literal Bible, before continuing with these kinds of nonsensical statements.

Clement of Alexandria

"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

 

[Hentenza]

This is all anachronistic nonsense.

When the church fathers say the Bible is true they do not mean literally true. They mean spiritually true; true in the sense that it is intended to be true.

Augustine, Ireneus etc were many things, but literalists? No such thing.

Prove it.

ETA: Anachronistic means to represent someone or something as existing out of chronological order. How is my list of authors "out of chronological order"?

 

[Hentenza]

This is all anachronistic nonsense.

When the church fathers say the Bible is true they do not mean literally true. They mean spiritually true; true in the sense that it is intended to be true.

Augustine, Ireneus etc were many things, but literalists? No such thing. You may like to consider the concept of allegory in relation to the concept of a literal Bible, before continuing with these kinds of nonsensical statements.

Clement of Alexandria

"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

God did not create the world IN time but OUT of time. God is atemporal and infinite therefore, time did not exist at the moment of creation. God created time. That is what Clement is arguing. He's right.

Strike 1.

 

[archierieus]

Why is it that you guys are so unwilling to listen to what anyone else has to say? How many times does it have to be explained that "merely a theory" does not mean what you think it means? A theory is not a hypothesis. It is as powerful as anything in science gets. Gravity is "just a theory". Germs are "just a theory". Atoms are "just a theory". Cells are "just a theory". Everything that will ever have millions of pieces of supporting evidence, for all intents and purposes serving as "proof" in science will be "just a theory". That doesn't make it wrong.

One might say that there are theories about everything. However, the examples you have given are of a different order (no pun intended.) Gravity can be measured and observed at present. Germs may be observed at present. Atoms may be observed at present. Cells may be observed at present.

Long-age (macro) evolution, on the other hand, cannot be observed at present. Students may find and study evidence, for example fossils. The geologic column, however, is a construct, based upon the students' ideas of what they think happened or should have happened. They were not present to actually observe the events, unlike the examples you have given.

Secondly, there is a good deal of evidence which has been discovered, which contradicts the theory of long-age evolution, and the artificial construction of the geologic column.

Thirdly, macroevolution has never been observed to take place, nor has it been duplicated in the laboratory, despite how many hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money.

And evolution isn't the only scientific field there is. Through geology, the global flood was disproven 200 years before evolutionary theory, by a Christian Reverend trying to prove it occurred no less.

Quite the contrary. The evidence of a GRGF is pretty solid. It has not been disproved.

Astronomy and physics disprove any notion that light was stretched out billions of light years so Adam and Eve could see it while still being in a young universe.

It sounds like you are making some assumptions here.

Galileo and Copernicus disproved the Biblical notion of geocentrism.

That notion didn't come from the Bible. It did come from medieval philosophy, building on Aristotelian philosophy.

A completely literal Genesis has been disproven for hundreds of years.

Well of course it hasn't. Your statement is conclusionary on its face, and only reflects your opinion.

 

[Jase]

One might say that there are theories about everything. However, the examples you have given are of a different order (no pun intended.) Gravity can be measured and observed at present. Germs may be observed at present. Atoms may be observed at present. Cells may be observed at present.

A ball dropping in no way proves einstein's theory of gravitation.

Long-age (macro) evolution, on the other hand, cannot be observed at present. Students may find and study evidence, for example fossils. The geologic column, however, is a construct, based upon the students' ideas of what they think happened or should have happened. They were not present to actually observe the events, unlike the examples you have given.

Secondly, there is a good deal of evidence which has been discovered, which contradicts the theory of long-age evolution, and the artificial construction of the geologic column.

Thirdly, macroevolution has never been observed to take place, nor has it been duplicated in the laboratory, despite how many hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money.

You might want to read this regarding the misconceptions of evolution.

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

Here are some observed instances of speciation ( aka macroevolution).

Observed Instances of Speciation

In addition, here is some further evidence of macroevolution and common descent.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

That evolution has not been observed is absolutely false. It is a lie spread by creationists to avoid having to actually admit there is evidence.

Quite the contrary. The evidence of a GRGF is pretty solid. It has not been disproved.

There isn't a single shred of evidence in existence supporting a global flood covering the entire earth 4,000 years ago. There are countless problems with the flood that creationists are not able to answer other than "God did it!" Of course, they don't realize the thousands of miracles or violation of natural law God had to do in order for it to be even feasible.

It sounds like you are making some assumptions here.

Not at all. A star who is a billion light years away can only be seen by us after 1 billion years has passed. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, 99.99999% of all stars we know of, would not be able to be seen by us for millions or billions of years.

That notion didn't come from the Bible. It did come from medieval philosophy, building on Aristotelian philosophy.

The Catholic Church promoted geocentrism based on the Bible, and they threatened to kill Galileo if he didn't recant his theory. Martin Luther and Calvin also supported geocentrism. In fact, the U.S. has a geocentric organization known as The Association for Biblical Astronomy. It's lead by YECs who claim the Earth is immovable and the sun and stars revolve around it based on a literal reading of the Bible.

Well of course it hasn't. Your statement is conclusionary on its face, and only reflects your opinion.

It doesn't reflect my opinion. It reflects the countless pieces of evidence, and the multitude of scientists, philosophers, and theologians, who have shown that Genesis can't be literal.

 

[Anglian]

An interesting discussion; might I add my mite?

How do we know which books should be in the NT? Nowhere in the NT does it say what books it should contain; certainly all Scripture is God-breathed - but how do we know what 'Scripture' consists of?

In the early Church Fathers of the second century we can see certain books being cited and treated as 'Scripture', including a majority of St. Paul's letters and the four Gospels we have; indeed, it is only through the ECFs that we have any warrant for knowing who wrote the Gospels. But as early as the late second century, it was admitted that Paul's letter to the Hebrews was not actually by him, and the same was true of other letters; that did not make them of less value, for the Church received them as being from St. Paul's 'school' and therefore authentic parts of the Apostolic deposit.

By the third century, in addition to these books, there were many other so-called Gospels, but none of these were accepted as authentic parts of the Apostolic deposit. The first letter of Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were, however, accepted by many Churches, and they actually appear in the earliest codices of the NT. So, were they 'inspired'? Clearly those who took the trouble to copy them out thought so. So why do we not receive them?

We don't because in the fourth century the Church came to a decision on what was and was not canonical. The books already mentioned were all widely accepted; but 1 Clement, Barnabas and Hermas were all omitted, though it was said they could all be read with profit. 1 John and 1 Peter were widely accepted and there was no problem admitting them: 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, James and Jude were all received in some Churches, but not very widely; but the Church recognised the word of God and accepted them. There was greater trouble with Revelation. Despite its being supposed to originate in Ephesus, the Church there had no tradition of it, and it was not widely received in the East, which, even in the fifth century, was reluctant to receive it; not because its apostolicity was doubted, but because Churchmen feared that the unhinged would read into it God-knows what (how right they were on that issue).

So, it would appear that Apostolicity and the sanction of the Church were the yardstick of the canon. Inspired, yes, but recognised by the Church, and it was the decision of the latter, nothing else, which established the canon we use.

Had the Lord Christ wished to write a book He would have done so. Had the Holy Spirit wished to do with the Apostles what Muslims believe Gabriel did with their Prophet, we should have been informed of it. St. Luke is very clear about how he went about his work - and it didn't include taking dictation from angels. Christ's words come to us through the Church which canonised His book; take them out of that context and you may read (as some do) whatever you like into them; taken within that context, indeed His words cannot err.

peace,

Anglian

 

[peace4ever]

An interesting discussion; might I add my mite?

How do we know which books should be in the NT? Nowhere in the NT does it say what books it should contain; certainly all Scripture is God-breathed - but how do we know what 'Scripture' consists of?

In the early Church Fathers of the second century we can see certain books being cited and treated as 'Scripture', including a majority of St. Paul's letters and the four Gospels we have; indeed, it is only through the ECFs that we have any warrant for knowing who wrote the Gospels. But as early as the late second century, it was admitted that Paul's letter to the Hebrews was not actually by him, and the same was true of other letters; that did not make them of less value, for the Church received them as being from St. Paul's 'school' and therefore authentic parts of the Apostolic deposit.

By the third century, in addition to these books, there were many other so-called Gospels, but none of these were accepted as authentic parts of the Apostolic deposit. The first letter of Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were, however, accepted by many Churches, and they actually appear in the earliest codices of the NT. So, were they 'inspired'? Clearly those who took the trouble to copy them out thought so. So why do we not receive them?

We don't because in the fourth century the Church came to a decision on what was and was not canonical. The books already mentioned were all widely accepted; but 1 Clement, Barnabas and Hermas were all omitted, though it was said they could all be read with profit. 1 John and 1 Peter were widely accepted and there was no problem admitting them: 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, James and Jude were all received in some Churches, but not very widely; but the Church recognised the word of God and accepted them. There was greater trouble with Revelation. Despite its being supposed to originate in Ephesus, the Church there had no tradition of it, and it was not widely received in the East, which, even in the fifth century, was reluctant to receive it; not because its apostolicity was doubted, but because Churchmen feared that the unhinged would read into it God-knows what (how right they were on that issue).

So, it would appear that Apostolicity and the sanction of the Church were the yardstick of the canon. Inspired, yes, but recognised by the Church, and it was the decision of the latter, nothing else, which established the canon we use.

Had the Lord Christ wished to write a book He would have done so. Had the Holy Spirit wished to do with the Apostles what Muslims believe Gabriel did with their Prophet, we should have been informed of it. St. Luke is very clear about how he went about his work - and it didn't include taking dictation from angels. Christ's words come to us through the Church which canonised His book; take them out of that context and you may read (as some do) whatever you like into them; taken within that context, indeed His words cannot err.

peace,

Anglian

Unfortunately, from my experience, too many Christians give their human opinion instead of quote the word of God. If they don't have scriptural basis for their opinions, then they are not speaking for God. That's why 1 Corinthians 11:19 says, "No doubt there have to be divisions among you to show which of you has God's approval."

So people can conjecture all they like. But since the Word of God is the infallible truth, then that's what Christians should use for their beliefs and "opinions."

 

[archierieus]

A ball dropping in no way proves einstein's theory of gravitation.

Why Einstein's theory of gravitation?

You might want to read this regarding the misconceptions of evolution.

I did. It doesn't help your case. Aside from that, it is rhetoric.

Here are some observed instances of speciation ( aka macroevolution).

That is your definition of macroevolution? Speciation?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

In addition, here is some further evidence of macroevolution and common descent.

Read that one too. The 'evidences' are consistent with alternative theories, for starters.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

That evolution has not been observed is absolutely false.

I said that macroevolution has not been observed. That statement is correct. You will find an acknowledgement of that in one of your linked articles.

There isn't a single shred of evidence in existence supporting a global flood covering the entire earth 4,000 years ago.

You are quite mistaken. Although, so far all you have presented is your own assertion. Your statement has the value of your assertion.

Of course, they don't realize the thousands of miracles or violation of natural law God had to do in order for it to be even feasible.

Without responding to the merits of you statement, I would ask you, Can God do miracles? Second, if God is the Creator, then He created natural law and is not bound by natural law. That is axiomatic.

Not at all. A star who is a billion light years away can only be seen by us after 1 billion years has passed. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, 99.99999% of all stars we know of, would not be able to be seen by us for millions or billions of years.

You still are making assumptions.

The Catholic Church promoted geocentrism based on the Bible,

Incorrect historically and Scripturally.

In fact, the U.S. has a geocentric organization known as The Association for Biblical Astronomy. It's lead by YECs who claim the Earth is immovable and the sun and stars revolve around it based on a literal reading of the Bible.

There are many different groups espousing different things. That is neither here nor there. The Bible does not teach geocentrism.

It doesn't reflect my opinion. It reflects the countless pieces of evidence, and the multitude of scientists, philosophers, and theologians, who have shown that Genesis can't be literal.

You have stated your opinion. You have not addressed the countless pieces of evidence, and the multitude of scientists, philosophers and theologians who have shown that Genesis can be literal.

 

[wayseer]

The bible can not err is the conclusion not the premise. If you want to debunk the conclusion then you have to prove that either God can err or that the bible is not the word of God.

What is your point?

That the Bible is inerrant? Inerrant with respect to what exactly?

What do you mean by 'the word of God'? Is that the same as 'God's word'?

 

[wayseer]

You have stated your opinion. You have not addressed the countless pieces of evidence, and the multitude of scientists, philosophers and theologians who have shown that Genesis can be literal.

I'm still waiting for a list of these hitherto unknown scientists who claim the Bible is literally true. Would Richard Dawkins be among their number?

Which 'countless' (COUNTLESS mind you) pieces of evidence' did you have in mind - just a few would suffice.

 

[Hentenza]

What is your point?

The point is that the bible is the word of God and is inerrant and infallible. No man made constructs can show the word of God to be false.

That the Bible is inerrant? Inerrant with respect to what exactly?

All of the bible, not just portions, are inerrant. God did not furnished us with a defective book.

What do you mean by 'the word of God'? Is that the same as 'God's word'?

One and the same. But remember that the bible is God's word (little w) not God's Word (which is Christ).

 

[KingCrimson250]

Again, "by their fruits you will recognize them." Since I claim that scripture is God-breathed and so the doe the bible, then I have scriptural authority for my claims and you don't...and that's of course what bothers you. But since I know you can't help yourself, I forgive you.

peace4ever, a question: How do you interpret the Bible? Do you merely take it at face value? Do you believe that everything in the Bible is God's inspired Word to you?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Seeing it as an either/or is another sub-biblical idea. Scripture is written by people and breathed by God. .

The first is how, which relates to scio; I know. The second is why, which relates to credo; I believe.

The whole purpose of Scripture is to bring people to God; to show them how to reach credo. It is not at all interested in scio, or in denying what it discovers about the world around us.

No problem there.

Did you read how each one claimed the world to form? They are not complimentary, they are contradicting.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

You are presenting a false dichotomy here. The Bible can have errors in it, withoutt making God in error. The entire Bible is not the word for word dictation of God. In fact most of it isn't. To claim the Bible has to be perfect or God can't be, smacks of weak faith and confining God to a human interpreted box.

Which part of the bible is not the word of God? And how was it decided?

 

[Jase]

The point is that the bible is the word of God and is inerrant and infallible. No man made constructs can show the word of God to be false.

False and errant are not synonymous. The Bible is not inerrant, but it is also not false.

All of the bible, not just portions, are inerrant. God did not furnished us with a defective book.

Bats are not birds, rabbits do not chew their cud, the earth is not geocentric and flat, nor are the stars stuck in a dome above the Earth as Martin Luther and Calvin believed, the gospels and acts describe Judas' death in different ways ( and don't bore me with the literalist defense, I know it quite well), and then there are these little tidbits (and there are dozens more than just these few listed):

2 Samuel
10:18 The Syrians fled before Israel; and David killed of the Syrians the men of seven hundred chariots, and forty thousand horsemen, and struck Shobach the captain of their host, so that he died there.

1 Chronicles
19:18 The Syrians fled before Israel; and David killed of the Syrians the men of seven thousand chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.

2 Samuel
24:9 Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people to the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

1 Chronicles
21:5 Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people to David. All those of Israel were one million one hundred thousand men who drew sword: and in Judah were four hundred seventy thousand men who drew sword.

In 1 Kings, Solomon had 40,000 horses, in 2 Chronicles he had 4,000.

And here we have another nice list of numerical errors in the Bible.

Numerical Errors in the Bible



For the sake of the lurkers, let's see the inerrantists response to the vast number of numerical errors in the Bible that prevent it from every truly being "inerrant".

 

[Jase]

Which part of the bible is not the word of God? And how was it decided?

The Catholic Church decided what should be in the Bible and what shouldn't. Protestants didn't like the answer, so they have their own Bible. Jews began the whole process, since it's our book, and the Tanakh has differences from the Christian Bible. I find it to be of the utmost arrogance that Protestants think their particular compilation of scripture is the correct one, especially considering Protestants are the most far removed from the Judeo-Christian origins.

 

[KingCrimson250]

especially considering Protestants are the most far removed from the Judeo-Christian origins.

Are they? I had thought that the only difference between the Jewish Scriptures and the Protestant OT was the book of Esther, whereas the Roman Catholic church has included all sorts of apocryphal writings.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

The Catholic Church decided what should be in the Bible and what shouldn't. Protestants didn't like the answer, so they have their own Bible. Jews began the whole process, since it's our book, and the Tanakh has differences from the Christian Bible. I find it to be of the utmost arrogance that Protestants think their particular compilation of scripture is the correct one, especially considering Protestants are the most far removed from the Judeo-Christian origins.

What is in the Tanakh that is not in the Old Testament?
And as for Catholic church "decides what should be in the bible and what shouldn't" they might have canonized the bible but they didn't write the scriptures. The scriptures were already written, they put it together.

 

[ebia]

How is this Now, I understand that some people don’t take the Genesis account as historical but they say it’s a story,

Sounds like you've answered your own question.

but I don’t understand how God would create a story that when compared to “science” the events of how the origin of universe can be so different.

God didn't make it work as a recipe for fruit-cake either. I see no reason why a narrative designed to tell us the truths that Genesis tells (on which I am sure we would pretty much agree) would need to match the scientific understanding of my particular age or any other except maybe the age of the era in which it was first composed.

If evolution is in fact the ways things happened, then how do I take the events of Genesis (saying, it’s a story doesn’t cut it, because this story doesn’t even come to what evolutionist claim).

The story isn't supposed to "come to what evolutionist's claim". If anyone thinks the purpose of Genesis 1:11 is to teach facts like the age of the earth, the chronological order in which things came into being, etc, they have completely missed the point of the account.



The things that Genesis 1:11 is written to teach are things like:

• There is one and only one God
• He is the creator of all that is, bringing order from chaos
• That the things worshipped as gods by other cultures are in fact things created by the one true God.
• That creation is good
• That humanity is the pinacle of creation
• That humanity is created for the good of creation, and to enjoy that creation in a balanced cycle of work and rest
• That humanity is made in the image of God
• That humanity's failure and idolatory results in the suffering and death that is in the world
• That that evil cannot be simply wiped away by force because it infects us all
• ...

none of that depends upon whether one reads it as factually accurate or not (althought I would suggest that some bits are, in fact, clearer if one does not read it as factually accurate).

To then say that it must be factually accurate is, IMO, inappropriate. It no more needs to be historically and scientifically factually accurate than it needs to be a good recipe for fruit cake. That's not the sort of literature it is.

So I stand by what I said - I believe Genesis is true. But I do not understand it as historically factual.

Now, you are welcome to try to persuade me that I'm wrong about that last point, but you are not welcome to tell me that I do not believe Genesis. Observing that it's a narrative to teach is not the same as disbelieving it. Telling me that I don't believe it is simply wrong, and undermines everything else you might try to say.

And we can't say that men wrote scripture and therefore it could be full of errors...

I haven't said it is full of errors. That would imply that Genesis was trying to be accurate about something and failed. It is no more an error for it to not be historically accurate than for it not make a good fruit-cake when I used it as a recipe. The error in both those cases is in the person treating it as the wrong sort of literature.

To see the 'facts' of the biblical creation stories as of primary importance is to by into the Enlightenment lie that that sort of fact is the important sort of truth.

So, back to my point, they are complementary because one (Genesis 1-11) talks about the relationship between God, creation and humanity as they are designed to be, as things have worked out, and why those are different. Scientific theories about evolution model the mechanics of parts of God's creative process and thereby better enable us to understand and appreciate God's creative order, to further see God's glory in his creation, and bring God's healing power to that creation.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Ebia,
My only question to you, is how is Genesis 1 and the evolutionary theory complimentary to each other? If you can explain that to me, I'm good. I have no interest in continuing the same long drawn out discussion we had last time.

And FYI, if I am not mistaken,

Now, you are welcome to try to persuade me that I'm wrong about that last point, but you are not welcome to tell me that I do not believe Genesis.​

I have never done this in this discussion and I would appreciate it if you don't assume I did.