Biblical Distortionist...their need to change the bible.

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
One thing I have learned is to not give much credence to the distortionist. The distortionist come in basically two flavors.....Atheist and their subgroups and secondly misguided bible users and their subgroups.

Both groups tend to claim that as science has modernized in the last several centuries the bible has failed to meet the latest scientific findings.

As the view of Old Earth Evolutionism has increased the accounts of the Genesis creation as well of the flood of Noah have been pushed from the rank of literal and historical. This new interpretation severely distorts the Word of God when it speaks to us concerning the things of creation and the flood. Those events become simply mythical, or some sort of parable.

In doing so the six day creation is distorted to mean six long ages. Adam wasn't made from the dirt then Eve formed from his rib but rather Adam and Eve evolved from lesser primates which evolved from lesser species. When a distortionist is asked to show a biblical line of theology to demonstrate that their Theistic-Evolitionism faith is truly biblical they tend to reach for extra biblical material. After removing what the bible actually says they insert their new found belief into where the old verse and chapter use to reside.

But this is just the beginning of what the Theo-Evo distortionist do. The garden of Eden becomes a fictitious place. They say "its just a story about mankind being bad"...or some other version of that. The fall in the garden due to disobedience never happened...but, instead the distortionist reach out for an extra-biblical concept that God somewhere during our evolution placed some sort of breath of life into each person that contained a sin nature. In doing so once again the bible is distorted.

Paul in Romans 5:12 tells us...."sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned". The one man mentioned by Paul is Adam....and the Theo-Evo distortionist find themselves once again scrambling to redefine the term "one man" to force it to agree with their modern scientific beliefs.

Genesis tells us there was a world wide flood. The flood covered the mountains of that time to fifteen cubits. Theo-Evo distortionist in an attempt to fit the flood into their theology change the world wide flood into a local flood. Denying that the flood laid down the strata and buried the fossils. 2nd Peter 2:5 speaks of the flood and the destruction and how God protected Noah. Later in 2nd Peter 3:6 we are informed the world of that time perished in the flood. Peter also speaks of the ark and only eight people being saved in 1 Peter 3:20. Jesus even speaks of the days of Noah.

All of what Peter says must be distorted to somehow reflect a local flood..or no flood at all theology. This distortion is based upon old earth evolutionary views "backed up" by the beliefs of what has come to be know as modern science.

The irony of all this is that the misquided bible users mentioned above somehow find the ability to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ on day 3...despite...the fact that modern medical science says if you die you stay dead on day 3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cre8id

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
One thing I have learned is to not give much credence to the distortionist. The distortionist come in basically two flavors.....Atheist and their subgroups and secondly misguided bible users and their subgroups.

Both groups tend to claim that as science has modernized in the last several centuries the bible has failed to meet the latest scientific findings.

As the view of Old Earth Evolutionism has increased the accounts of the Genesis creation as well of the flood of Noah have been pushed from the rank of literal and historical. This new interpretation severely distorts the Word of God when it speaks to us concerning the things of creation and the flood. Those events become simply mythical, or some sort of parable.

In doing so the six day creation is distorted to mean six long ages. Adam wasn't made from the dirt then Eve formed from his rib but rather Adam and Eve evolved from lesser primates which evolved from lesser species. When a distortionist is asked to show a biblical line of theology to demonstrate that their Theistic-Evolitionism faith is truly biblical they tend to reach for extra biblical material. After removing what the bible actually says they insert their new found belief into where the old verse and chapter use to reside.

But this is just the beginning of what the Theo-Evo distortionist do. The garden of Eden becomes a fictitious place. They say "its just a story about mankind being bad"...or some other version of that. The fall in the garden due to disobedience never happened...but, instead the distortionist reach out for an extra-biblical concept that God somewhere during our evolution placed some sort of breath of life into each person that contained a sin nature. In doing so once again the bible is distorted.

Paul in Romans 5:12 tells us...."sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned". The one man mentioned by Paul is Adam....and the Theo-Evo distortionist find themselves once again scrambling to redefine the term "one man" to force it to agree with their modern scientific beliefs.

Genesis tells us there was a world wide flood. The flood covered the mountains of that time to fifteen cubits. Theo-Evo distortionist in an attempt to fit the flood into their theology change the world wide flood into a local flood. Denying that the flood laid down the strata and buried the fossils. 2nd Peter 2:5 speaks of the flood and the destruction and how God protected Noah. Later in 2nd Peter 3:6 we are informed the world of that time perished in the flood. Peter also speaks of the ark and only eight people being saved in 1 Peter 3:20. Jesus even speaks of the days of Noah.

All of what Peter says must be distorted to somehow reflect a local flood..or no flood at all theology. This distortion is based upon old earth evolutionary views "backed up" by the beliefs of what has come to be know as modern science.

The irony of all this is that the misquided bible users mentioned above somehow find the ability to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ on day 3...despite...the fact that modern medical science says if you die you stay dead on day 3.

Don't forget the "sub" group of Christians who distort the Bible by trying to believe it says things, and addresses supposed scientific purposes, for which it was never intended to say or address.

2PhiloVoid
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Don't forget the "sub" group of Christians who distort the Bible by trying to believe it says things, and addresses supposed scientific purposes, for which it was never intended to say or address.

2PhiloVoid

Two things, first I would like to see an example of one of these "supposed scientific purposes"....and secondly I think that argument is pretty much a strawman argument presented by those who claim the Creationist use the bible as a scientific text book.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,592
5,732
Montreal, Quebec
✟248,004.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I suggest the real distortion consists in believing, against all common sense, that the authors of the Bible were not capable of communicating important truths by means of literary device such as allegory or myth.

A talking snake?

Please.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
One thing I have learned is to not give much credence to the distortionist. ..... creation and the flood. Those events become simply mythical, or some sort of parable.

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! You are the one, not us, insisting on a literal reading of the Bible, and then hypocritically refusing to do so. For instance:

In doing so the six day creation is distorted to mean six long ages. Adam wasn't made from the dirt then Eve formed from his rib but rather Adam and Eve evolved from lesser primates which evolved from lesser species. When a distortionist is asked to show a biblical line of theology to demonstrate that their Theistic-Evolitionism faith is truly biblical they tend to reach for extra biblical material. After removing what the bible actually says they insert their new found belief into where the old verse and chapter use to reside.

In doing so the flat earth is distorted to mean a globe. The dome of the firmament isn't real, but rather is a "metaphor" for the sky. When a distortionist is asked to show a biblical line of theology to demonstrate that their literalist faith is truly biblical they tend to reach for extra biblical material. After removing what the bible actually says they insert their new found belief into where the old verse and chapter use to reside.

All the while, that's exactly how you treat the literal words. For instance:

Flat Earth-

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), is set on a foundation, like a table (2Sm 22:16, Ps 18:15, 102:25, Pr 8:27-29, Is 48:13), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-

The Bible describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars in water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5 (note “returns”, not perspective), Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

We live in a Planetarium-
The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12 estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.



But this is just the beginning of what the Theo-Evo distortionist do. The garden of Eden becomes a fictitious place. They say "its just a story about mankind being bad"...or some other version of that. The fall in the garden due to disobedience never happened...but, instead the distortionist reach out for an extra-biblical concept that God somewhere during our evolution placed some sort of breath of life into each person that contained a sin nature. In doing so once again the bible is distorted.

But this is just the beginning of what the round earth distortionist do. The tiny stars inside the dome become fictitious. They say "its just a story about God making the stars"...or some other version of that. The pushing up of the water above us never happened...but, instead the distortionist reach out for an extra-biblical concept that God somewhere turned the solid dome of the firmament into an atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen. In doing so once again the bible is distorted.

Genesis tells us there was a world wide flood. The flood covered the mountains of that time to fifteen cubits. Theo-Evo distortionist in an attempt to fit the flood into their theology change the world wide flood into a local flood. Denying that the flood laid down the strata and buried the fossils. 2nd Peter 2:5 speaks of the flood and the destruction and how God protected Noah. Later in 2nd Peter 3:6 we are informed the world of that time perished in the flood. Peter also speaks of the ark and only eight people being saved in 1 Peter 3:20. Jesus even speaks of the days of Noah.

Genesis, job, psalms, Revelation, and many other books tell us that we live on a flat earth under a hard dome, under water (making the flood story make so much more sense). Round earth distortionist in an attempt to fit the flood into their theology change the flood from an easy release of water around us to comets and plates. Denying that the flood came from the water around us (Gen 1:2). 2nd Peter 2:5 speaks of the flood and the destruction and how God protected Noah. Later in 2nd Peter 3:6 we are informed the world of that time perished in the flood. Peter also speaks of the ark and only eight people being saved in 1 Peter 3:20. Jesus even speaks of the days of Noah.

The irony of all this is that the misquided bible users mentioned above somehow find the ability to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ on day 3...despite...the fact that modern medical science says if you die you stay dead on day 3.

The irony of all this is that the misquided bible users, the round earthers, mentioned above somehow find the ability to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ on day 3...despite...the fact that modern medical science says if you die you stay dead on day 3.

The upshot is that you have long ago learned that you can't take your Bible literally. You simply tell others to take their Bible literally, while you deny to them that you are refusing to do so yourself. It's simple hypocrisy. At least we are honest enough to know that we don't take our Bible literally at all times.

In Christ-

Papias
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Two things, first I would like to see an example of one of these "supposed scientific purposes"....and secondly I think that argument is pretty much a strawman argument presented by those who claim the Creationist use the bible as a scientific text book.

-57, don't tell me that you've never heard of Henry M. Morris or Gary Parker. Seeing the Bible as a narrative comporting with "scientific purposes" is what Creation Science is all about. On the other hand, the more traditional YEC proponents may say that the Bible isn't science, but that it is history--that God indeed made the earth and all that is in it in Six Literal Days. And that Adam and Eve, as well as the talking serpent, were "historical" entities.

So, I am not presenting a strawman argument by any stretch of the imagination. Nor, most charitably, do I ever infer that you or anyone else like yourself, or like Creation Scientists, or traditional Creationists, are not Christians. I believe you are Christian, even if your attitude kind of stinks.

However, what really bugs me the most is that you guys constantly infer--or even outright say--that you deny the authenticity of Christian faith among persons like myself.

The funny thing is, I can accept you in Christ, but you guys seem to have a high degree of cognitive and emotive difficulty in returning in kind the extension of Christian brotherhood to me. That is a very sad situation, indeed, and it is one that I will stand up against till either the day I die, OR God clearly provides evidence in nature to all of us that the first 11 chapters of Genesis happened in just the way, and without any deviation whatsoever, from the account we find laid out by ancient Jewish minds.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: expos4ever
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I suggest the real distortion consists in believing, against all common sense, that the authors of the Bible were not capable of communicating important truths by means of literary device such as allegory or myth.

A talking snake?

Please.

Walking on water? Rising from the dead on day 3? Do you have a point?
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
-57, don't tell me that you've never heard of Henry M. Morris or Gary Parker. Seeing the Bible as a narrative comporting with "scientific purposes" is what Creation Science is all about. On the other hand, the more traditional YEC proponents may say that the Bible isn't science, but that it is history--that God indeed made the earth and all that is in it in Six Literal Days. And that Adam and Eve, as well as the talking serpent, were "historical" entities.

So, I am not presenting a strawman argument by any stretch of the imagination. Nor, most charitably, do I ever infer that you or anyone else like yourself, or like Creation Scientists, or traditional Creationists, are not Christians. I believe you are Christian, even if your attitude kind of stinks.

However, what really bugs me the most is that you guys constantly infer--or even outright say--that you deny the authenticity of Christian faith among persons like myself.

The funny thing is, I can accept you in Christ, but you guys seem to have a high degree of cognitive and emotive difficulty in returning in kind the extension of Christian brotherhood to me. That is a very sad situation, indeed, and it is one that I will stand up against till either the day I die, OR God clearly provides evidence in nature to all of us that the first 11 chapters of Genesis happened in just the way, and without any deviation whatsoever, from the account we find laid out by ancient Jewish minds.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
You can say what you want...but you didn't really answer my post.
As to infering that the distortionist are not christians..you didn't read the last paragraph of the OP.
My belief is that most distortionist don't even know they are distortionist.

Now if you would like to address my objections..prhaps you would like to explain where original sin came from..or the through one person...then I'll be glad to point out your distortions.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Papias,, it's quite an interesting twist you presented. In fact I've had the same or similiar debates with atheist that you have presented below.

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! You are the one, not us, insisting on a literal reading of the Bible, and then hypocritically refusing to do so. For instance:

In doing so the flat earth is distorted to mean a globe. The dome of the firmament isn't real, but rather is a "metaphor" for the sky. When a distortionist is asked to show a biblical line of theology to demonstrate that their literalist faith is truly biblical they tend to reach for extra biblical material. After removing what the bible actually says they insert their new found belief into where the old verse and chapter use to reside.

All the while, that's exactly how you treat the literal words. For instance:

The flat earth is distorted to mean globe? I think not. I don't believe the bible speaks of a flat earth.

Flat Earth-

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), is set on a foundation, like a table (2Sm 22:16, Ps 18:15, 102:25, Pr 8:27-29, Is 48:13), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Perhaps the ends of the earth could represent the north and south poles???? Do you have a globe handy? Can you put the north pole in your right hand and the south pole in your left hand and then shake the globe? Keep in mind I think you distort the text by taking it out of context as the verse ids referring to light and how it exposes people.
Does the earth have a length? I believe if you went to the equator and took a long, long tape measure and measured the length of the equator you would get about 24,901 miles.
Daniel 4:10 was a vision.
Matt 4:8...even if the earth was flat you couldn't see the ends...so what's your point?

Conclusion, does the bible present a flat earth....only if you want to attack the bible.



Geocentrism-

The Bible describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars in water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5 (note “returns”, not perspective), Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Unmovable...what does unmovable mean? Can you move it? Does it mean it has been set into motion and that motion can't be changed? I could go into much more detail and show the different possibilities and not change the bible...but...that would take this topic off topic.

We live in a Planetarium-
The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12 estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

In scripture God has explained thing in terms we can easily understand. Is there a solid dome? I believe there is the possibility of a solid dome of ice at the edge of the universe. The bible speaks of it being there and in doing so does no injustice to Genesis.

Do the stars fall in Revelation? Perhaps Rev. is speaking about falling satellites or perhaps the falling stars are angels. To be as dogmatic as you as to what the stars are is dangerous.

I believe the star of Bethlehem was an Angel shining brightly...or perhaps it was the shekinah glory of God....that appeared to the human eye as a star....this "star" moved and stoped upon the house Jesus was in.



But this is just the beginning of what the round earth distortionist do. The tiny stars inside the dome become fictitious. They say "its just a story about God making the stars"...or some other version of that. The pushing up of the water above us never happened...but, instead the distortionist reach out for an extra-biblical concept that God somewhere turned the solid dome of the firmament into an atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen. In doing so once again the bible is distorted.

I beg to differ with your opinion. Watch the first 20 min or so of this video by Russel Humphreys.



Genesis, job, psalms, Revelation, and many other books tell us that we live on a flat earth under a hard dome, under water (making the flood story make so much more sense). Round earth distortionist in an attempt to fit the flood into their theology change the flood from an easy release of water around us to comets and plates. Denying that the flood came from the water around us (Gen 1:2) .

You lost me. Then again I find it hard to fllow the distorionist theology



The upshot is that you have long ago learned that you can't take your Bible literally. You simply tell others to take their Bible literally, while you deny to them that you are refusing to do so yourself. It's simple hypocrisy. At least we are honest enough to know that we don't take our Bible literally at all times.

In Christ-

Papias

I honestly don't think you know what a literalist really is....but that for a different thread.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You can say what you want...but you didn't really answer my post.
As to infering that the distortionist are not christians..you didn't read the last paragraph of the OP.
My belief is that most distortionist don't even know they are distortionist.

Now if you would like to address my objections..prhaps you would like to explain where original sin came from..or the through one person...then I'll be glad to point out your distortions.

I will not engage you until you tell me if, in your view, I qualify as a Christian. If no qualification, then no distillation.

Or, you can answer this question: Do you ever pick up a piece of chewing gum off the pavement and place it in your mouth to chew for enjoyment?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I will not engage you until you tell me if, in your view, I qualify as a Christian. If no qualification, then no distillation.

Or, you can answer this question: Do you ever pick up a piece of chewing gum off the pavement and place it in your mouth to chew for enjoyment?

If I had to judge you on your second remark about the chewing gum...I would say you're not a christian...BUT... I understand christians still sin. The chewing gum statement was meant to present me in a light that isn't true.

My view...I believe you are distorting the bible with your Theo-Evo view....but it doesn't mean you're not a christian. Perhaps you can present to us your biblical theology on original sin as seen through evolutionism then I can make a better educated "guess" as to your position concerning salvation. I posted my concerns on that topic in my opening post. I would love to have you clear the air of smaug on this topic.
Genesis tells us where original sin comes from..you deny Genesis...so, tell us where sin come from. If you wish to bow out of this discussion for a lack of an answer I understand.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If I had to judge you on your second remark about the chewing gum...I would say you're not a christian...BUT... I understand christians still sin. The chewing gum statement was meant to present me in a light that isn't true.
Two things here, -57. One, you've already shown that you have a proclivity to judge me to some extent; and I am your fellow brother in Christ. Two, you show that you have a proclivity to hastily "read into" what people say since you have assumed you understand what I meant by my chewing gum question; and you haven't even bothered to ask me what I meant by it, which further indicates to me that you think that most of what I have to say is, or could be, trash.

So, allow me to elucidate. The chewing gum question isn't a judgment about you personally, whatsoever. The point of it is for you to understand that in a similar way to the fact that something like chewing gum is created, packaged, distributed, and then consumed after we remove the gum from its "wrapper," the contents of the Bible likewise come to us in an ancient paradigmatic "wrapper," a wrapper that should properly be recognized and removed before consuming.

Surely, you can understand this simple analogy, -57. So, here it is again: If the revelatory contents of the Bible come to us wrapped in the ideas of ancient paradigms which humanity no longer accepts since it has grown further in its understanding of God's full handiwork in all of Creation, then those paradigms need to be unwrapped from the main revelation before we ingest the revelation. They aren't discarded since we aren't spiritual litterbugs, and we keep the wrapper since it was a medium of communication by which the revelation of God was constructed and delivered into the world. We just recognize that the wrapper and its main social/spiritual contents are different aspects of God's revelation. Thus today, from one angle, it will appear that some of the things of which the Biblical writers speak is "incorrect," yet in those things for which the Bible was given, God's revelation sufficiently points us to the way in which we need to reconcile with God: that is, through Jesus Christ, His Son.

My view...I believe you are distorting the bible with your Theo-Evo view....but it doesn't mean you're not a christian. Perhaps you can present to us your biblical theology on original sin as seen through evolutionism then I can make a better educated "guess" as to your position concerning salvation. I posted my concerns on that topic in my opening post. I would love to have you clear the air of smaug on this topic.
Genesis tells us where original sin comes from..you deny Genesis...so, tell us where sin come from. If you wish to bow out of this discussion for a lack of an answer I understand.
Original Sin? I've never believed that that terminology is required in our vocabulary; there's nothing in the Christian faith that requires me to appropriate the terminology of St. Augustine, or other early fathers, however much we may hold them in esteem. All we need to do is understand that humanity separates itself from God and has done so continuously since time immemorial. This truth is wrapped in a polemic structure reflecting the ancient paradigms of the time in which it was written. We no longer have to think the earth and heaven commingle through a dome-like structure or that there was a world-wide flood that covered the globe of our earth. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, then simply go to BioLogos.org and read Conrad Hyers' article about the meaning of Genesis 1.

Now, with all that said, if you want me to address your specifics in the OP, I can still do that, too!

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: lasthero
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Two things here, -57. One, you've already shown that you have a proclivity to judge me to some extent; and I am your fellow brother in Christ. Two, you show that you have a proclivity to hastily "read into" what people say since you have assumed you understand what I meant by my chewing gum question; and you haven't even bothered to ask me what I meant by it, which further indicates to me that you think that most of what I have to say is, or could be, trash.

So, allow me to elucidate. The chewing gum question isn't a judgment about you personally, whatsoever. The point of it is for you to understand that in a similar way to the fact that something like chewing gum is created, packaged, distributed, and then consumed after we remove the gum from its "wrapper," the contents of the Bible likewise come to us in an ancient paradigmatic "wrapper," a wrapper that should properly be recognized and removed before consuming.

Surely, you can understand this simple analogy, -57. So, here it is again: If the revelatory contents of the Bible come to us wrapped in the ideas of ancient paradigms which humanity no longer accepts since it has grown further in its understanding of God's full handiwork in all of Creation, then those paradigms need to be unwrapped from the main revelation before we ingest the revelation. They aren't discarded since we aren't spiritual litterbugs, and we keep the wrapper since it was a medium of communication by which the revelation of God was constructed and delivered into the world. We just recognize that the wrapper and its main social/spiritual contents are different aspects of God's revelation. Thus today, from one angle, it will appear that some of the things of which the Biblical writers speak is "incorrect," yet in those things for which the Bible was given, God's revelation sufficiently points us to the way in which we need to reconcile with God: that is, through Jesus Christ, His Son.

Original Sin? I've never believed that that terminology is required in our vocabulary; there's nothing in the Christian faith that requires me to appropriate the terminology of St. Augustine, or other early fathers, however much we may hold them in esteem. All we need to do is understand that humanity separates itself from God and has done so continuously since time immemorial. This truth is wrapped in a polemic structure reflecting the ancient paradigms of the time in which it was written. We no longer have to think the earth and heaven commingle through a dome-like structure or that there was a world-wide flood that covered the globe of our earth. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, then simply go to BioLogos.org and read Conrad Hyers' article about the meaning of Genesis 1.

Now, with all that said, if you want me to address your specifics in the OP, I can still do that, too!

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

In your post you replied with "All we need to do is understand that humanity separates itself from God and has done so continuously since time immemorial."

The point of my post is that extra biblical material will be required...distorting....what the bible has to say on the topic..... when you simply attribute the fall in the garden to some "polemic structure reflecting the ancient paradigms of the time."

How did sin and death enter? That's a serious question. Red flags should go up all over the place when one realizes that the Theo-Evo's can't biblically answer that question.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In your post you replied with "All we need to do is understand that humanity separates itself from God and has done so continuously since time immemorial."

The point of my post is that extra biblical material will be required...distorting....what the bible has to say on the topic..... when you simply attribute the fall in the garden to some "polemic structure reflecting the ancient paradigms of the time."
Yes, and that is our quandry, -57. You see me as distorting the Bible by applying extra-biblical material. I see you as neglecting the overall reality in which the Bible was created and written; you reduce its meaning by treating it AS IF it was written in a cultural and social VACUUM.

Despite all that, I'm fine if you want to interpret the book of Genesis in a very highly literal way, mainly because on a practical scale, there is also the mediating problem of the human mind in that we all have our own, individual perceptual and conceptual grids through which to engage and process the meaning we think we find in the Bible. You have yours (but it can grow), and I have mine (which can also grow). :cool:

How did sin and death enter? That's a serious question. Red flags should go up all over the place when one realizes that the Theo-Evo's can't biblically answer that question.
Sin and death "entered" the world. That's all that we need to know. In understanding the significance of the Garden of Eden account, we need to question too as to how the Bible differs with the ideas of sin and consequence as contrasted with the surrounding cultures of its time.

Furthermore, as far as Biblical history goes for many of the Jews, the defining event in the Torah is the Exodus, not the Garden of Eden story. So, an overemphasis upon the Garden of Eden account as the defining narrative about God and humanity is, to me, just a bit of a conceptual distortion of the overall meaning which God wants us to focus upon. I'd say that those brethren who hold to a more literal interterpretation have a tendency to "over-historicize" the nature of the writing of the Bible, rather than seeing it for what it is ... Sacred Representation. And it is this Sacred, Written Representation that constitutes God's Revelation to humanity, and it's purpose is to point us all to Jesus Christ as the only mediator. It's purpose isn't to unlock for us all the secrets of the universe.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, and that is our quandry, -57. You see me as distorting the Bible by applying extra-biblical material. I see you as neglecting the overall reality in which the Bible was created and written; you reduce its meaning by treating it AS IF it was written in a cultural and social VACUUM.

Despite all that, I'm fine if you want to interpret the book of Genesis in a very highly literal way, mainly because on a practical scale, there is also the mediating problem of the human mind in that we all have our own, individual perceptual and conceptual grids through which to engage and process the meaning we think we find in the Bible. You have yours (but it can grow), and I have mine (which can also grow). :cool:

Sin and death "entered" the world. That's all that we need to know. In understanding the significance of the Garden of Eden account, we need to question too as to how the Bible differs with the ideas of sin and consequence as contrasted with the surrounding cultures of its time.

Furthermore, as far as Biblical history goes for many of the Jews, the defining event in the Torah is the Exodus, not the Garden of Eden story. So, an overemphasis upon the Garden of Eden account as the defining narrative about God and humanity is, to me, just a bit of a conceptual distortion of the overall meaning which God wants us to focus upon. I'd say that those brethren who hold to a more literal interterpretation have a tendency to "over-historicize" the nature of the writing of the Bible, rather than seeing it for what it is ... Sacred Representation. And it is this Sacred, Written Representation that constitutes God's Revelation to humanity, and it's purpose is to point us all to Jesus Christ as the only mediator. It's purpose isn't to unlock for us all the secrets of the universe.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Washed out. That's your theology. The bible tells how and why sin entered...you tend to ignore it. Hand wave it away. Youe need to explain how it entered under the context of evolutionism. That's the question.

Just for the record...the bible in many places presents the Genesis account as literal and historical. No cultural or social vacuum.


I do find it interesting how you can't answer the question without using extra biblical material.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Washed out. That's your theology. The bible tells how and why sin entered...you tend to ignore it. Hand wave it away. Youe need to explain how it entered under the context of evolutionism. That's the question.

Just for the record...the bible in many places presents the Genesis account as literal and historical. No cultural or social vacuum.


I do find it interesting how you can't answer the question without using extra biblical material.

I don't understand how you can't recognize that the Bible was written by utilizing existing cultural ideas and language of the time in which it was constructed. It's not as if it was written in some kind of Holy Ghost language. And you seem to interpret Genesis by remaining oblivious to this fact, and to the fact that it was written in contradistinction to a Mesopotamian (Babylonian) paradigm, as if it was just handed to Moses in full, dropped off of Mt. Sinai like a lead weight.

:cool:
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't understand how you can't recognize that the Bible was written by utilizing existing cultural ideas and language of the time in which it was constructed. It's not as if it was written in some kind of Holy Ghost language. And you seem to interpret Genesis by remaining oblivious to this fact, and to the fact that it was written in contradistinction to a Mesopotamian (Babylonian) paradigm, as if it was just handed to Moses in full, dropped off of Mt. Sinai like a lead weight.

:cool:
Ans by using your translational concepts I cold claim that the account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ was onlya dorm od some sort of spiritua resurrectionl and not physical...in other word Christ didn't really rise from the dead on day 3. The account was simply some sort of Holy Ghost language used by the primitive Christians. How far do you want to apply your concepts?

Even Paul in his letter to Timothy instructed the women of the church how to act...and based it upon a LITERAL interpretation of Genesis....As you see it's very easy for you to see how I don't recognize you're concepts.

When will you explain how sin originated?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And by using your translational concepts I cold claim that the account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ was onlya dorm od some sort of spiritua resurrectionl and not physical...in other word Christ didn't really rise from the dead on day 3.
You don't even know WHAT my hermeneutical concepts are, -57. We haven't gotten to any of that yet. All we've done is shared back and forth some very, very generic interpretive descriptions about our respective approaches to interpreting the Bible. We haven't gotten into specifics.

You do know that I believe Christ literally rose from the dead, bodily, don't you?

The account was simply some sort of Holy Ghost language used by the primitive Christians. How far do you want to apply your concepts?
You're not reading what I'm saying, -57. I don't believe that any of the biblical writers used any kind of Holy Ghost language. That was my point. As you already know, the writers of the Old Testament used existing Semitic language (Hebrew specifically), and the writers of the New Testament used Koine Greek, and maybe spoke at times in Aramaic before the writings came about.

In what language was the Bible first written?

Even Paul in his letter to Timothy instructed the women of the church how to act...and based it upon a LITERAL interpretation of Genesis....As you see it's very easy for you to see how I don't recognize you're concepts.

When will you explain how sin originated?
My theology doesn't explain "how." It doesn't need to. All we have to know is that the Garden Story is the result of Moses (and/or) other early Israelite writers constructing a set of genealogically connected accounts to represent what they felt the Spirit of God was leading them to write.

And............if the production of the account in the Old Testament began with Moses and not collectively Adam through Moses' family, and we don't know that it did either way, then the act of producing a history about the beginning of the world and of humanity can't be assumed to have been verified by Moses from the voice of God. It may just have been constructed as Moses was motivated by the Spirit to write as best he could about the "past" using whatever cultural and ideological sources were available at that time (Babylonian/Egyptian). However, if Moses lived during the Exodus, and was contemporaneous with it, and we have reason to think he was, then the structure of the accounts in Exodus to Deuteronomy would be expected to contain, at the least, material that was witnessed first hand by Moses himself and would be much less merely representative in nature and contain elements expressing more in the way of actual accounts.

See, for you to say you "know" how sin entered the world would also require something in the Bible telling us "how" the COMPLETE revelation of the Scriptures was given to, and processed in, the minds of the writers. The fact is, the Bible doesn't tell us this. So for you to assume that all of what is given in Genesis is ipso facto history is an a priori assumption. Neither you nor I know that it is pure history. Maybe it is; maybe it isn't. We can't know for sure. What we can surmise in faith is that Exodus and subsequent writings are more realistic in the representations of the message God has wanted humanity to hear; the Book of Genesis is also something we take by faith, but as more representational in nature, even if written by Moses, and we trust that it conveys meanings that count as revelation and are to be taken seriously. So, all we need to understand is that the Adam and Eve account is meant to tell us that humanity has chosen to disconnect itself from God's Lordship.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You don't even know WHAT my hermeneutical concepts are, -57. We haven't gotten to any of that yet. All we've done is shared back and forth some very, very generic interpretive descriptions about our respective approaches to interpreting the Bible. We haven't gotten into specifics.

You do know that I believe Christ literally rose from the dead, bodily, don't you?

You're not reading what I'm saying, -57. I don't believe that any of the biblical writers used any kind of Holy Ghost language. That was my point. As you already know, the writers of the Old Testament used existing Semitic language (Hebrew specifically), and the writers of the New Testament used Koine Greek, and maybe spoke at times in Aramaic before the writings came about.

In what language was the Bible first written?



My theology doesn't explain "how." It doesn't need to. All we have to know is that the Garden Story is the result of Moses (and/or) other early Israelite writers constructing a set of genealogically connected accounts to represent what they felt the Spirit of God was leading them to write.

And............if the production of the account in the Old Testament began with Moses and not collectively Adam through Moses' family, and we don't know that it did either way, then the act of producing a history about the beginning of the world and of humanity can't be assumed to have been verified by Moses from the voice of God. It may just have been constructed as Moses was motivated by the Spirit to write as best he could about the "past" using whatever cultural and ideological sources were available at that time (Babylonian/Egyptian). However, if Moses lived during the Exodus, and was contemporaneous with it, and we have reason to think he was, then the structure of the accounts in Exodus to Deuteronomy would be expected to contain, at the least, material that was witnessed first hand by Moses himself and would be much less merely representative in nature and contain elements expressing more in the way of actual accounts.

See, for you to say you "know" how sin entered the world would also require something in the Bible telling us "how" the COMPLETE revelation of the Scriptures was given to, and processed in, the minds of the writers. The fact is, the Bible doesn't tell us this. So for you to assume that all of what is given in Genesis is ipso facto history is an a priori assumption. Neither you nor I know that it is pure history. Maybe it is; maybe it isn't. We can't know for sure. What we can surmise in faith is that Exodus and subsequent writings are more realistic in the representations of the message God has wanted humanity to hear; the Book of Genesis is also something we take by faith, but as more representational in nature, even if written by Moses, and we trust that it conveys meanings that count as revelation and are to be taken seriously. So, all we need to understand is that the Adam and Eve account is meant to tell us that humanity has chosen to disconnect itself from God's Lordship.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I'm kinda dome with you on the issue. You type a lot and never really say anything.

You deny Adam and Eve fell in the garden when they committed an act of disobedience. You've demonstrated my point in the need for you to distort scripture.

Thanks for replying.

-57
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I'm kinda dome with you on the issue. You type a lot and never really say anything.

You deny Adam and Eve fell in the garden when they committed an act of disobedience. You've demonstrated my point in the need for you to distort scripture.

Thanks for replying.

-57
But notice he did not deny that there was a first man and woman, nor that they committed an act of disobedience.

Do you understand the difference? Nor did he "distort scripture." What he did do was ignore the fantasy that if Genesis is authoritative revelation it must be 100% accurate literal history.
 
Upvote 0