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

[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

Ok, brother -57. If that's where you'd like to let it rest, then that's where it will be. And I'm sorry that the Conrad Hyers article isn't your cup of tea--but it's what makes the most sense to me.

Regardless, we both have Christ as our Risen Lord, and that is what counts.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[John Hyperspace]

My belief is that most distortionist don't even know they are distortionist.

True. The only problem is knowing who is doing the distorting. One thing seems clear: only a person who says "I know that my understanding is right and yours is wrong" can fall into the category of "possible distorter"; then which "I am right and you are wrong"ers are the true distorters can only be (and will be) revealed by God in time.

But for those not interested in being revealed as a "distorter" it is easy to avoid: you simply say things like "I believe this means..." or "As I am lead to understand..." and such things; and when someone offers a different point of view, you say, "Perhaps, but I am inclined to believe otherwise..." and such. Because you can't be a "distorter" of your own belief, since it is always truly your belief.

The first step toward "distorter" is "I am certain I am right and everyone else who disagrees with me is wrong"; therefore I would say (to you and also to me), careful with your steps.

 

[ronandcarol]

Biblical Distortionist...
My prayer for you is that someday your eyes will be opened! Like Saul's were on the way to Damasscus.
ronandcarol

 

[Speedwell]

Biblical Distortionist...
My prayer for you is that someday your eyes will be opened! Like Saul's were on the way to Damasscus.
ronandcarol

Opened to what? No, that's serious question. You may assume that I am a Christian, a relatively conservative Christian who holds sincerely to the tenets of the Nicene Creed.

 

[ronandcarol]

You have my apologies for racing to judgement of all those Bible truths that you were typing into your post. All of those items that we can believe as truths from the word of God. That the world was created in six glorious days, and that Adam was indeed created from the dust of the earth and Eve was taken from one of Adam's ribs. God does not and cannot lie, so we can believe each and every statement that He had His chosen people write in the Bible. I am sorry that I inferred that your eyes needed to be opened, you were probably just listing all of the misguided thoughts and theories that have come up. But if that is the case than those close-minded people that think those evolution theory ideas, will be the target of my prayers.
ronandcarol

 

[expos4ever]

You have my apologies for racing to judgement of all those Bible truths that you were typing into your post. All of those items that we can believe as truths from the word of God. That the world was created in six glorious days, and that Adam was indeed created from the dust of the earth and Eve was taken from one of Adam's ribs. God does not and cannot lie,...

A misleading argument - you overlook the possibility that God used "myth" to convey important spiritual truths in Genesis 1 and elsewhere. Millions and millions and millions - almost certainly the majority - of the world's Christians believe that the creation account was never intended to be taken literally. It is probably only in the United States that a significant number of believers take the creation account literally.

A talking snake?! The author of Genesis is literally hitting you over the head with the implication that he is writing an allegorical / metaphorical account. What more do you want as a tip-off that the material is not to be taken literally?

It is almost as if the young earth creationists don't realize that human beings of several thousand years ago understood the concept of literary device. Well, there is ample proof from extra-Biblical sources that they did.

 

[expos4ever]

I am sorry that I inferred that your eyes needed to be opened, you were probably just listing all of the misguided thoughts and theories that have come up. But if that is the case than those close-minded people that think those evolution theory ideas, will be the target of my prayers.
ronandcarol

Here is the problem: When we adopt a "religious" worldview that gives us a justification for seeing ourselves as enlightened to the truth and others as lost in darkness, it becomes all too easy to not subject our own beliefs to the degree of skeptical inquiry that is appropriate.

In this particular setting, we can dismiss those who deny a literal reading of Genesis 1 as "deceived" or "blinded" when, in fact, we should be directing our energies at evaluating whether a literal reading is the only option that makes broad Scriptural sense (and properly accounts for the cultural / linguistic context in which the texts were originally penned).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You have my apologies for racing to judgement of all those Bible truths that you were typing into your post. All of those items that we can believe as truths from the word of God. That the world was created in six glorious days, and that Adam was indeed created from the dust of the earth and Eve was taken from one of Adam's ribs. God does not and cannot lie, so we can believe each and every statement that He had His chosen people write in the Bible. I am sorry that I inferred that your eyes needed to be opened, you were probably just listing all of the misguided thoughts and theories that have come up. But if that is the case than those close-minded people that think those evolution theory ideas, will be the target of my prayers.
ronandcarol

I think where Fundamentalists get 'snagged' is in the idea that for us to take God's Word SIGNIFICANTLY, we supposedly also have to read it as an ULTRA-LITERAL construct, in both composition and meaning.

The thing is, we can still treat the text as SACRED, even if the language, idioms, and paradigms embedded in the text [of Genesis in particular] are expressed in ancient modes that are more in the way of what we'd now think of as 'poetic accounts.' Maybe Genesis really wasn't written or intended to be 'myth' specifically, but whatever it is, it is an account expressed in a way that people of those times expressed such accounts. When we read the Bible, we make a mistake if we assume that the way people thought and wrote two or three thousands years ago is basically the same as we do now. The truth is, they didn't.

In general, we don't have to treat the concept of Biblical Inspiration as some kind of magical deposit that was made into the minds of the biblical writers; the Bible most likely didn't just get dropped like a lead weight from the sky into the middle of the Hebrew nation, and into the waiting arms of Moses' outstretched hands. However, even though the writings aren't 'magical' in nature, they can still contain revelatory content or allude to further epistemological "mystery," as is perhaps implied in Deuteronomy 29:29.

Once the Church can get over this hump--if we ever can--we might find the Bible is less problematic, as well as something over which to be less divisive over. It might even become something more interesting as both an object of study and as a source for personal inspiration and faith in Christ.

2PhiloVoid,
Peace

 

[-57]

True. The only problem is knowing who is doing the distorting. One thing seems clear: only a person who says "I know that my understanding is right and yours is wrong" can fall into the category of "possible distorter"; then which "I am right and you are wrong"ers are the true distorters can only be (and will be) revealed by God in time.

But for those not interested in being revealed as a "distorter" it is easy to avoid: you simply say things like "I believe this means..." or "As I am lead to understand..." and such things; and when someone offers a different point of view, you say, "Perhaps, but I am inclined to believe otherwise..." and such. Because you can't be a "distorter" of your own belief, since it is always truly your belief.

The first step toward "distorter" is "I am certain I am right and everyone else who disagrees with me is wrong"; therefore I would say (to you and also to me), careful with your steps.

You may have a point...but so far no one has answered the questions. Their only answer is that Genesis is a myth or some expression of a people of that time period.
Problem being..the bible presents Genesis s literal.

 

[-57]

A misleading argument - you overlook the possibility that God used "myth" to convey important spiritual truths in Genesis 1 and elsewhere. Millions and millions and millions - almost certainly the majority - of the world's Christians believe that the creation account was never intended to be taken literally. It is probably only in the United States that a significant number of believers take the creation account literally.

A talking snake?! The author of Genesis is literally hitting you over the head with the implication that he is writing an allegorical / metaphorical account. What more do you want as a tip-off that the material is not to be taken literally?

It is almost as if the young earth creationists don't realize that human beings of several thousand years ago understood the concept of literary device. Well, there is ample proof from extra-Biblical sources that they did.

What is wrong with a talking snake? Could Satan not have embodied the snake and caused it to talk?
...whats even harder to believe is that a man can come back to life on day 3. I would tend to believe that through your arguments you might tend to think the resurrection was a myth.

 

[-57]

A misleading argument - you overlook the possibility that God used "myth" to convey important spiritual truths in Genesis 1 and elsewhere. Millions and millions and millions - almost certainly the majority - of the world's Christians believe that the creation account was never intended to be taken literally. It is probably only in the United States that a significant number of believers take the creation account literally.

The creation account is not to be taken literally? Then tell me why. Why in a letter to Timothy did Paul instruct women in church how to present themselves....and why was it based upon a LITERAL act that occurred in Genesis pertaining to the creation of Adam and Eve and the fall in the garden?

1st Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.

Why would Paul base what he permits women to do on a myth?

 

[expos4ever]

The creation account is not to be taken literally? Then tell me why.

Simply because "myth" is a very common literary means to communicate truth. You appear to simply this possibility even though it was commonly used in the Jewish tradition.

Why in a letter to Timothy did Paul instruct women in church how to present themselves....and why was it based upon a LITERAL act that occurred in Genesis pertaining to the creation of Adam and Eve and the fall in the garden?

1st Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.

Why would Paul base what he permits women to do on a myth?

We do not need to conclude that Paul believes in a literal Adam and Eve.

Analogy: Consider the movie "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory". It is, of course, a mythical morality tale in which greedy children get their comeuppance. One of the greedy children is named "Augustus Gloop". If I wanted to rebuke my own child for wanting to eat an entire pie, I might say "Remember what happened to Augustus Gloop!".

Am I intending that my child believe that there was a literal child by that name?

Of course not.

Likewise, Paul could be making a general point about women not being teachers by appealing to a story that (1) he believed to be mythical; (2) his peers also believed to be mythical.

 

[expos4ever]

What is wrong with a talking snake? Could Satan not have embodied the snake and caused it to talk?

Anything is possible, but I suggest the image of a talking snake is so strange, it almost certainly was not intended to be taken at face value.

One could also say it's possible that there was a real Goldilocks and three bears. But the fancifully unrealistic nature of that tale begs us to take it as a metaphor.

Same with the notion of a talking snake - it literally screams metaphor.

 

[expos4ever]

...whats even harder to believe is that a man can come back to life on day 3. I would tend to believe that through your arguments you might tend to think the resurrection was a myth.

I do not believe the resurrection was a myth. I plan to explain why in a later post. For the present, I will simply underscore what should be painfully obvious: a complex narrative such as the Bible can surely contain both mythical elements and elements that are intended to be taken literally.

 

[-57]

Simply because "myth" is a very common literary means to communicate truth. You appear to simply this possibility even though it was commonly used in the Jewish tradition.


We do not need to conclude that Paul believes in a literal Adam and Eve.

Analogy: Consider the movie "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory". It is, of course, a mythical morality tale in which greedy children get their comeuppance. One of the greedy children is named "Augustus Gloop". If I wanted to rebuke my own child for wanting to eat an entire pie, I might say "Remember what happened to Augustus Gloop!".

Am I intending that my child believe that there was a literal child by that name?

Of course not.

Likewise, Paul could be making a general point about women not being teachers by appealing to a story that (1) he believed to be mythical; (2) his peers also believed to be mythical.

To be honest...I certainly hope you have a better argument. Paul was addressing the women of the church and establishing a rule...based upon what happened in Genesis. Because Eve did this...you women can't do that.
Keep in mind this isn't the only place in the bible where Genesis is presented as a literal historical account.
So far you have demonstrated to uphold your faith in evolutionism you need to turn Genesis into a myth....you've proven my argument.

 

[-57]

I do not believe the resurrection was a myth. I plan to explain why in a later post. For the present, I will simply underscore what should be painfully obvious: a complex narrative such as the Bible can surely contain both mythical elements and elements that are intended to be taken literally.

I'm glad you don't. The problem for you is...Genesis is presented as literal and historical in several places. NEVER is it identified as a myth.
The point was...because of a certain belief in modern science....Genesis must be turned into a myth because modern science says we evolved rather than being created on day 6. The bigger point is modern science also says you stay dead on day 3.

 

[-57]

Anything is possible, but I suggest the image of a talking snake is so strange, it almost certainly was not intended to be taken at face value.

One could also say it's possible that there was a real Goldilocks and three bears. But the fancifully unrealistic nature of that tale begs us to take it as a metaphor.

Same with the notion of a talking snake - it literally screams metaphor.

And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Is it my habit to treat you this way?” And he said, “No.”

Must be another metaphor considering donkeys can't talk......perhaps we should once again bring up the unrealistic nature of the tale of Jesus coming back to life on day 3.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm glad you don't. The problem for you is...Genesis is presented as literal and historical in several places. NEVER is it identified as a myth.
The point was...because of a certain belief in modern science....Genesis must be turned into a myth because modern science says we evolved rather than being created on day 6. The bigger point is modern science also says you stay dead on day 3.

That's a misrepresentation of a 'Modern Science' that relies on Methodological Naturalism. However, if a scientist like Richard Dawkins opens mouth and tries to say that scientist does know about the ultimate state of human existence, then he isn't operating under the auspices of Methodological Naturalism, but rather of Ontological (or Philosophical) Naturalism.

Scientists who are worth their salt would know better than to say that they think they can actually 'test' for supernatural manifestations, such as the presence of God or even a human soul. So, we can't really say that 'modern science' would definitively say that physical death equates to the end of a person's existence altogether. IF they do say this, then they are doing 'philosophy' and not science.

Let's all start getting this stuff straight for once.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[FireDragon76]

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

Yup. It's not the central thing about my faith. There's room for uncertainty. My faith isn't in the Bible as a science book. I mean any half-educated person can see there's multiple accounts with seemingly contradictory details in the Bible of many of the Genesis stories (not just the Garden story but also Noah).

There was a big controversy in American Lutheranism in the 60's over this, at the major LCMS seminary in St. Louis, it was called Seminex. A bunch of students walked out of the seminary in St. Louis over Adam and Eve and Noah, and whether you had to believe they were historical to have a biblical, orthodox faith. The students that walked out wanted to be a church that was more than just believing every single bit of the Bible was without error. Because that would mean a constant, unrelenting war on the modern world, and the students felt that was a distraction from focusing on the overall Gospel story and the mission of the Church. And that's generally the approach that mainline Lutherans have taken since- the story of Adam and Eve is not an article of faith that you can hold up as a litmus test of orthodoxy.

 

[-57]

Yup. It's not the central thing about my faith. There's room for uncertainty. My faith isn't in the Bible as a science book. I mean any half-educated person can see there's multiple accounts with seemingly contradictory details in the Bible of many of the Genesis stories (not just the Garden story but also Noah).

There was a big controversy in American Lutheranism in the 60's over this, at the major LCMS seminary in St. Louis, it was called Seminex. A bunch of students walked out of the seminary in St. Louis over Adam and Eve and Noah, and whether you had to believe they were historical to have a biblical, orthodox faith. The students that walked out wanted to be a church that was more than just believing every single bit of the Bible was without error. Because that would mean a constant, unrelenting war on the modern world, and the students felt that was a distraction from focusing on the overall Gospel story and the mission of the Church. And that's generally the approach that mainline Lutherans have taken since- the story of Adam and Eve is not an article of faith that you can hold up as a litmus test of orthodoxy.

I would have to say any half educated person can see where those supposed contradictions are easily answered. Of course when one has a leaning towards old earth evolutionism...they need the contradictions to allow for errors which opens the door for old earth evolutionism and the distortion of scripture to force it to work.