Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Did that egg have a genetic mutation that produced the first Chicken?
Wild bananas are different from the cultivated ones we buy at the store. It is funny in the Philippines when you fly a plane there is a very small passenger section. The plane is mostly fresh produce on it's way to market. They talk about how wild plants and animals become cultivated and domesticated.Ditto for the species of banana that we eat.
Yet according to the bible, God made everything through Christ. As John 1 says:God did not create something from nothing. At the beginning of time was Hydrogen and Helium and a tiny bit of lithium. Is there a scripture you are referring to in regards to "something from nothing"? I would be glad to take a look to see what the Bible says about this.
Usually this is referred to as astrophysics. Before the laws of physics they talk about quantum physics.
Eve did not come from his rib, she came from his side. I am pretty sure you have no interest in theistic evolution so there is no reason to talk about that. I did my study on that because I wanted to know why God created Adam and Eve. Of course this is a type of Christ and His Bride. In order to understand one, I think we need to understand the other. God wants us to know, He wants us to understand the work He is doing.
Yo, Rosie, good to hear from you.
But don't you think something like the creation narratives are beyond historical truth claims?
The fact that they are theological in nature attests to their divine inspiration. God, as divine source impacts human authors ie (both divine and human). God working through the personality, the style, and more, of the human authors to bring about theological truth.One would have to be supposing divine revelation to the author. And, of course, many do, literally. I just don't see it with Genesis I & II.
For me it's much more than an appreciation, it's an acknowledgement and coming in agreement that the God of heaven an earth, who is beyond time and space, condescended to human history to reveal Himself. Firstly through those who revealed his Word in thought, in script and action (prophets), but finally through His son (Jesus) (Hebrews 1:1-2).Beyond that there certainly can be historical roots in characters and stories. As I said before, I do not require it for my appreciation of those characters and stories.
Based on what do you make your determinations?But that doesn’t mean we get to pick and choose what is poetic based on our own expectations.
hope you good Akita
In what sense do you mean, that they are more than history? Yes, they are theological narratives rooted in history and prophetically symbolic. God reveals Himself through these narratives, firstly to Israel as the Creator God and then to us. It's part of their history in their context.
The fact that they are theological in nature attests to their divine inspiration.
So you seem to be saying it is more figurative than scientific. or are you saying that science is wrong?God, as divine source impacts human authors ie (both divine and human). God working through the personality, the style, and more, of the human authors to bring about theological truth.
The Genesis narratives are a self revelation of who God is (Creator), and who we are in relation to Him (creature) not merely a text book for scientist.
Now you seem to be encouraging a literal interpretation. Am I reading you correctly?The condescension is seen in the literary creation elements of Genesis. For me, Genesis is much more than a story, it reveals how God created spaces and filled it. The sky for birds, the seas for fish, the land for animals, but the final filling is when He created humanity and filled it with Himself (His breath, ruach, Spirit). That truth alone, is humbling and awe inspiring. His Creation was complete when He rested within humanity. If this is not a Divine injunction then I don't know.
..... man, you guys .... this is where I have to admit that where Hermeneutics is applied I get torn between putting a foot over on @Derf's side of things and the other foot over on @Akita Suggagaki 's and @okay's side of things.
It's in trying to sort these kinds of issues that, for me, I actually swallow the horse pill so many can't. Otherwise, I'd have to jettison Moses and the Exodus by the same interpretive considerations as those pertaining to the Conquest.
And yeah. I know. By today's ethical lights, it all gets very ugly very fast.
I can respect that, although I obviously see things differently. The parts that I doubt actually happened still have a lot of value - they can have important nonliteral meanings.
I think it would do me some good to read more of how some early church fathers handled scripture to find some more good examples of how to read difficult texts. Here is an example I found with Gregory of Nyssa discussing the killing of the firstborn in Egypt (from Book II of his Life of Moses). His questions about the morality and justice of the killings are in-line with my own difficulty with the text 16 centuries later:
On the Killing of the Egyptian Firstborn, from St. Gregory of Nyssa - Verbum Blog
If such a one now pays the penalty of his father’s wickedness, where is justice? Where is piety? Where is holiness? Where is Ezekiel, who cries: The man who has sinned is the man who must die and a son is not to suffer for the sins of his father? How can the history so contradict reason?blog.verbum.com
One thing that blog post did not include was this sentence by Gregory (also from book II of Life of Moses) that questions the historicity of the event:
100. Do not be surprised at all if both things—the death of the firstborn and the pouring out of the blood— did not happen to the Israelites and on that account reject the contemplation which we have proposed concerning the destruction of evil as if it were a fabrication without any truth.
I guess my point is that an approach to the bible that includes questioning the morality and historicity of stories is within the boundaries of how Christians have handled scripture since the earliest centuries of our faith. Not everyone needs to agree with such an approach of course, but when we read scripture this way I don’t think we are coloring outside the lines as much as some folks around here seem to think we are.
I can respect that, although I obviously see things differently. The parts that I doubt actually happened still have a lot of value - they can have important nonliteral meanings.
I think it would do me some good to read more of how some early church fathers handled scripture to find some more good examples of how to read difficult texts. Here is an example I found with Gregory of Nyssa discussing the killing of the firstborn in Egypt (from Book II of his Life of Moses). His questions about the morality and justice of the killings are in-line with my own difficulty with the text 16 centuries later:
On the Killing of the Egyptian Firstborn, from St. Gregory of Nyssa - Verbum Blog
If such a one now pays the penalty of his father’s wickedness, where is justice? Where is piety? Where is holiness? Where is Ezekiel, who cries: The man who has sinned is the man who must die and a son is not to suffer for the sins of his father? How can the history so contradict reason?blog.verbum.com
One thing that blog post did not include was this sentence by Gregory (also from book II of Life of Moses) that questions the historicity of the event:
100. Do not be surprised at all if both things—the death of the firstborn and the pouring out of the blood— did not happen to the Israelites and on that account reject the contemplation which we have proposed concerning the destruction of evil as if it were a fabrication without any truth.
I guess my point is that an approach to the bible that includes questioning the morality and historicity of stories is within the boundaries of how Christians have handled scripture since the earliest centuries of our faith. Not everyone needs to agree with such an approach of course, but when we read scripture this way I don’t think we are coloring outside the lines as much as some folks around here seem to think we are.
That is a fair criticism(edit: your entire post has fair criticisms and warnings). For me the old stuff is interesting because I have almost exclusively been engaging with interpretations from a modern perspective, where things like archeology are part of what leads to judgements about what is more likely to be historical and what is not.Moreover, I'd be careful with the idea of what constitutes "early" in the Christian history. What we think is "early" is often an arbitrary rule of thumb that is resorted to too often and is used to justify all sorts of interpretations.
All is made though the word of God. The literal word of God is that God "said" all things into existence though His word.Yet according to the bible, God made everything through Christ.
Yes, however, divine knowledge of a matter does not always mean being present to know and give account. Through the Spirit, prophets and biblical figures received revelation about events and circumstances that were beyond their immediate knowledge and presence...Jesus in his humanity told Nathaniel before I met you I saw you while you were by the fig tree before Phillip called (John 1:48).The book of Acts has examples of things people should not have known. How did Peter know Ananias and Saphira were lying about the money? How did Paul know Ananias was coming to place hands on him to receive his sight? In a vision Cornelius saw an angel giving him instruction (Acts 5:1-11; 9:10-12;10:1-8). It's not impossible to "know" without being present.I mean no human author of Genesis one was there at creation to witness and give account.
Sure no problem, which is why the subtlety is found in the word "attests to" and not "equates to".Just to nit pick...just because something is theological does not require it to be it divine inspiration. There are all sorts of conflicting theologies.
I'm saying that sometimes we come to the Bible looking for it to tell us how nano particles should work. Which it doesn't. Science provides valuable insights into the natural world, it has a boundary. When we discuss God we move to the realm of the supernatural. The Bible focuses on accounts of Gods purposes and humanity relationship with Him, the nature of sin and God's promise of redemption, rather than scientific explanations.So you seem to be saying it is more figurative than scientific. or are you saying that science is wrong?
What I alluded to was a literary reading. The Genesis accounts has themes, purpose and structure. Tim Mackie does this quite well. Although I have room for both literary and literal approaches. Both should be explored to discover meaning.Now you seem to be encouraging a literal interpretation. Am I reading you correctly?
Right. We both have that in common, and I wouldn't insist that it be any other way. Archaeology and Historiography and the Philosophy of History are part and parcel of my own personal praxis when dealing with Biblical issues of any kind.That is a fair criticism(edit: your entire post has fair criticisms and warnings). For me the old stuff is interesting because I have almost exclusively been engaging with interpretations from a modern perspective, where things like archeology are part of what leads to judgements about what is more likely to be historical and what is not.
Edit: and I agree that I can (and sometimes will) be wrong about all kinds of stuff, including my moral judgements. At the same time, I don’t think we should be too quick to dismiss our internal moral compass. That can be quite dangerous as well.
Cheers!
You can cut and paste your message in AI and they will do that for you. Even you can tell AI to write your message in king james english or any style you want on any grade level you want. Even I had AI write a song for my wife as if her favorite singer had done it.Sorry, I had to edit and nearly rewrite the mess I wrote above.
These instances show that divine knowledge can transcend human limitations, allowing individuals to “know” things beyond their immediate perception. This emphasizes the power and mystery of divine revelation and the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and informing believers...Jesus in his humanity told Nathaniel before I met you I saw you
It sounds like you’re referring to the Ussher chronology, which was developed by Archbishop James Ussher in the 17th century. He calculated that the Earth was created in 4004 BC based on a literal interpretation of the Bible1Einstein can take a hike.
I've been saying for almost twenty years here that the earth is as old as God willed it.
But however old it is -- 3 billion, 4 billion, 10 thousand -- it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.
People find harmony between science and their faith. Many believe that science and the Bible can complement each other, offering different perspectives on the same truths. For instance, some view the biblical creation story as a metaphor that aligns with scientific explanations of the universe’s origins.
It sounds like you’re referring to the Ussher chronology, which was developed by Archbishop James Ussher in the 17th century. He calculated that the Earth was created in 4004 BC based on a literal interpretation of the Bible1
People find harmony between science and their faith. Many believe that science and the Bible can complement each other, offering different perspectives on the same truths. For instance, some view the biblical creation story as a metaphor that aligns with scientific explanations of the universe’s origins.
Others, however, see conflicts between certain scientific findings and literal interpretations of the Bible.
The Bible is clear that we need to be fully convinced so that we are not in conflict with ourselves.
There is no contradiction. If people understand science and if they understand the Bible then they know that they agree. There are still unknowns. We do not know everything about everything.1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?