I struggle with...

[AV1611VET]

I have opened it in another tab so I can peruse it later. Thanks, my friend!

You're very welcome!

 

[Silmarien]

the only thing I would say here is that there is some text in scripture that shows no markers for parable so it is important to know what is and is not story for teaching a lesson which can only happen through reading for comprehension which seems to be a lost art.

If you're talking about things like explaining away the Resurrection as symbolic, I'd agree that that's a bizarre and modern misreading of 1st century Judaism. But a lack of clear markers in the Old Testament didn't prevent Paul from reinterpreting stories as allegorical (Galatians 4:24), so I really think common sense and modern science and archeology should suffice. Literalists and allegoricists coexisted 2000 years ago without screaming "heretic" at each other, so the modern "you're not a Christian if you don't accept a literal 7-day Creation story" is a little anachronistic.

 

[Cearbhall]

Then UU can take that Cross down off of its symbol, if that's what they think of our Scriptures.

It's not on the UU symbol. I chose an interfaith avatar. If you have a problem with that, you can PM me or a mod. Don't clog a thread where it's not relevant. This is the last time I will discuss the topic of my personal affiliation with you in this thread.

UU is a cult, anyway -- but now it's a lying cult.

Clearly you don't know what that word means.

 

[razzelflabben]

If you're talking about things like explaining away the Resurrection as symbolic, I'd agree that that's a bizarre and modern misreading of 1st century Judaism. But a lack of clear markers in the Old Testament didn't prevent Paul from reinterpreting stories as allegorical (Galatians 4:24), so I really think common sense and modern science and archeology should suffice. Literalists and allegoricists coexisted 2000 years ago without screaming "heretic" at each other, so the modern "you're not a Christian if you don't accept a literal 7-day Creation story" is a little anachronistic.

since this is no where close to what I was saying I will simply respond by asking you to consider the context (one of the common literary rules for comprehension I was referring to) in trying to apply the passage to the topic.

 

[ximmix]

Does the Epic of Gilgamesh stop being worth reading because we're now in the 21st century? I don't think the Bible needs to be a scientific and historical textbook to be relevant for future generations. We like figuring out the way the universe works, so I'm not sure why an omniscient God would give us all the answers instead of letting us learn things for ourselves. And considering that Christianity posits a God who largely taught through parables, I'm honestly baffled by the hostility towards the idea that God always works through stories.

(I personally don't buy dictation models of divine inspiration one way or the other. It's a bit incoherent when viewed in the context of the evolution of religion, not to mention the fact that people claiming to experience the Holy Spirit end up saying wildly different things.)

I'm not saying that it's not worth reading for the literary qualities. I mean that some say that we can't expect the Bible to be accurate about certain things because it was meant for an ancient people who didn't know better, but surely an all powerful god could write a miraculous text explaining everything, and that would be understood by all...

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm not saying that it's not worth reading for the literary qualities. I mean that some say that we can't expect the Bible to be accurate about certain things because it was meant for an ancient people who didn't know better, but surely an all powerful god could write a miraculous text explaining everything, and that would be understood by all...

It is clear from scripture that God's intent was to communicate to us about the eternity that comes through salvation not how the universe came into being. Again, the creation account is a polemic not a scientific treatise as such it communicates clearly what God intended to communicate just because man tries to make it say something different doesn't mean God failed.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm not saying that it's not worth reading for the literary qualities. I mean that some say that we can't expect the Bible to be accurate about certain things because it was meant for an ancient people who didn't know better, but surely an all powerful god could write a miraculous text explaining everything, and that would be understood by all...

Well, I have two problems with this. First, you're working under the assumption that everything in the Bible would have been meant for ancient people. Until relatively recently, the takeaway from Genesis 1 was that the universe had not existed forever and that God was sovereign. Nobody would have realized that the order of events was quite close to modern science before modern science even existed, so if that is a result of divine inspiration, it's aimed at us, not the Medieval church. (Though unfortunately, people have coopted it to attack science instead, which is super frustrating.)

I also think that text is an inherently flawed medium, so the idea that God would specifically choose to write a miracle book explaining everything is odd to me. (Which makes something like Islam fatally flawed, as far as I'm concerned.) Obviously it's impossible to preserve information without recording it in some way, so sacred texts are necessary in every religion, but I think too rigid a focus on the Bible conceals the fact that it's not the Bible itself that's the ultimate revelation in Christianity.

Of course, if you look at the Gospels, Jesus was explicitly using parables to prevent everyone from understanding him, which would indicate that God can be omnipotent and still not want to write a text that's comprehensible by all. Which is a little bit weird, but maybe an issue of free will?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Nobody would have realized that the order of events was quite close to modern science before modern science even existed, so if that is a result of divine inspiration, it's aimed at us, not the Medieval church.

The order of events was quite close to modern science? I'd like to know more about that. Even being liberal with what was meant by "day" and you still have fun things like birds coming before land animals.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, I have two problems with this. First, you're working under the assumption that everything in the Bible would have been meant for ancient people. Until relatively recently, the takeaway from Genesis 1 was that the universe had not existed forever and that God was sovereign.

again, this is tradition....when we read Gen. we see that the particles existed for an indefinite amount of time before God pulled them together with His word....In the beginning
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

 

[Silmarien]

The order of events was quite close to modern science? I'd like to know more about that. Even being liberal with what was meant by "day" and you still have fun things like birds coming before land animals.

Quite close, I said. There's a good run down here: Genesis And Science: More Aligned Than You Think? | HuffPost The stuff about water separating from water is interesting to me, given that the atmosphere is full of water and the planet's early days were thought to have been very... rainy, for lack of a better word. And then you have life starting in the water. Obviously there are some problems, but a cosmocentric creation myth in itself is interesting. And don't forget where the Big Bang Theory comes from!

I would like to point out that you don't need to be liberal with what was meant by day. The word in Hebrew can also be defined as an era of indeterminate length, so insistence on English literalism is a bit bizarre.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I would like to point out that you don't need to be liberal with what was meant by day. The word in Hebrew can also be defined as an era of indeterminate length, so insistence on English literalism is a bit bizarre.

Sorry, that's what I meant about being liberal with the word, "day." I'm allowing for alternate lengths besides what a surface reading would suggest.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sorry, that's what I meant about being liberal with the word, "day." I'm allowing for alternate lengths besides what a surface reading would suggest.

interestingly enough the book I previously spoke of had a discussion of day early on in the book and where as there can be alternate meanings it also becomes important to understand that on day 4 verse 14 the issue of varying time lengths on day is greatly diminished. Thus the text specifies from day 4 on the approximate length of time of a day. Previously there is no indication.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is the last time I will discuss the topic of my personal affiliation with you in this thread.

Well ... looky here:

All contributors agree that the Bible is riddled with historical errors but nonetheless can serve as an important repository of human truth.

SOURCE

It appears I was [somewhat] right: while they didn't say the Bible was circular,* they did denigrate It in other ways.

UU can take a hike.

* Our Scriptures being circular must be your own personal contribution to their list. I wonder how many Yo-Yos UUs would agree with you? I know scientists would, but not all UUs are scientists.

 

[Cearbhall]

Nobody would have realized that the order of events was quite close to modern science before modern science even existed, so if that is a result of divine inspiration, it's aimed at us, not the Medieval church. (Though unfortunately, people have coopted it to attack science instead, which is super frustrating.)

If I'm understanding you correctly, this was close to my understanding of Genesis when I was Christian. The writings were divinely inspired, but were transcribed in the language of the time. God did not grant the writers knowledge beyond their era. Even if he had, they wouldn't have had words to accurately describe much of the scientific phenomena.

 

[Silmarien]

If I'm understanding you correctly, this was close to my understanding of Genesis when I was Christian. The writings were divinely inspired, but were transcribed in the language of the time. God did not grant the writers knowledge beyond their era. Even if he had, they wouldn't have had words to accurately describe much of the scientific phenomena.

Mmm, tentatively, yes. I'm aware that a lot of it could just be Mesopotamian myths remixed, but that doesn't necessarily change anything. We'd need a clear definition of "divine inspiration," though, because I'm not convinced that the Prophets experienced God any differently than medieval mystics did. So I'm not sure if "inspiration" means anything more than a more enlightened way of viewing reality. I don't really think it means infallibility.

But if God was inspiring people in a more active sense, then yes, that would be my understanding too.

 

[driewerf]

testing...admittedly not everyone believes that testing is the answer but scripture tells us to test what we are taught and I believe that is important and have been testing it for some 50 years now and found it to be infallible.

Can you give us a way you tested it?

 

[juvenissun]

...trying to understand the creationist mentality. I've been struggling with this for years. Is anyone prepared to give an honest, clear explanation as to why they believe in creationism?

Because it is REASONABLE.

 

[juvenissun]

What is alien to me is how anyone can believe a woodenly literal interpretation Genesis.

Again, because it is REASONABLE.
(it implies that you do not understand the reasons)

 

[juvenissun]

And I asked you why you believe the Bible.

Now, it is the Bible, not the creationism.
the Bible answers ALL of your questions.
Do you have any unanswered question? the Bible has an answer.

 

[juvenissun]

Many believers interpret the Bible differently. What makes you so sure that your interpretation is correct anyway?

Good question.

I believe my interpretation is the right one BECAUSE it makes sense TO ME.

If a Bible verse make sense to YOU, then you can believe it is true. Right?