- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,439
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Who here has said anything about worshipping "an 'interpretation' of Genesis"?
Upvote
0
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.
On a side note, is it idolatry to worship anything other than the living God? In addition, what is deemed worship of an "interpretation" of Genesis?
Leviticus 11:13-19 "These you shall regard as detestable among the birds. They shall not be eaten; they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the buzzard, the kite of any kind; every raven of any kind; the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind; the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the water hen, the desert owl,the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat."
This is from the New Revised Standard Version.
Just what the word means, a people who treated "complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are."
Who here has said anything about worshipping "an 'interpretation' of Genesis"?
Oh, it's credible all right--after all, it is the inspired word of God. The question is, must it be taken literally? The answer to that question requires a great deal of wisdom, and a great deal of scholarly effort as well. No single person can decide merely by reading it.And by whose wisdom is one relying on in deciding if what is written in Genesis is "credible" or not?
This verse comes to mind:
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." ~Isaiah 55:9
Are you saying that God made a mistake here, and "Oops"? It appears to me that He was speaking of winged creatures. A bat is a winged creature.
Which people are you referring to? (in your 2nd paragraph.)
I'm reminded of a verse that says that God is not the Author of confusion. It is man that complicates and thus generates confusion, isn't it?
Sorry.Read the post i was responding to.
Thanks.
Well said Speedwell. I'm still waiting for anyone who claims that a literial reading of the Genesis creation stories is required for salvation to provide any Biblical requirement of that.Oh, it's credible all right--after all, it is the inspired word of God. The question is, must it be taken literally? The answer to that question requires a great deal of wisdom, and a great deal of scholarly effort as well. No single person can decide merely by reading it.
I believe I already answered that. It was written for a simplistic people who did not understand a difference between mammals and birds. If a creature had wings to them it was a bird.
The people of that time.
But we are looking at Scripture.
Well yes, we are looking at scripture, and right there in scripture it is written that God is not the Author of confusion, and man is nothing but confusion and complications, that as a matter of fact, rob man of peace of mind, etc.
A bat IS a winged creature, by the way.
Isn't it?
Sola Fides rules it out. We are saved by our faith in Christ--the Gospels are pretty clear about this.
Struggling to accept the crackpot interpretation of Genesis promoted by YEC Bible cults is a work. We are not saved by works.
All it does is destroy faith in the interpretation of Genesis promoted by YECs, not in Genesis itself.
It seems like a lot of trouble for Satan to go to merely to discredit some upstart Protestant Bible cult.
If the posters on this board are any indication, you are highly unusual in that respect. For my sins, I had to live in the Bible Belt for several years, an experience which only reinforced my impression that "gentle speech" is almost entirely absent from the YEC lexicon.I feel the same way about those that call believers who believe in evolution members of some satanic conspiracy.
Of course people have always "believed" in Genesis as the inspired word of God, and most of them have believed that the creation accounts were a reasonable description of how creation went down, although figurative interpretations of the texts have always been entertained as well.Speedwell the belief in Genesis is not some upstart bible cult. You do know that the belief in evolution is relatively new,while the belief,in the Genesis account goes back to the time of the forming of the Law.
As,far as upstartness is concerned creation by evolution is the upstart belief.
I've heard this argument before. The problem with it is it used to cast doubt upon the scriptures. Athiests use it all the time to show how we can't believe or trust the bible. I mean if the bible got this wrong how do we not know that it got all kinds of things wrong and therefore cannot be believed or trusted.So a bat is a bird?
Yes, I believe I already said that.
It is also used by Christians to cast doubt on the proposition that it was always the intent of divine authorship to convey accurate scientific information--or (even more dubious) that any scientific facts which can be deduced from the text, however far-fetched the deduction, must be correct as a sign that the text was divinely inspired.I've heard this argument before. The problem with it is it used to cast doubt upon the scriptures. Athiests use it all the time to show how we can't believe or trust the bible. I mean if the bible got this wrong how do we not know that it got all kinds of things wrong and therefore cannot be believed or trusted.
No it's not a novelty. The,novelty is actually the belief that the biblical stories are allegory and not true. Remember Jesus' statements that "as in the days of Noah?" The apostles referenced the OT writings and characters as truth and not mere allgories of truth. Certainly the writers of the OT NEVER indicated anywhere that what they were writing were,stories to share a truth and not facts of what really occurred. That is a more modern concept not an ancient one and not supported by scripture itself.Of course people have always "believed" in Genesis as the inspired word of God, and most of them have believed that the creation accounts were a reasonable description of how creation went down, although figurative interpretations of the texts have always been entertained as well.
That it is essential to believe that the creation stories of Genesis are 100% accurate literal history, that they are the scientifically inerrant and perspicuous product of plenary verbal inspiration, is a theological novelty.
I've heard this argument before. The problem with it is it used to cast doubt upon the scriptures. Athiests use it all the time to show how we can't believe or trust the bible. I mean if the bible got this wrong how do we not know that it got all kinds of things wrong and therefore cannot be believed or trusted.
Here's the truth on this scripture. The Hebrew word owph is meant to,describe this that cover or to fly. It was not meant to,specifically describe creatures into,modern scientific categories. It was a broad definition that would encompass birds, bats even insects.
So no the bible is not "wrong" or in error or being accomodating to ignorant people. It is mentioning the flying creatures or creatures with covering that the Israilites were not to eat.
I'm afraid it is. You will search in vain for the doctrine of Plenary Verbal Inspiration or the doctrine of Perspicuity as conceived by YECs in Christian writing prior to a couple of hundred years ago. My opinion of it is that it is a reaction to the discoveries of science about our origins heavily influenced by the Darbyite heresy.No it's not a novelty.
Allegories aren't true? In any case, you have perpetrated a false dichotomy. There are many more possibilities than "allegory" and "true."the,novelty is actually the belief that the biblical stories are allegory and not true.
Yes, and I also observe that Jesus was careful to indicate that he was referring to the texts themselves, not necessarily the events behind them, "Have you not read...?" so we have no information at all about whether he thought them 100% accurate literal history.Remember Jesus' statements that "as in the days of Noah?"
That facts should be allowed to get in the way of a good story is the modern notion, as any scholar of ancient literature can tell you.Certainly the writers of the OT NEVER indicated anywhere that what they were writing were,stories to share a truth and not facts of what really occurred. That is a more modern concept not an ancient one and not supported by scripture itself.
So a bat is a bird? And I know the answer to that, but a simplistic people of the Bronze Age had a different answer then we do today.
Yes, I believe I already said that.
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?