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.
You sooooo had me til the last paragraph.Atomagenesis said:To answer your second question please read this I'm sure it will help:
Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"
Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole and exclusive authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates tradition. This fact alone disproves sola scriptura.
Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.
Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.
Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.
Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.
John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.
Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.
1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.
1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.
Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.
Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.
1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.
2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our Gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?
2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).
2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).
1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.
2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.
2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.
James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")
2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.
2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.
2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.
1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious.
1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn't recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.
1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can't discern between God's word (the commandment "don't eat") and a prophet's erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment "don't eat"). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.
Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
That is why we need the Catholic church, guided by the Holy Spirit, to interpret it for us. I always like to think of it like well no other church has every pope since peter buried in their basement, including Peter and Paul!
www.scripturecatholic.com
A pick and choose method of interpretation like this cannot work. No parts of Genesis even hint that the author was talking metaphorically. Even the style isn't right.PaladinValer said:Dracil's nailed it on the head. If the Babylonian version of the Creation story, which if I might add, is pretty much the same story as the Hebrew one, is older, than the Hebrew one is based on it given the similarities and geological fact that an immense flood of Mesopotamia did indeed occur.
And when it does come down to dates, the "Epic of Gilgamesh" is quite a bit older than the Hebrew story of Noah by several centuries.
What happened? After the flood, survivors passed the story orally down through the generations. With the advent of writing, one culture wrote down their Flood myth. Through cultural contact, they came in touch with another people whose descendents also were survivors or had survivors of that Flood. They take the basic story and change the characters to suit their different religious beliefs. The story is written down by the Babylonians before the close of the 2nd millennium BCE and is picked up by the Hebrew people centuries later, who write of it during the 1st millennium BCE by "mutating" the story again. The number of "mutations" between the "Epic of Gilgamesh" and the Bible's account are very minute when you remember the centuries between.
Does this mean we can throw away the Bible? Nope. As I've said many times before: a myth is a story that teaches a religious or moral truth. Just because it isn't literally true doesn't make it insignificant or less meaningful.
The chronology of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 do not match. No literal reading can reconcile them.Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:Two creation stories. I must just be tired today, could you give the scriptures for them? Thanks
Do you have any experience with the literature of the ancient Middle East to be able to make your judgement about the style?Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:A pick and choose method of interpretation like this cannot work. No parts of Genesis even hint that the author was talking metaphorically. Even the style isn't right.
What reasons do you have for believing that there is only one author?Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:Ok, just read through it. Seems very contradictory to the recently unbiased analysis conducted. One person definately wrote it, whether it was Moses or not is another question
This is not picking and choosing; its putting the story in its historical context. And it is a context that cannot be avoided if you want to come to the correct interpretation.Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:A pick and choose method of interpretation like this cannot work. No parts of Genesis even hint that the author was talking metaphorically. Even the style isn't right.
I see no contradictionsherev said:Genesis 1:1-2:4a, Genesis 2:4b-25
that's right. where would the non-literalism end??Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:PaladinValer, would you consider it acceptable to have a Christian believe that the story of Jesus was basically a myth to help people understand how people are saved?
It wouldn'tbutxifxnot said:that's right. where would the non-literalism end??
my pointBizzlebin Imperatoris said:It wouldn't
A simple one: In Genesis 1, man is created after the animals. In Genesis 2, man is created before the animals.Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:I see no contradictions
no, gen 1 is an overview, gen 2 focuses on creation of man.fragmentsofdreams said:A simple one: In Genesis 1, man is created after the animals. In Genesis 2, man is created before the animals.
How does this reconcile the contradiction? If I gave an overview of US history and then focused on WWII, I wouldn't switch the order Pearl Harbor and the use of the atomic bomb in my overview.butxifxnot said:no, gen 1 is an overview, gen 2 focuses on creation of man.
The first part is a chronological overview. The second focuses specifically on man, and jumps around from point to point. After all, what does rain and mist have to do with creation? Yet it was about man, so it was put in as a point of interest. Do not assume any form of post hoc relationship.fragmentsofdreams said:How does this reconcile the contradiction? If I gave an overview of US history and then focused on WWII, I wouldn't switch the order Pearl Harbor and the use of the atomic bomb in my overview.
1. Fallacy of Appealing to ConsequencesBizzlebin Imperatoris said:PaladinValer, would you consider it acceptable to have a Christian believe that the story of Jesus was basically a myth to help people understand how people are saved?
Read above and weep. In addition, if you'd like to read up on logical fallacies, I suggest this place: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htmbutxifxnot said:that's right. where would the non-literalism end??
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?