just wondering!

[Mallon]

So according to this- it was not until recently that the bible was fully inderstood? ... It doesn't make sense that God would deieve people until science was advanced enought to shed light on the real meaning. Sounds like a strawmen- in the words of the moderator.

You have it backwards. The need to interpret the Bible "literally" did not come about until AFTER the scientific "Enlightenment." Before then, biblical scholars (like Augustine, for example) were more than content to understand parts of the Bible as myth or metaphore. So yes, the fundamentalist view that the Bible must be literal in its entirety is a recent phenomenon, engrained into fundamentalist thought as though it's always been like that. There have been books written on the subject. I've seen rmwilliamsll reference a few.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

it was not until recently that the bible was fully inderstood?


i don't think we will ever fully understand Scripture.
If Scripture shares some of the attributes of God, then why would we expect to?

yes, i understand Scripture in some ways better than Calvin did, because of the struggles of the church since then to better define these issues (state and church relations for a good example)

i certainly understand the Hametic verses differently and better ie more accurately reflecting God's will than did Dabney. Not because of my efforts but because of historical progressive learning.

i also suspect that in 100 years, should Jesus tarry, they will understand things in the Scriptures better than our best theologians do today, and they will wonder as i do Dabney, how in the world did you believe this foolishness.


so? i'd expect God to entrust the church with a better and greater understanding as we learn and experience history.

 

[Melethiel]

So according to this- it was not until recently that the bible was fully inderstood? ... It doesn't make sense that God would deieve people until science was advanced enought to shed light on the real meaning.

Science has nothing to do with the real meaning. The Bible is not a science textbook. People in the early church had much different ways of interpreting Scripture than the way you're proposing. Have you ever read any of the writings of the Church Fathers?

 

[vossler]

I think I will graciously back out lest I say something I might regret.

You have it backwards. The need to interpret the Bible "literally" did not come about until AFTER the scientific "Enlightenment." Before then, biblical scholars (like Augustine, for example) were more than content to understand parts of the Bible as myth or metaphore. So yes, the fundamentalist view that the Bible must be literal in its entirety is a recent phenomenon, engrained into fundamentalist thought as though it's always been like that. There have been books written on the subject. I've seen rmwilliamsll reference a few.

Like a moth to a flame you couldn't resist even for one day.

 

[Jase]

So according to this- it was not until recently that the bible was fully inderstood? I mean- until it was discovered that there was no global flood- which was probably pretty recent- everyone who read that and believed it was wrong? It doesn't make sense that God would deieve people until science was advanced enought to shed light on the real meaning. Sounds like a strawmen- in the words of the moderator.

Do you know who disproved the 6,000 year old Earth and global flood hypothesis? It wasn't atheistic scientists bent on disproving the Bible. It was Christian creationists trying to prove a 6,000 year old Earth and global flood a couple hundred years ago. If creationists were the ones to disprove it, where does the problem lie - in science, or your interpretation?

 

[gluadys]

Not my interpretation- IT IS LITERAL or God would have said so. If the tower of Babel really has a different meaning- then most people would not be able to just pick up the bible read it and have a relationship with God on their own. If that story is really about something else- how will the average person know what to beleive and what not to?

Just what do YOU think the meaning of this story is?



Hint: if you think it is about the origin of different peoples and languages, you've missed the point.

 

[gluadys]

Where does it say that God doesn't really mean what he has inspired the authors to write?

Where does it say that only a literal reading is meaningful?

The bible says we are to have the faith of a child-

Indeed. And children love stories and get lots of meaning from stories. It takes an adult to suck the juice out of stories and demand dry fact instead.

Jesus was a story-teller. He taught the gospel through stories. By his own testimony he did nothing but what he observed his father doing. What does that tell us about God's teaching methods?

Obviously in your eyes- an average person should not read the bible. You didn't say that but it would be a waste of time becuase we don't have the intelligence to be able to know what God really means.

Does the average person lack the intelligence to understand the parable of the good shepherd? or of the sower?

Nothing more is required to understand other non-literal passages of scripture.

Just a willingness to approach scripture with the open-minded wonder of a child listening to his father's stories.

Us dumb folk just look stupid because we tend to fully trust God in every area- even when his words seems to contradict those of you who think you know exactly how life originated and know better than God who is the designer in the first place.

Actually, you are not trusting God. You are trusting a human tradition that asserts that only a literal interpretation of scripture is a valid interpretation of scripture.

I realize it is natural to trust those who have been your spiritual teachers since childhood.

But can a single one of them show you a valid reason to accept this claim?

 

[gluadys]

Yes- you are correct- Christ is the foundation. That is really the only thing we must agree on. However- Genesis 3:15 ( I think that is the specific verse) tells of the need for a saviour- says he will come from the seed of a women (which says will be virgin born), and that he will be bruised but will crush the one who bruises him. This is exactly what happened- so you have to agree that at least some of Genesis has to be taken literally. Why some and not all?

Interesting. You provide a symbolic reading of Genesis 3:15 and call the symbolic fulfilment of it "literal".

Where does scripture record that a snake bit Jesus in the heel and that Jesus crushed its head?

That would be literal fulfilment of Gen. 3:15 interpreted literally.


Any other interpretation of Gen. 3:15 and its application to Jesus' death and resurrection is allegorical not literal.

How do we know what to believe and what not to??

We believe all the bible since all scripture is inspired of God. We do not interpret it all literally. Above even you did not interpret Gen. 3:15 literally. How did you know that it did not refer to a literal snake that bit a literal heel and was crushed by a literal foot?

 

[Wadsworth]

I don't think any word of God should be used to stir up dissention between believers. This is more than likely the work of evil trying to spread itself..

I can say this. I consider myself a scientist, and I am not out to disprove the Bible in any way. Every day I learn something new about Gods creations. And every day I am astounded and awestruck at the beauty of it.
Being a scientist, I have been immersed in science and have experienced relationships with many intelligent individuals who also happen to be scientists. Many of them are God fearing, and very good people who would get no jollies out of disproving the Bible.

We each have our place in faith, and we are all members of the same body. I learn from your views, and hopefully you from mine.
If God hadn’t taken the time He did, and created the way He did, I wouldn’t be so taken aback by the complexity of it all, and we would have reached a limited growth of intelligence a long time ago.
Evolution is not some demon stricken term for believers to fear. It is a human understanding of God’s process of design. Things will always change and we are made so well, with so much thought and time and improvement, that we will change and adapt until our time is up.

Science is important to whom it should be important. I will play my role, and you will play yours. But we must hold on to our common grounds, the things that keep our body together.

 

[*~DJ~*]

I happen to believe in a literal Genesis, but that is not why I posted. I have read all of these posts by everyone and I wonder how people who have the love of Jesus can attack each other so openly. We all disagree on things from the bible, but must we bicker about it? I do not partake in any kind of arguments for one simple reason- perhaps there is someone right now reading this thread who is trying to decide if he/she wants to follow Jesus and is here to see how we react to each other discussing delicate issues. This is what they would see. We need to share Christs love more and leave the wrath to Him who deserves to use it.

 

[random_guy]

I happen to believe in a literal Genesis, but that is not why I posted. I have read all of these posts by everyone and I wonder how people who have the love of Jesus can attack each other so openly. We all disagree on things from the bible, but must we bicker about it? I do not partake in any kind of arguments for one simple reason- perhaps there is someone right now reading this thread who is trying to decide if he/she wants to follow Jesus and is here to see how we react to each other discussing delicate issues. This is what they would see. We need to share Christs love more and leave the wrath to Him who deserves to use it.

I don't think we would be arguing as much if places like AiG or ICR didn't exist. The problem is Creation Science makes it seem that accepting science is incompatible with accepting Christ. This may cause people to choose between using their brains or using the Bible. If Creationists accepted that their position was not scientific, didn't try to force Creation Science into schools, there wouldn't be need for debate. However, when people say that evolution is not observable (false), is unfalsifiable (false), or is anti-God (false), then we need to step in an fix this comments.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

there are ways of disagreeing in an agreable manner.

however, if things are important, and important to you personally, then enforced silence on the divisive issues appears to be one of the least effective ways to solve the problems.

although on one level i firmly agree with the sentiment, the church ought to be visibly united. my problem is that i haven't the foggiest idea how to lend support and further that noble goal. theoretically the "right" way would be to convince everyone else that reformed presbyterian is the proper way to believe. that route would certainly not involve silence (*grin*)

 

[*~DJ~*]

Just to clarify- my problem is not the debate- it's the WAY it is debated. This thread is one big argument. People have opinions. They can be stated in a decent way. I will not eject myself into an argument. If it will be debated w/out the arguing, then I will partake.

 

[vossler]

I don't think we would be arguing as much if places like AiG or ICR didn't exist.

I guess the same could be said if TalkOrigins didn't exist.

 

[MezzaMorta]

evolution is a load of crap.

Lol, no matter how many times I hear this. It still makes me laugh. But at the same time it makes me stop and think that it is scary someone can still deny evolution in the 21st century.

I don’t know if it was the education system that failed you or what, but what ever it was America needs to fix it.

 

[Jase]

Just to clarify- my problem is not the debate- it's the WAY it is debated. This thread is one big argument. People have opinions. They can be stated in a decent way. I will not eject myself into an argument. If it will be debated w/out the arguing, then I will partake.

I'm not sure what you mean by arguing. Maybe it's the anonymity and difficulty with telling emotion on the internet, but you can't really have a debate without pointing out flaws in anothers argument. While you may not want lurkers to see disagreement among believers, many of us don't want lurkers to see people claiming such falsehoods as a 6,000 year old Earth, a global flood, or a geocentric solar system. All of these things make religion look ridiculous, as Augustine pointed out. I seriously doubt most lurkers who come here don't already know that there is massive disagreement among Christians. One need only look at the clash between Catholics and Protestants, or the 35,000 different Christian sects to see the disagreement.

 

[MezzaMorta]

You may say evolution is biblical- but the bible is to be taken literally.

What are you doing on the internet then? There are homosexuals and Liberals to be stoned!

 

[Jase]

I guess the same could be said if TalkOrigins didn't exist.

Not really since the Theory of evolution was proposed long before Talk origins was ever made.

 

[MezzaMorta]

Science and religion are two completely different fields.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -Albert Einstein

 

[MezzaMorta]

Why are so many languages similar?

Because dominate societies though out history have invaded and conquered large portions of territory and either forced their language upon the conquered populations or had their language incorporated into the native languages.

Look at English. Half the world speaks English because the British Empire went around and conquered them all and today the center of the economic, social and cultural world is an English dominated society.