Literal truth

[busterdog]

I'm sitting here, trying to bite down the smarmy comment, but I just can't. Please take this in the best possible way. The question is:

"Why would God lie to us about this?"

No problem.

I am not seeing a consistent hermeneutic from the get go. No one can make the case that Eden is identical to the New Jerusalem or whatever happens after death is gone. But, there are certain elements that would appear to be continue, and they have to do with the presence of the creator and the life He gives. The essential issue is death, which is absent where He is present and where He rules. Any number of references suggest the same.

All I was trying to suggest is that the expansive use of "the former things passing away" just seemed to violate too many rules for construction. Former could mean "first in time" or "first in rank", and does not mean "all of the former things" but certain "former things".

 

[busterdog]

But, a bronze-age shepherd is the lowest-common denominator (no offense to bronze-age shepherds).

Why is that necessarily so?

More people thru history have found the testimony that demons create disease rather than germs? Should I back away from germ theory?

The Bible doesn't speak to germ theory, however.

You believe that God intervened in your brain directly? Really? What about all those Holy Ghost filled fellow Christians that disagree with on various and assundry points? Is God telling us all somethign different?

That's what the Word is to me. Of course, it also requires "Spirit" to be read, as I noted below to Assyrian regarding the passages from Corinthians. I can only infer that the intervention happened, since at least some of the Word has been received.

I would suggest that you process reality which you extrapolate to the faithfullness of God. We all do. It cannot be otherwise. This is not to say God isn't faithful; it's is just that we all process reality through the filters of our brains.

If I were God, I would deal with that problem with a Bible like the one we have. Of course, Iam more filter than I am God.

I've stated my position above more fully, but let me address one point here -- owning a telescope.

Life is too short to replicate all sciences experiments. But if God should grant me 1000 years, I could understand relativity. I could understand germ-theory. I could understand the math-models for gravity. I could understand why scientists think the sun is made of hydrogen, generating heat thru fusion. I could improve the internal combustion engine.

The point isn't that we all need to replicate everything, but that we could.

If one were to take your position, as noted at the very end of the post, then, you would verify by the methods you suggest or with other trusted sources. My essential point is that the deception argument is difficult, since what creation says to many people varies greatly.

See ... you hold the Bible above creation. My position is that the Bible speaks to relationship; Creation itself speaks to physical reality. One cannot replace the other. One is not above the other. They are different and have different purposes.

A familiar cleavage. We recognize it, nod our mutual acknowledgment and pass on, trusting the Lord.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why is that necessarily so?

I am not suggesting that they were idiots.

Newton is said to have said that he got to where he was scientifically because "I have stood on the shoulders of giants."

Bronze-age shepherds had fewer giants preceding them.

The Bible doesn't speak to germ theory, however.

Arguably, it doesn't speak to cosmology either. The stories of Genesis do, however -- whatever else they do -- speak to relationship. That is, Man's relationship to God.

That's what the Word is to me.

I don't quite get what you are referring to.

Of course, it also requires "Spirit" to be read, as I noted below to Assyrian regarding the passages from Corinthians. I can only infer that the intervention happened, since at least some of the Word has been received.

Sure, God speaks to us. He speaks to us through creation. He speaks to us through our Church. He speaks to us through our friends. And, of course, he speaks to us thru scripture. (No implied order of importance.)

If I were God, I would deal with that problem with a Bible like the one we have. Of course, Iam more filter than I am God.

I don't know what I would do if I were God. I just know I ain't him. But, I very much agree with your last sentence.

If one were to take your position, as noted at the very end of the post, then, you would verify by the methods you suggest or with other trusted sources. My essential point is that the deception argument is difficult, since what creation says to many people varies greatly.

I agree with this to a degree. But your last phrase is where TEs disagree with you. The vast majority of biologists believe evolution -- as I believe our resident experts have pointed. (I'm more interested in the philosophy of knowing -- I'll leave the details to others.) I'd bet that the percentage of astronomers and physicists that don't believe that the evidence tells them that some stars are ~13 billion light-years away is so vanishingly small as to be zero.

We certainly don't know everything -- maybe not even much. But each generation, we acquire more giants.

The fact that we don't know everything shouldn't preclude us from believing that we can know some things beyond reasonable doubt.

God bless.