Romans 14

[YahwehLove]

Sure.


Not contemporary.

You dont think Noah and his family were capable of knowing there was a flood?

 

[versastyle]

You dont think Noah and his family were capable of knowing there was a flood?

Moses did not witness it. What he wrote about HIS life would be contemporary. The flood is not. Do you know what contemporary is?

 

[YahwehLove]

Ah, here is another one that I recently gave my thoughts on elsewhere, but with this one I will just cut and paste it in just below. But first, let me say that I DO take the Scripture as written, based on what I think the author (and God inspiring him, or them) really meant. You still are basing your viewpoint on the assumption that the text speaks literally and I am finding a different way to read it based on some analysis. No, that study and review tell me that this IS how it is meant to be read.

So let me ask. And please be honest with yourself.
If science made no call on the age of the earth or anything else youre saying that you could honestly read Genesis 1 and understand its use of the Hebrew ''yom'' and concude that it is allegory?
Science has played NO part in your decision?

But the point you are raising is a bit different, since it asks why I would use "logic" to read Genesis differently than you do, but not the other Scriptures describing miracles. This is based on a few misconceptions of where I am coming from. My reading of Genesis has nothing at all to do with a rejection of the miraculous in favor of logic. I fully accept the miraculous in both accounts. I do not discount anything supernatural in the Creation process whatsoever, I just think it was meant to be read figuratively, but still describing miraculous events.

Thats fine.
I have a little harder time discussing this with people with your POV.
You accept the langauge but reject the details as written.
Bear with me some and please dont take offense at what I ask from time to time.
Im trying to understand your reasoning and method beyond the extent that you have explained. Meaning, from what Ive heard so far, I still dont understand how you conclude what you do. But its the same whenever i talk to somone who accepts the words and even that Genesis is a history book, then rejects the facts that nothing in Genesis 1 or 2 indicates a vision or dream or any reason to understand it as allegory.

On the miracle issue, this is not a problem of evidence at all, it is only an issue of the supernatural. As Christians, we have no problem with God overruling, even if just temporarily, the natural order of things He, Himself, created in order to perform a miracle. This is not contrary to science one little bit. Science does not preclude the supernatural, it just states how things happen in their natural state or process. If something supernatural happens, it is outside of its arena and science can say nothing about it one way or the other.

hmm
This one is very shakey in my opinion.
If you have no problem with God overruling, then why the need to make Genesis 1 allegory?
It seems to me its because science says so, correct?
That being the case, what if science says, oh, I dont know, that the flood never happened, or the Red Sea couldnt be parted, or men cant walk on water?

If God can ''overrule'' then why limit Him to just the small things science hasnt commented on?

Evidence, or data, is another matter. Evidence will not exist for something that did not happen, and if something happens, and it leaves evidence then that evidence tells us about the event. I believe that God would not allow evidence to exist which is contrary to the reality of His creation, past and present. So, if the evidence exists that things happened a certain way, then it must have happened that way. God would not lie in His Creation, no more than He would lie in His Word.

Ok.
And interpretation of evidence has always been 100% accurate, correct?

Let me ask this, and again, be completely honest with yourself and me please.

If scientists were tomorrow to provide evidence that the earth was young and common decent didnt actaully happen, what would your stance be?
would you stay with TE and old earth anyway?

 

[YahwehLove]

Moses did not witness it. What he wrote about HIS life would be contemporary. The flood is not. Do you know what contemporary is?

Why yes, I do

My point is are you saying that Noahs account was incorrect?
Did he lie?
Was he too old and stupid to know if the world had flooded or just a valley?

and why on earth bring all those animals to the Ark if all they had to do was take a hike out of that valley?
Seems far more logical to me than to run a boat around for all that time feeding all those animals.
Why do that anyway, with all the animals on the earth, surely the few in the valley dying wasnt going to make that big of a deal.

 

[versastyle]

My point is are you saying that Noahs account was incorrect?

Considering Noah didn't give us his account, I don't know.

 

[YahwehLove]

Considering Noah didn't give us his account, I don't know.

drat
this wasnt what I expected

well, hmm, I guess the next question is, if Moses' account of the flood is ''possibly'' incorrect about the extent of the flood, then can we assume that his account of the Ark and all the animals coming to it are also ''possibly'' incorrect?
I mean, why draw any lines?

 

[versastyle]

well, hmm, I guess the next question is, if Moses' account of the flood is ''possibly'' incorrect about the extent of the flood, then can we assume that his account of the Ark and all the animals coming to it are also ''possibly'' incorrect?
I mean, why draw any lines?

Could be. I don't hold a hard stance on it. Scientifically though, the flood isn't very demonstratable.

 

[Vance]

So let me ask. And please be honest with yourself.
If science made no call on the age of the earth or anything else youre saying that you could honestly read Genesis 1 and understand its use of the Hebrew ''yom'' and concude that it is allegory?
Science has played NO part in your decision?

No, as I stated, I came to the conclusion that the text did not mean God literally created in six, 24-hour says before I had read any of the scientific aspects. And why would this surprise you? People have been reading it the way I do from the earliest days of the Church, and before, with the Jews. And they were obviously not influenced by science.

At the same time, I see nothing wrong with allowing the evidence of God's Creation inform how one reads God's Scripture. The whole geocentrism fiasco proved that!

Thats fine.
I have a little harder time discussing this with people with your POV.
You accept the langauge but reject the details as written.
Bear with me some and please dont take offense at what I ask from time to time.

No problem, I am pretty patient. But I do not reject any details as they are written. That begs the question of what is written. I think it is written figuratively and symbolically, and so I reject nothing.

Im trying to understand your reasoning and method beyond the extent that you have explained. Meaning, from what Ive heard so far, I still dont understand how you conclude what you do. But its the same whenever i talk to somone who accepts the words and even that Genesis is a history book, then rejects the facts that nothing in Genesis 1 or 2 indicates a vision or dream or any reason to understand it as allegory.

No, I don't take Genesis 1 and 2 as a science text or a literal history text. It is a presentation of the great truths about Creation presented in a style that was common and useful at the time that it was written. As I have said elsewhere:

God told us all that we needed to know about His Creative process in Scripture and did it amazingly well. Very clever, if you ask me, to use a medium of presentation of truth that would convey the essential messages to every generation:

God created everything. God is in charge of everything. God created Man in His image (not His physical image of course, since He has none) and gave us a special ability to interact with Him not given to any other part of His creation. God gave Man the free will to choose his or her fate, and we have chosen sinful selfishness which has created a state of spiritual death from which we are in need of redemption. Oh, and God wants us to rest one day out of seven. And lots of other great truths packed into just a few short chapters.

God did not give us the details of the mechanics and processes He used for Creation because those have nothing to do with the truths set out above. He has let us discover how rainbows show up, how far the moon is from the earth, and a bazillion other amazing facts about our earth, and universe, past and present. He could not possibly have told us all of it, and why should He?

hmm
This one is very shakey in my opinion.
If you have no problem with God overruling, then why the need to make Genesis 1 allegory?

Not necessarily allegory, but not literal. And the reason I read it that way is that this seems to be the way it was written. It doesn't sound the least bit like literal history to me. I read this text, then the stories of the Patriarchs, then the Chronicles, then Psalms, then Song of Solomon, then Acts, etc. They are all written with different styles and with different purposes. I don't see why we should start with the presumption of literal history. Acts is a book that was written as literal history, and that doesn't read a BIT like Genesis 1 and 2.

It seems to me its because science says so, correct?

Not at all. Because it is the style the text is written in.

That being the case, what if science says, oh, I dont know, that the flood never happened, or the Red Sea couldnt be parted, or men cant walk on water?

Well, first, again, it is not based solely, or even primarily, on scientific conclusions. It is the text itself. Second, I don't think a global flood did happen (another thread completely) partly for literary style reasons again, including the earlier flood stories. But also in part because here the scientific evidence on this one is just overwhelming. And, since there is no need for it to be literal history in order to be a true and valid message from God, no problem.

As for the red sea and men walking on water, you seem to have answered this before reading the rest of my discussion on this point. Science can speak to miracles, it is outside their realm of inquiry. This just requires a belief in the supernatural, which I have in spades!!! There is no evidence whatsoever that these miracles did not happen. There is TONS of evidence that a global flood did not happen.

If God can ''overrule'' then why limit Him to just the small things science hasnt commented on?

small things? Like raising from the dead and, as you say, walking on water? No, these are miracles, and there is no evidence that they did not happen, and never could be.

Ok.
And interpretation of evidence has always been 100% accurate, correct?

Of course not. It is all a matter of degree of persuasiveness. The evidence against a young earth is not 100%, just 99%.

Let me ask this, and again, be completely honest with yourself and me please.

If scientists were tomorrow to provide evidence that the earth was young and common decent didnt actaully happen, what would your stance be?
would you stay with TE and old earth anyway?

Well, of course not. That would be silly. But it would have to be more than just evidence, but a body of evidence that is more convincing than the evidence for an old earth and that God used evolution as part of His creative process. So far, the evidence is completely one-sided in my view.

I would still think that the text of Genesis 1 and 2 was not meant to be read as a literal six 24-hour days, though. It just doesn't read that way to me. I am with St. Augustine, Origen, and many great Christian minds throughout history on this one.

 

[versastyle]

The study pf evolutionary geology performed by qualified geologists is pretty conform. I don't honestly see how the methods of geology could be changed or disproven. I will admit though they could be wrong, but find it extremely unlikely.

In the case of evolutionary biology, though, I find a lot of it to be quite shady, such as the common descent/change in genetic information bits.

 

[YahwehLove]

Second, I don't think a global flood did happen (another thread completely) partly for literary style reasons again, including the earlier flood stories. But also in part because here the scientific evidence on this one is just overwhelming. And, since there is no need for it to be literal history in order to be a true and valid message from God, no problem.

I have a little problem with this tho.
God made a covenant to never destroy and kill with a flood again.
Lets look at that promise.

And I will establish My covenant with you. Neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood. Neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
(Gen 9:11)

If the flood were only local, then God has lied in this covenant as there are local floods on this planet that kill and destroy every week of the year.

 

[versastyle]

If the flood were only local, then God has lied in this covenant as there are local floods on this planet that kill and destroy every week of the year.

The very reason I do not trust non-contemporaries as much as contemporaries.

 

[YahwehLove]

The very reason I do not trust non-contemporaries as much as contemporaries.

you confound me sir

Youd rather take the word of men today who may or may not be interpreting evidence correctly, and at the expense of denying any part of the scripture that defies what these men today say?
So I assume that the Covenant to Noah was ''possibly'' wrong as well now

What parts of the bible do you consider true? inspired? reliable?

 

[versastyle]

you confound me sir
Youd rather take the word of men today who may or may not be interpreting evidence correctly, and at the expense of denying any part of the scripture that defies what these men today say?

To me, no matter what I'm believing I am accepting the evidences of men, including the bible.

So I assume that the Covenant to Noah was ''possibly'' wrong as well now
What parts of the bible do you consider true? inspired? reliable?

All inspired? Yes. What all is historically true? I have no idea, but I find myself believing the contemporaries foremost. Reliable? All of it.

 

[YahwehLove]

To me, no matter what I'm believing I am accepting the evidences of men, including the bible.

but sometimes they are in conflict. Who wins?

All inspired? Yes. What all is historically true? I have no idea, but I find myself believing the contemporaries foremost. Reliable? All of it.

How can it all be reliable if you cannot trust Gods covenant that the world would not be destroyed with a flood agian?
You cannot rely on its words at that point.

 

[versastyle]

but sometimes they are in conflict. Who wins?

The one I find who is the most reasonable, if I find the answer at all.

How can it all be reliable if you cannot trust Gods covenant that the world would not be destroyed with a flood agian?

I think its reliable in its purpose, not in its historical respect.

 

[Vance]

When has a local flood ever killed every bit of life in the entire local area?

The "whole earth" is kol erets. This phrase is used hundreds of times in the Scripture. Only a fraction of these times does it actually mean the entire planet. It much more often means a local area.

Or maybe the covenant is that God will not destroy all of mankind via a natural disaster, and the story is just an extrapolation of a well-known flood story, taken and used by God to convey this TRUE covenant as well as convey a number of very important directives and morals.

Either way, God's convenant is true and holy and the directives are direct and important messages from God and are EQUALLY valid whether based on actual history or not. No problem.

So, given these possible interpretations, and the fact that the evidence against a global flood is almost conclusive, I think it behooves any Christian to consider which interpretation is most likely correct, and not just assume and insist that their own interpretation must be the correct one.

 

[YahwehLove]

When has a local flood ever killed every bit of life in the entire local area?

The "whole earth" is kol erets. This phrase is used hundreds of times in the Scripture. Only a fraction of these times does it actually mean the entire planet. It much more often means a local area.

Or maybe the covenant is that God will not destroy all of mankind via a natural disaster, and the story is just an extrapolation of a well-known flood story, taken and used by God to convey this TRUE covenant as well as convey a number of very important directives and morals.

Either way, God's convenant is true and holy and the directives are direct and important messages from God and are EQUALLY valid whether based on actual history or not. No problem.

So, given these possible interpretations, and the fact that the evidence against a global flood is almost conclusive, I think it behooves any Christian to consider which interpretation is most likely correct, and not just assume and insist that their own interpretation must be the correct one.

Im utterly speechless.
If I typed what Im thinking I dont think youd like it much at all.

what you see as ''no problem'' is leaving me wondering why some even bother at all.
We've surgically removed every shred of meaning to Gods covenant with Noah here. Well, I havent.

I will continue to insist on a literal 6 day creation and a global flood.
There is no other way to understand the text without doing just what you did in this post. Acrobatics.

no offense intended. this is just my opinion of your post

 

[Vance]

How have I removed any of God's covenant? I believe this Scripture gives us the same covenant that you think it gives, that God will never destroy all of Mankind with a natural disaster. So, what part of the covenant to you believe that I do not?

Are you saying you can only believe in a message from God if it is told by way of literal history? Now, I find that a bit breathtaking, telling God exactly how he MUST convey His Holy messages to you. I wouldn't have the nerve to tell God that if it is not literal history, don't bother.

Personally, I am willing to accept God's Holy and inerrant message, and take it to my heart and abide by it fully, whether it is told in a non-historical story, a parable, a poem, a historical chronicle, a saga, a letter, a proverb, a vision or revelation, or any other way He chooses to pass His great and holy wisdom on to me. I am not as picky as you.

 

[YahwehLove]

How have I removed any of God's covenant? I believe this Scripture gives us the same covenant that you think it gives, that God will never destroy all of Mankind with a natural disaster. So, what part of the covenant to you believe that I do not?

Lets use a literal translation for that covenant passage.

And I have established My covenant with you, and all flesh shall not be cut off again by the waters of a flood; nor shall there ever again be a flood to destroy the earth.
(Gen 9:11)

All flesh. Again
Did "all flesh" live in that valley?
If a single land animal remained, then this covenant is void of meaning by its WORDING, not by your interpretation.
Personally I prefer to take the text as written.

Are you saying you can only believe in a message from God if it is told by way of literal history? Now, I find that a bit breathtaking, telling God exactly how he MUST convey His Holy messages to you. I wouldn't have the nerve to tell God that if it is not literal history, don't bother.

Then why do you believe any of it is literal.
Can you PROVE that Jesus isnt just a fable?
And Genesis sets itself up as a history book. Not as vision or dream.

Personally, I am willing to accept God's Holy and inerrant message, and take it to my heart and abide by it fully, whether it is told in a non-historical story, a parable, a poem, a historical chronicle, a saga, a letter, a proverb, a vision or revelation, or any other way He chooses to pass His great and holy wisdom on to me. I am not as picky as you.

I definetly agree youre not as picky as I am


and hey. thanks for playin along here
Sorry if anything is coming off wrong.
I do feel strongly about taking out of the text and trying to make it true as written, but I dont want you to feel offended by my pov

 

[herev]

In my opinion.

I thought yours was not opinion, but fact