suppose Darwin deeply wrong

[MrsFoundit]

Ok, so taking your literal approach, God has lungs and when he breathes, written copies of scripture come out?

You could just explain your position.

What do you believe the Bible is?

 

[JackRT]

The important thing to me is that I fully believe the first two chapters of Genesis to be the true way that God created the universe out of nothing in six 24 hour days. It is very straightforward to me.

It's too bad that some Christians don't accept Rabbi Moses Maimonides' advice that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not to be taken as literal history --- they are folklore and borrowed myth to fill in the gap in the period before the Israelites' emergence as a self-aware cultural entity.

 

[MrsFoundit]

It's too bad that some Christians don't accept Rabbi Moses Maimonides' advice

Rabbi Moses Maimonides' - who is not God.

 

[coffee4u]

Ok, so taking your literal approach, God has lungs and when he breathes, written copies of scripture come out?

Never said that.

We assume because you have Christian on your profile that you believe the Bible is God's word.

If you don't, then what is there left to talk about?

 

[JackRT]

Rabbi Moses Maimonides' - who is not God.

Neither are you or I.

 

[Tom 1]

Never said that.

We assume because you have Christian on your profile that you believe the Bible is God's word.

If you don't, then what is there left to talk about?

The puzzling thing to me, apart from the sheer arrogance of such a position, is that somehow people of your mindset are unable to see they are interpreting the bible as they read it. As with the verses you quoted; when you read them, you are interpreting them to fit in with what you already think.

 

[Tom 1]

You could just explain your position.

What do you believe the Bible is?

Do you have a better question? What is it? It’s a book, written by people to explain their experience of god, among other things. The text itself tells you that.

 

[coffee4u]

Do you have a better question? What is it? It’s a book, written by people to explain their experience of god, among other things. The text itself tells you that.

Yes, it shows their experiences, their sins and their triumphs. But nothing went into the scriptures that God did not want in there. It isn't just someone's thoughts or letters they are all God-breathed or God-inspired.

The puzzling thing to me, apart from the sheer arrogance of such a position, is that somehow people of your mindset are unable to see they are interpreting the bible as they read it. As with the verses you quoted; when you read them, you are interpreting them to fit in with what you already think.

2 Timothy 3:16 NIV
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

The King James is slightly different.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The Hebrew says breathed.
πᾶσα Every
γραφὴ Scripture [is]
θεόπνευστος God-breathed


That is not my opinion or interpretation, that is what the verse says.

 

[com7fy8]

The truth recorded by the God of the Bible remains true whether you or I believe it or not.

What God knows He means is true. How we interpret depends on how well the Holy Spirit has given us understanding.

It does say He made the universe and all in it, in six days. But it does not literally say how long those days were. If we claim how long they were, we are interpreting.

And I note how the creation was done before the fall of Adam and Eve, before sin entered the world. And our Apostle Paul says the creation was subjected to vanity, but later this whole creation will be changed into "the glorious liberty of the children of God." I offer this, based on Romans 8:20-21.

Possibly, I get through this scripture, the creation before the fall was not in a corruptible state. So, what could happen during twenty-four hours, then, could have been very different than after the fall of Adam and Eve.

We are the ones who can take a long time to do things. But God, being light, might be able to do things even faster than the speed of physical light. Twenty-four hours, then, for Him, could have been taking His time.

 

[Tom 1]

Yes, it shows their experiences, their sins and their triumphs. But nothing went into the scriptures that God did not want in there. It isn't just someone's thoughts or letters they are all God-breathed or God-inspired.



2 Timothy 3:16 NIV
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

The King James is slightly different.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The Hebrew says breathed.
πᾶσα Every
γραφὴ Scripture [is]
θεόπνευστος God-breathed


That is not my opinion or interpretation, that is what the verse says.

Yes it does. So how do you interpret it? That God essentially ‘wrote’ the bible, or that nothing in it is an expression of the individual writers? Or something else? How do you interpret the idea of inspiration?

 

[MrsFoundit]

As with the verses you quoted; when you read them, you are interpreting them to fit in with what you already think.

Really? How would you know this? Are you immune to interpretation faults yourself?

 

[Tom 1]

Really? How would you know this? Are you immune to interpretation faults yourself?

No, to state the obvious, of course not. That's the point - everyone interprets the bible. What can provide a more objective framework however is scholarship into relevant aspects of the writer's context, styles of writing and so on. This leads to a more consistent means of understanding the text.

 

[MrsFoundit]

The text itself tells you that.

Do not tell me what the text of the Bible tells me. I do not need you read it for me.

It is 66 Books, not 1.

 

[Tom 1]

Do not tell me what the text of the Bible tells me. I do not need you read it for me.

It is 66 Books, not 1.

You seem to have misread my post. The bible tells YOU, i.e. there is a broad range of resources you can use to understand what the text is telling you.

 

[MrsFoundit]

This leads to a more consistent means of understanding what is meant.

Well I believe it can only be appropriately understood by the influence of God, in the form of the Holy Spirit. It does not depend on appeals to sophisticated scholarship.

 

[Tom 1]

Well I believe it can only be appropriately understood by the influence of God, in the form of the Holy Spirit. It does not depend on appeals to sophisticated scholarship.

Sure, I don't think you have to approach the bible through academic writing to get something from it. I do think it's important however to have a solid understanding of anything the particular church or group you are part of teaches, and that takes a bit of work. Churches and their members do tend, in my experience, to simply take for granted whatever ideas are central to that denomination, and those can sometimes be based on dubious foundations. I don't think it is necessary to understand every part of the bible from every possible angle to gain something useful by reading it. Whether or not a person takes the genesis narrative 'literally' (although what that actually means doesn't really fit the meaning of that word) has no effect on whether or not that person can absorb what is important in the text. To state the obvious again, stories are a very effective way of conveying ideas. I do think however that learning about the original context and intent of the writers can lead to a much deeper and richer understanding.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Sure, I don't think you have to approach the bible through academic writing to get something from it. I do think it's important however to have a solid understanding of anything the particular church or group you are part of teaches, and that takes a bit of work.

This combined with your previous posts, reads as if you deem those Christians from traditions that adopt a literal interpretation to be lazy.

Churches and their members do tend, in my experience, to simply take for granted whatever ideas are central to that denomination, and those can sometimes be based on dubious foundations.

An individual "Christian" can also have a perspective based on dubious foundations, often the case when not putting enough effort into understanding whatever ideas are central to their denomination.

Whether or not a person takes the genesis narrative 'literally' (although what that actually means doesn't really fit the meaning of that word) has no effect on whether or not that person can absorb what is important in the text.

I believe the Holy Spirit is in charge of discerning this, not you. I am also convinced it is judged on an individual, not general basis.

To state the obvious again, stories are a very effective way of conveying ideas. I do think however that learning about the original context and intent of the writers can lead to a much deeper and richer understanding.

This reads as if you believe your personal interpretation to be superior, and you assume that a literal belief prevents awareness context and depth of understanding.

 

[Tom 1]

I believe the Holy Spirit is in charge of discerning this

Do you mean discerning what should be taken literally, and what is meant by a literal interpretation? I'm not sure what you mean.

This combined with your previous posts, reads as if you deem those Christians from traditions that adopt a literal interpretation to be lazy.

You can read it like that if you want. Not everyone wants to study the bible, I don't think laziness is really the issue.

This reads as if you believe your personal interpretation to be superior, and you assume that a literal belief prevents awareness context and depth of understanding.

I think certain academic approaches are better than others. I interpret some parts of the bible in the light of those approaches, I think that is a better way of understanding a lot of the text, not all of it. Literal interpretations or belief - although again I've yet to meet anyone whose literal interpretation actually is a 'literal' interpretation in any definable sense - aren't the best way to get the most from the text, I think.

Btw you seem to think this is 'my' approach to reading the bible, it isn't, a lot of work has been put into attempts to rebuild the original context of the bible by various scholars, in order to be able to understand it according to that context.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

What God knows He means is true. How we interpret depends on how well the Holy Spirit has given us understanding.

It does say He made the universe and all in it, in six days. But it does not literally say how long those days were. If we claim how long they were, we are interpreting.

And I note how the creation was done before the fall of Adam and Eve, before sin entered the world. And our Apostle Paul says the creation was subjected to vanity, but later this whole creation will be changed into "the glorious liberty of the children of God." I offer this, based on Romans 8:20-21.

Possibly, I get through this scripture, the creation before the fall was not in a corruptible state. So, what could happen during twenty-four hours, then, could have been very different than after the fall of Adam and Eve.

We are the ones who can take a long time to do things. But God, being light, might be able to do things even faster than the speed of physical light. Twenty-four hours, then, for Him, could have been taking His time.

What you are saying is according to our natural reasoning, but God is above all that. The fact is that creation was an absolute miracle and therefore has no science to support it. It is understandable that creating a whole universe and our world in six 24 hour days is difficult for our minds to grasp, but then our minds are suited to this world and its laws of physics. But God is not limited to the laws of physics. He created those laws to support the universe, but He is above them and works according to His own ways.

This is demonstrated by the resurrected Jesus walking through walls. What laws of physics can explain that? None. How to we explain Jesus lifting into the air and disappearing into a cloud. Where did He go? Even with the speed of light, it would have taken Him millions of years to get anywhere near the edge of our known universe. No law of physics can explain it.

Where did the fire come from that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? We don't know. It couldn't have come from outer space, and it did not come from anywhere on earth. How do we explain it, except that God created the fire out of nothing?

So, God recorded the first two chapters of Genesis to tell us how He created the universe. We don't know how He did it in six days, and He doesn't explain His method. He just said that He did it, and He expects us to take Him at His word.

Remember, the first time that the suggestion that God's Word be subject to man's judgment came from the serpent in the garden to deceive Eve into believing that God doesn't necessarily mean exactly what He says and she can put her own interpretation on it.

 

[coffee4u]

Yes it does. So how do you interpret it? That God essentially ‘wrote’ the bible, or that nothing in it is an expression of the individual writers? Or something else? How do you interpret the idea of inspiration?

It is their expression as we can see the Gospels often show different sides to an event, but it is still God working through them. Each word is there because God wanted it there. Each word is breathed or inspired. The Bible is the final authority is all matters of faith and doctrine.

To me an interpretation occurs when we read a passage of scripture and are not sure what it means or if on first glance it seems to contradict another passage of scripture or if it can mean more than one thing. We then look up other scripture to see if it agrees or if we misunderstood what it meant. A good example of that would be passages about the role of women in the church, that is very much open to interpretation because many scriptures do seem contradictory on first glance. I can see how people come to different conclusions over this.

If the scripture is very plain I do not see it needing an interpretation.
For example. Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder." means exactly what it says.
Saying something plain needs 'interpretation' sounds to me like people are trying to make scripture say things that it is not. That would be like trying to debate if Jesus died for our sins. Some things are not and should not be debatable. God wants us to understand his word, it is not one giant riddle.

Most times when someone tries to interpret scripture as something else it is not an interpretation at all. An interpretation means you have looked up other scripture to see if it is harmony. A further step might be needed if the passage is difficult such as the culture in which it was written and to whom it was written to. Obviously, if we are reading Deuteronomy we should be aware that God was giving the law to Israel.

An interpretation is not taking outside knowledge and applying it to scripture and because we now 'know better'. Preconceived ideas from outside of the Bible should be put aside to the best of our ability.

If you think that me believing what the Bible says is arrogance then so be it. I will stand for what it says. I know that I am not always right, there are plenty of scriptures that I do not understand in Revelations and other places. I am very open to being shown other scripture to shed light on a topic and as of yet, on this topic, I have been shown none.