Where do you draw the line?

[Bushido216]

so we are right back at the original question: where do you draw the line? I think i have an answer for myself, where i draw the line.

If the style (such as poetry) or context (such as a parable) obviously indicate that what is said is not literal, I do not count it as literal. However in a lack of such a clear distinction, i believe it to be literal. I believe the Bible to be true and literal unless stated otherwise.

I find nothing within the text indicating that the creation and flood accounts are not literal, therefore i believe them to be literal.

So the talking snakes and the magic trees didn't tip you off?

 

[Bushido216]

I'm getting ready to agree with everything you said...

But are you trying to say that the Holocaust didn't happen or was there some fake documentary on A&E that I'm not aware of?

 

[Sinai]

When what we find in God's own creation directly conflicts with an interpretation of scripture, it is best to stick with God's creation.

It also might be appropriate to more closely examine alternative interpretations of the scripture: Look at the original language used and determine the possible meanings of the scripture. I also like to read ancient Hebrew commentaries that are at least 600 years old (i.e., prior to the advent of modern scientific discoveries) to verify that such an interpretation could be valid.

 

[statrei]

I'm getting ready to agree with everything you said...

But are you trying to say that the Holocaust didn't happen or was there some fake documentary on A&E that I'm not aware of?

Some years ago someone published a biography of Adolf Hitler that was later proven to be a fake.

 

[ShilohCity]

So the talking snakes and the magic trees didn't tip you off?

No more so than the other miraculous things in the Bible. Like someone walking on water and raising the dead.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Moses is often credited with not only writing Genesis, but also with writing the Pentateuch (first five books of the OT). Funny, how ol' Mo was able to describe his own death in Deuteronomy.

 

[notto]

It also might be appropriate to more closely examine alternative interpretations of the scripture: Look at the original language used and determine the possible meanings of the scripture. I also like to read ancient Hebrew commentaries that are at least 600 years old (i.e., prior to the advent of modern scientific discoveries) to verify that such an interpretation could be valid.

Any good sources? I'm intrigued.

 

[Bushido216]

No more so than the other miraculous things in the Bible. Like someone walking on water and raising the dead.

But the Genesis story just screams fable. It's a creation myth that has been demonstrably shown false. The Resurrections are part of a history of the Lord.

 

[mhess13]

But the Genesis story just screams fable. It's a creation myth that has been demonstrably shown false. The Resurrections are part of a history of the Lord.

the creation is part of our Lord's history as well.
Here's where yo TE's are inconstistent. It has been demonstrated false that no one can walk on water. We have no proof other than the Bible that He did. It has been proven false that you can't feed 4,000 men with a few loaves of bread.

 

[statrei]

It has been demonstrated false that no one can walk on water. We have no proof other than the Bible that He did. It has been proven false that you can't feed 4,000 men with a few loaves of bread.

I sure wish you had thought this through. You would have been on firmer foundation if you had said that you don't understand how these things could have happened.

Have you ever seen a human float on water? Yet if you throw that same person into the pool he will sink to the bottom. Why is that? Have you ever tried to feed anyone with one kernel of corn? Yet, if you plant that kernel of corn it will produce several ears of corn with which you can feed many people? Why is that? You are so intent on attacking a view that you did not take the time to think. How unfortunate.

 

[artybloke]

the creation is part of our Lord's history as well.
Here's where yo TE's are inconstistent. It has been demonstrated false that no one can walk on water. We have no proof other than the Bible that He did. It has been proven false that you can't feed 4,000 men with a few loaves of bread.

Such things have been falsified without a miracle but they haven't been falsified with one. Nowhere in the Bible is the creation called a miracle: it is seen as a pefectly matter of fact natural event, like the sun getting up in the morning. In fact, that is essential to the thelogy of Genesis 1, which is a liturgical poem and a polemic against the "supernaturalist" creation accounts of the ancient Middle East such as the Sumerians and the Babylonians. There, creation is seen as a kind of by-product of a great cosmic conflict between gods. In fact, the earth is seen as a divine being in many mythologies.

The fact that the creation is a perfectly natural event, and not either a divine being itself or part of some purely arbitrary cosmic conflict, is essential to the Hebrew and Christian idea of freedom and responsibility. We are not pawns in a war between the gods: we are independent of the fates and decide things for ourselves. Therefore we either choose or do not choose God.

The problem with creationism is that it denies the God who creates the world through perfectly natural means. It denies the God who is revealed to us in his creation in order to preserve a frankly unimaginative and empty literalism of interpretation and it puts that empty literalism onto a pedestal and worships it. It makes the God of creation a liar in order to preserve an interpretation of scripture that only makes sense if you have an unthinkingly rationalistic view of truth. Not even bibliolatry but interpretationolatry. In short, heresy. Creationists are heretics.

 

[Bushido216]

the creation is part of our Lord's history as well.
Here's where yo TE's are inconstistent. It has been demonstrated false that no one can walk on water. We have no proof other than the Bible that He did. It has been proven false that you can't feed 4,000 men with a few loaves of bread.

It has been shown false that those things cannot happen without divine intervention. Divine intervined, so they happened.

What's so hard, mhess?

 

[Mary_Magdalene]

Shiloh, agree with ALL you are saying.

i never knew there were so many Christians who would pick and choose what they believe in the bible. either its all true and God's Word or it is all a lie. i dont understand what is so hard about believing the literal creation, flood, etc.??? Isnt our God big enough to make all that happen just the way His Word says it did?? if He is great enough to send His only Son to die on the cross for our sins, what is the big deal about a talking snake or a world wide flood?? Piece of cake for Him.

 

[Bushido216]

We're not saying that He couldn't. We're saying that He didn't. There's a large difference.

Also, would it be so hard for ANYONE to ask the TE's what they believe first before lambasting us? Honestly. It's really not that hard of a concept.

 

[Sinai]

It also might be appropriate to more closely examine alternative interpretations of the scripture: Look at the original language used and determine the possible meanings of the scripture. I also like to read ancient Hebrew commentaries that are at least 600 years old (i.e., prior to the advent of modern scientific discoveries) to verify that such an interpretation could be valid.

Any good sources? I'm intrigued.

If two or more passages in the Bible appear to be in conflict with each other on a point I am examining (and if I have the time to do so), I like to go back to the original language(s)--Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek--to determine the possible meanings of the scripture. I will also look at various commentaries and dictionaries on the words and phrases used, and may visit with various theologians.

If a scientific issue is also involved, in addition to researching the scripture as stated above, I also try to find the best scientific data available, which includes major scientific periodicals and publications, and may involve visiting with various scientists and scientific professors. Once I have identified the scientific issue that may appear to be at odds with the scripture but have also identified the possible scriptural meanings of the phrase in question, I then like to read ancient Hebrew commentaries that are at least 600 years old to see if any of those commentaries discuss an interpretation that is consistent with current scientific evidence.

 

[mhess13]

It has been shown false that those things cannot happen without divine intervention. Divine intervined, so they happened.

What's so hard, mhess?

Oh, so divine intervention didn't happen in the creation?????? are you nuts????
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

This looks like miraculous divine intervention too me. There was NOTHING, God spoke and created the universe. What's so hard, bushido?

 

[PaladinValer]

Creation has nothing to do with evolution. You are mixing up cosmological astronomy with biological evolution. They are two entirely different animals and they don't depend on the other for validity.

In addition, you took Bushido completely out of context; something the rules here on CF strictly forbid. Bushido was giving an example how extraordinary things cannot happen unless there is Divine Intervention. The Big Bang was probably caused by God; same with evolution. We can explain why and how they happened (or with evolution, how it still happens and is happening), but we cannot figure out the source with science. That is the realm of religion, which is why TEs and many OECs believe God was behind it.

"Those who look for evil shall always find it, but those who seek truth will find it, for they looked with open eyes and open minds"

 

[Isserty_Dawn]

We're not saying that He couldn't. We're saying that He didn't. There's a large difference.

Also, would it be so hard for ANYONE to ask the TE's what they believe first before lambasting us? Honestly. It's really not that hard of a concept.

What makes you think that he didn't? Did you call him? Did he reveal this information to you in a vision?

He could, but he didn't, but he wrote down that he did. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Isserty_Dawn]

sorry, double posted

 

[ShilohCity]

The issue that i'm concerned with is not IF God created (i think we can all agree that he did) but how he created. The original question issued in this thread concerned the Bible and how do you view it.

We're not saying that He couldn't. We're saying that He didn't. There's a large difference.

Also, would it be so hard for ANYONE to ask the TE's what they believe first before lambasting us? Honestly. It's really not that hard of a concept.

I did ask what you believe. I asked where you believe the line between fact and fiction in the bible should be drawn. That is a question that i think has been answered but i'll have to go back and look at the beginning of the thread again.