Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[bhsmte]

I have no doubt. So 100% I suppose

Interesting.

 

[BrianJK]

Interesting.

How so?

 

[bhsmte]

How so?

Interesting on several levels, but mostly from the psychological standpoint.

To put 100% certainty on the existence of something without any objective evidence, is telling.

As I stated before, christians are much more likely to claim 100% certainty in God as opposed to an atheist claiming it is 100% certain God does not exist.

 

[Sasquatchit]

A Jewish orthodox scientist whom grappled with these questions many years ago when I was starting my career, I eventually landed more or less on the theistic evolution understanding of Things.

My current beliefs are a bit more complicated, but one of the things that I do not understand is the utter insistence of a simple literal reading of the text, with no exegeses at all.

As with many texts, one needs to interpret what exactly it's trying to say in the context in which it was said. Espechialy when we are reading it some 3000 years after it was codified.

One of the most obvious things in the Bible, is that many stories and imagery cannot be understood in the simple literal way. For example, there are many instances where the Bible talks about the Hand of God, or the Nose of God. Clearly this is allegory. It HAS to be. Any other understanding negates the principle of an invisible, non corporeal god. (So here of course I am referring to the Hebrew bible and not to any corporeal manifestations described in later publications).

Furthermore, classic Jewish exegesis, relying on age old sources, at the very least over 2300 years old, explained many instances of the Bible as coming to define principles and ideas, rather than actual-law-to-be-followed. For example the Wayward Son (I think that's what he is called).

Additionally, the Bible itself is telling us that you cannot take certain parts literally, by the fact that the first 2 chapters of Genesis themselves are in disagreement!

What _I_ learn from the clear differences between the two chapters is 1. God is telling us that the stories he wants to teach us are complicated and need more than one angle, even more than one storyteller, to tell them. 2. You cannot take them both literally - that would be simply impossible.

That said, the main rejoinder to this is where do I draw the line between what I call allegory and what I determine to be a literal reading. I cannot, of course, say that the commandment "though shall not kill" is simply allegory and that it's really OK and God just wanted to convey his discomfort with the idea.

The answer is, again, to read what the bible is telling us. By the fact of the two disagreeing Genesis chapters, I learn that they cannot both be littoral. By the fact that an actual, planet-wide flood is impossible without jumping through some pretty high flying hoops, AND, that again, in the story of Noah there are also internal inconsistencies, I can also learn that the flood was probably not a description of an actual single event.

OTOH, when it comes to Laws and directives, these are usually more straightforward.

U don't seem to understand His word too well, and from what I've gathered from ur statements, u pick and choose things u deem politically correct to believe in. It would seem u have little faith in what ur reading....

Gal. 3:24 "...the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

Gal. 3:7 "...know that only those who r of faith r sons of Abraham."

Gal. 3:10 "For as many as r of the works of the law r under the curse...."

Gal. 3:13 "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law...."

The Bible is not a pick and choose category, it is based on faith...period (i.e. either u believe in what ur reading, or sadly u don't).

 

[bhsmte]

U don't seem to understand His word too well, and from what I've gathered from ur statements, u pick and choose things u deem politically correct to believe in. It would seem u have little faith in what ur reading....

Gal. 3:24 "...the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

Gal. 3:7 "...know that only those who r of faith r sons of Abraham."

Gal. 3:10 "For as many as r of the works of the law r under the curse...."

Gal. 3:13 "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law...."

The Bible is not a pick and choose category, it is based on faith...period (i.e. either u believe in what ur reading, or sadly u don't).

Why would it be sad if one didn't believe the bible is credible?

 

[BrianJK]

Interesting on several levels, but mostly from the psychological standpoint.

To put 100% certainty on the existence of something without any objective evidence, is telling.

As I stated before, christians are much more likely to claim 100% certainty in God as opposed to an atheist claiming it is 100% certain God does not exist.

That is the difference. If scientific evidence is your highest measure of truth, you cannot be certain of anything.

 

[bhsmte]

That is the difference. If scientific evidence is your highest measure of truth, you cannot be certain of anything.

You keep talking about scientific evidence as in related to experiments etc..

I am talking about objective evidence or even circumstantial evidence that one can rely on that points one way or the other.

This isn't about doing a science experiment as to whether God exists it is about gathering what we know from the bible itself, the reality of the world we live in and using logic to get to a logical probability of what is most likely. To me, I believe with 99% certainty that the God of the bible is simply man made and I don't get to that value with just pure scientific evidence, as stated above.

 

[BrianJK]

You keep talking about scientific evidence as in related to experiments etc..

I am talking about objective evidence or even circumstantial evidence that one can rely on that points one way or the other.

This isn't about doing a science experiment as to whether God exists it is about gathering what we know from the bible itself, the reality of the world we live in and using logic to get to a logical probability of what is most likely. To me, I believe with 99% certainty that the God of the bible is simply man made and I don't get to that value with just pure scientific evidence, as stated above.

Give me an example of "objective evidence" and "circumstantial evidence", if you would.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why is that over 90% of the graduates from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary believe in God? Could it be that if you spend many years studying something you tend to believe what you've been taught?

Here's an exercise in logic.
According to the Scriptures, "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God.' "
Approximately 90% of scientists say "there is no God."
Therefore, approximately 90% of scientists are fools.
Or, perhaps, in learning what science can study they have lost sight of what it cannot; in learning theories of origination they have forgotten that there is no way to test those theories.

Wow, such an original argument. If you don't believe in my religion you are a fool. Would such an argument convince you to believe in Zeus, Vishnu, or any of the thousands of gods you currently do not believe in?

You are talking about two completely different items. Science is the study of the physical world. In cannot validate or invalidate anything written in the Bible.

IOW, it doesn't matter what the evidence shows you will still cling to a literal interpretation of Genesis. This is what we call dogma.

 

[Split Rock]

That is the difference. If scientific evidence is your highest measure of truth, you cannot be certain of anything.

So.... its better to be certain about things one shouldn't be certain about??

 

[BrianJK]

Here's an exercise in logic.
According to the Scriptures, "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God.' "
Approximately 90% of scientists say "there is no God."
Therefore, approximately 90% of scientists are fools.
Or, perhaps, in learning what science can study they have lost sight of what it cannot; in learning theories of origination they have forgotten that there is no way to test those theories.

Wow, such an original argument. If you don't believe in my religion you are a fool. Would such an argument convince you to believe in Zeus, Vishnu, or any of the thousands of gods you currently do not believe in?



IOW, it doesn't matter what the evidence shows you will still cling to a literal interpretation of Genesis. This is what we call dogma.[/QUOTE]

It is OK to call people who DO believe in religion names, though?

 

[BrianJK]

So.... its better to be certain about things one shouldn't be certain about??

You are confused because I don't accept your personal judgment on what one should or should not be certain about?

 

[Split Rock]

You are confused because I don't accept your personal judgment on what one should or should not be certain about?

You seemed to be saying it is better to be certain and not have any doubts, even if your certainty is misplaced. Afterall, most religious people on this planet have misplaced their certainty... have they not?

 

[BrianJK]

You seemed to be saying it is better to be certain and not have any doubts, even if your certainty is misplaced. Afterall, most religious people on this planet have misplaced their certainty... have they not?

If you lump all non-atheists together... I could just as easily lump all non-Christians together, no?

 

[Split Rock]

If you lump all non-atheists together... I could just as easily lump all non-Christians together, no?

I am talking about all theists.. people of faith.. people who, like yourself, all are certain in their religious beliefs. The vast majority are deluded... is that not correct?

 

[bhsmte]

Give me an example of "objective evidence" and "circumstantial evidence", if you would.

Objective evidence:

-Earth is millions of years old
-Universe is billions of years old
-Millions of children die a horrible suffering death each year
-Man evolved, was not created in current form
-God of the bible is hidden, has not presented himself for all to see

Circumstantial evidence:

-Bible claims God is all loving, all knowing, all powerful and wants to save everyone
-compare this claim to the reality of the suffering allowed to take place
-Originals of NT and OT are lost, they do not exist
-NT gospels written 30-70 years after Jesus lived
-Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were penned by anonymous authors
-No eye witness accounts in the NT
-Stories were added centuries later to the NT for effect (women taken in adultery)
-bible condones slavery, the payment of money to father of a raped virgin and all is forgiven, murder sacrifice of various people
-man has been on earth for 200,000 years, why would God wait 198,000 to send Jesus to save mankind and let all suffering take place before sending a savior?
-bible is loaded with errors, contradictions and immoral teachings that are not refutable. Sound like a book that is the divine word of an all knowing, all loving God?

I could go on and on with this, but will stop there. The God as explained in the bible simply does not jibe with the reality of the world we live in. And, if that God does exist, he simply is not all loving and all powerful, judging again by the reality of the world we live in. The bible itself, is rife with credibility issues and was clearly the work of man and what he knew (or didn't know) at the time it was written. Not unlike other holy books, or the many other Gods that man has created or the many other messiahs created by man, that just so happen to have a very similar story to Jesus (born of a virgin, did miracles and was risen from the dead). Even most christian historians and scholars, don't claim the bible is a book of history, they state the bible is a book of theology, just like other holy books of other religions.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is OK to call people who DO believe in religion names, though?

Following up a bad argument with a Tu Quoque fallacy isn't helping, either.

 

[BrianJK]

Objective evidence:

-Earth is millions of years old
-Universe is billions of years old
-Millions of children die a horrible suffering death each year
-Man evolved, was not created in current form
-God of the bible is hidden, has not presented himself for all to see

Circumstantial evidence:

-Bible claims God is all loving, all knowing, all powerful and wants to save everyone
-compare this claim to the reality of the suffering allowed to take place
-Originals of NT and OT are lost, they do not exist
-NT gospels written 30-70 years after Jesus lived
-Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were penned by anonymous authors
-No eye witness accounts in the NT
-Stories were added centuries later to the NT for effect (women taken in adultery)
-bible condones slavery, the payment of money to father of a raped virgin and all is forgiven, murder sacrifice of various people
-man has been on earth for 200,000 years, why would God wait 198,000 to send Jesus to save mankind and let all suffering take place before sending a savior?
-bible is loaded with errors, contradictions and immoral teachings that are not refutable. Sound like a book that is the divine word of an all knowing, all loving God?

I could go on and on with this, but will stop there. The God as explained in the bible simply does not jibe with the reality of the world we live in. And, if that God does exist, he simply is not all loving and all powerful, judging again by the reality of the world we live in. The bible itself, is rife with credibility issues and was clearly the work of man and what he knew (or didn't know) at the time it was written. Not unlike other holy books, or the many other Gods that man has created or the many other messiahs created by man, that just so happen to have a very similar story to Jesus (born of a virgin, did miracles and was risen from the dead). Even most christian historians and scholars, don't claim the bible is a book of history, they state the bible is a book of theology, just like other holy books of other religions.

Your evidence is all based on your faith in scientific dating systems. How can you say it has nothing to do with science?

 

[BrianJK]

I am talking about all theists.. people of faith.. people who, like yourself, all are certain in their religious beliefs. The vast majority are deluded... is that not correct?

Just as much as those who are certain of no religious beliefs. You separate theists from atheists, since you fall into the latter category. I separate Christians from non-Christians in the same way.

 

[bhsmte]

Your evidence is all based on your faith in scientific dating systems. How can you say it has nothing to do with science?

Some of the objective evidence is based on science, not all and virtually none of the circumstantial evidence is based on scientific dating systems.

Do you have evidence you can share, that scientific dating systems (of the age of earth, universe, etc.) is wrong? If you do please share. Otherwise, you are discounting a proven scientific method, simply because it goes against a book written centuries ago. May be a logical choice for you, but not for me.

Overall, the christian story and explanation of what God is, does not align with the reality of the world we live in. Christians try so very hard, to rationalize an explanation, but this world is not the work of an; all powerful, all loving, all caring, omnipotent being. You can try all day to put the round peg in a square hole to make the christian God work, but the contradictions are overwhelming and clear for all to see.