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

[OllieFranz]

I will respond once you tell me which responses will not be offensive...

Any honest response which addresses the issues and what I said, and not what you claim I "really meant," especially when the position you attribute to me 1) is the opposite of what I wrote, 2) implies that I am doing anything more antagonistic than discussing a different opinion, or 3) implies that I am anti-Christian, anti-Bible, or anti-God, is fine.

I'm not telling you that you can't believe any of these things, I'm just asking you to be polite enough to be civil. Actually, it does not really bother me if you do those things in your responses, but if you do, I will continue to call you on it.

 

[bhsmte]

That is the usual nonsense of very liberal scholars.

If they can't prove what they say, and they can't, why put your faith in them.

For an omnipotent God to assure we have a relible Bible, even without the original mss, is much easier than creating the universe out of nothing.

The God of the liberal historians and theologians is much too small.

kermit

Liberal scholars?

Scholars and historians are supposed to be objective in their work. Historians follow the historical method, to determine "what likely happened" in the past. The problem is, some christians throw a sissy fit when the bible is analyzed in an objective manner by historians and scholars and there will always be those who claim the bible is "off limits" when it comes to any objective critique.

Read the work of reputable NT scholars, and the majority all agree, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were penned by anonymous authors approx 30-70 years after Jesus lived. This is well established in NT scholarship, unless you are talking about the scholars who work for theological conservative institutions and don't feel like giving up their paycheck by crossing the institutions mission statement which usually states; they believe the bible is the word of God and is inerrant.

 

[AV1611VET]

Read the work of reputable NT scholars,

Meaning they agree with you?

... and the majority all agree, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were penned by anonymous authors approx 30-70 years after Jesus lived.

The Bible is off limits when it come to any objective critique.

 

[bhsmte]

Meaning they agree with you?

The Bible is off limits when it come to any objective critique.

In case you didn't know AV, the majority of NT historians and scholars are christians, so I would actually disagree with them on their beliefs, but most are also objective enough to be fairly honest in how they do their work in regards to evaluating the NT.

The information is out their, but I know it is painful for some to actually digest.

 

[AV1611VET]

In case you didn't know AV, the majority of NT historians and scholars are christians,

Don't take this wrong, but we make a distinction between PROFESSING CHRISTIANS and POSSESSING CHRISTIANS.

It's not up to us to judge a specific individual, but overall, it makes sense that some PROFESS and some POSSESS.

I'm sure even Dawkins would agree on this.

 

[bhsmte]

Don't take this wrong, but we make a distinction between PROFESSING CHRISTIANS and POSSESSING CHRISTIANS.

It's not up to us to judge a specific individual, but overall, it makes sense that some PROFESS and some POSSESS.

I'm sure even Dawkins would agree on this.

What you state has nothing to do with the established methods a historian or scholar uses to produce credible work and opinions.

Whether you have a christian heart surgeon performing a triple bypass or an atheist heart surgeon performing the same, they are both going to be judged on the quality of their work, by mostly following their training in medical science and following the established methods they were trained on that produce quality outcomes.

So, your opinion on whether a christian historian or scholar professes or possesses, has nothing to do with the reputation they build by following established methods and doing quality objective work recognized by their profession.

It's a nice attempt at excusing their work if you disagree with it, but it holds zero weight when it comes to the reality of their work.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a nice attempt at excusing their work if you disagree with it, but it holds zero weight when it comes to the reality of their work.

Just out of curiosity, why do you hold them in such high degree?

Do you do the same for those at DI or ICR?

Or is it just because they agree with you on the authorship of the Gospels?

 

[Doveaman]

I read the Bible, just like you did

I doubt it.

I read the Bible from the point of view of a Christian. What point of view did you read it from?

If you need anything other than the text to interpret it correctly, your interpretation is not literal.

I think you are being literal to the extreme.

The testimony of one biblical author gives support to the testimony of another biblical author.

 

[bhsmte]

Just out of curiosity, why do you hold them in such high degree?

Do you do the same for those at DI or ICR?

Or is it just because they agree with you on the authorship of the Gospels?

AV,

To understand my response, you would first need to educate yourself on how historians do their work, the established method they follow and also how scholars go about their work. You see, credibility comes from following established methods and objectivity whether one is a christian or not and should have nothing to do with how they do their job.

I put credibility into the majority findings because; they follow an established method which is designed to be objective and doesn't go for a "pre-determined result". They also support their findings with objective evidence, that lends credence to their final opinion.

It's really simple, the more logic and objectivity in the work, the more credibility I put into it.

 

[bhsmte]

I doubt it.

I read the Bible from the point of view of a Christian. What point of view did you read it from?

Bear in mind that the Bible was compiled for the benefit of Christians, so it's no surprise you cannot make sense of it.
I think you are being literal to the extreme.

I just love that argument; only christians can make sense of the bible.

It reminds me of; if a christian becomes an atheist or agnostic, they were really never a real christian in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV,

To understand my response, you would first need to educate yourself on how historians do their work, the established method they follow and also how scholars go about their work. You see, credibility comes from following established methods and objectivity whether one is a christian or not and should have nothing to do with how they do their job.

I put credibility into the majority findings because; they follow an established method which is designed to be objective and doesn't go for a "pre-determined result". They also support their findings with objective evidence, that lends credence to their final opinion.

It's really simple, the more logic and objectivity in the work, the more credibility I put into it.

Why did you bring them up in the first place then?

Just to add weight to your beliefs?

 

[bhsmte]

Why did you bring them up in the first place then?

Just to add weight to your beliefs?

I weight any belief I have on evidence, reason and logic.

Why did I bring them up? The answer to that is in the thread.

 

[Doveaman]

I just love that argument; only christians can make sense of the bible.

It reminds me of; if a christian becomes an atheist or agnostic, they were really never a real christian in the first place.

A Christian who becomes an atheist or agnostic obviously didn't make sense of the Bible.

 

[bhsmte]

A Christian who becomes an atheist or agnostic obviously didn't make sense of the Bible.

In my particular case, a thorough review of the bible did not bring me to be able to believe the overall story. Parts of it don't make a lot of sense, but that is to be expected from the time that man wrote the book.

 

[Doveaman]

In my particular case, a thorough review of the bible did not bring me to be able to believe the overall story.

Was it because it didn't make any sense?

 

[frogman2x]

I just love that argument; only christians can make sense of the bible

Teh Bible says the natural man CANNOT undeerstand teh things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishnenss to him(I Cor 2:14)

It reminds me of; if a christian becomes an atheist or agnostic, they were really never a real christian in the first place.

A truly born again Christian can never become an atheists or an agnostic.

kermit

 

[TLK Valentine]

A Christian who becomes an atheist or agnostic obviously didn't make sense of the Bible.

Or made too much sense of it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Teh Bible says the natural man CANNOT undeerstand teh things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishnenss to him(I Cor 2:14)



A truly born again Christian can never become an atheists or an agnostic.

kermit

And the Emperor's tailors told him that his robes were made of the finest magically treated silks, which fools would be unable to see.

 

[bhsmte]

Was it because it didn't make any sense?

Put simply, not believable and it was clear to me it was mad made.

 

[Theodor1]

So, your opinion on whether a christian historian or scholar professes or possesses, has nothing to do with the reputation they build by following established methods and doing quality objective work recognized by their profession.

I would not say "nothing" because over time Christians tend to be proven right in science and often non Christians are proven to be wrong even to the point of fraud and counterfeiting the evidence. Even Darwin had a very strong Christian education in Science and people like his good friend Lyell were very strong Christians.