Questions for Jesus-Freak

Hokulele said:
Ignoring for now the purpose of the particular phrase I chose, please answer my original question.

Would you agree that it is possible that some terms in the bible were originally meant in a literal sense, and we now interpret them to be figurative? Would you then further agree that it is possible that some phrases now read literally, after another 400 years have passed, may be viewed differently?
Click to expand...

Such distinctions need not be made. The Old Testament never intended to function as a science manual, and when it uses Geocentric language it never says "Yahweh has instructed me to tell you the earth is flat!" It is an assumption of their writing because of their day not a teaching of the text. If your next question is how do we know, the answer is by reading the text! Again, the clues are obvious.
 
RationalReverend said:
Such distinctions need not be made. The Old Testament never intended to function as a science manual, and when it uses Geocentric language it never says "Yahweh has instructed me to tell you the earth is flat!" It is an assumption of their writing because of their day not a teaching of the text. If your next question is how do we know, the answer is by reading the text! Again, the clues are obvious.
Click to expand...

(Bolding mine). Thanks. This is all I was really asking. Originally this question and thread was directed to Jesus Freak, as I was interested in his opinion since his comments against evolution seemed to be based on treating Genesis as a science text. I really appreciate your patience in dealing with my questions, as I now have a better understanding of your views.

FWIW, I agree about reading in context, but I have found that often when discussing biblical passages and how they might apply to the modern world, certain people tend to do exactly what we have been discussing. That is, taking passages out of context and treating them as a stand-alone argument.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
(Bolding mine). Thanks. This is all I was really asking. Originally this question and thread was directed to Jesus Freak, as I was interested in his opinion since his comments against evolution seemed to be based on treating Gensis as a science text. I really appreciate your patience in dealing with my questions, as I now have a better understanding of your views.

FWIW, I agree about reading in context, but I have that often when discussing biblical passages and how they might apply to the modern world, certain people tend to do exactly what we have been discussing. That is, taking passages out of context and treating them as a stand-alone argument.
Click to expand...

You can still read the Bible as a Spiritual Text (as opposed to a science manual) and have grounds to evolution. One does not need to view Genesis scientifically to conclude that evolution is incompatible, because the creation is depicted as an actual event. The point of the text is that it is by God's hand that the world was created, and it is very easy to view evolution as in conflict with that.
 
jesus_freak said:
If a judge on earth sentences a criminal to prison does that not make him a merciful loving man/woman? No it makes him just and God is waaaaaay more just than any man. Does God want you to go to hell? I don't think so, and that is what you are implying.
Click to expand...

There aren't any requirements that a judge be merciful and loving, only that he mete out justice. According to my Christian friends, God is supposed to be loving and merciful, forgiving our sins. I can't put that together with the idea of eternal punishment.
 
RationalReverend said:
One does not need to view Genesis scientifically to conclude that evolution is incompatible, because the creation is depicted as an actual event. The point of the text is that it is by God's hand that the world was created, and it is very easy to view evolution as in conflict with that.
Click to expand...

Does that also apply to the Creation of the Universe, or only to the Creation of Adam of Eve? Could Genesis be poetic language of the Big Bang and the evolution of the Universe? The creation of the stars is written as an actual event after the creation of the earth, which is not consistent with modern astronomy.

Can one accept astronomy and be a Christian?
 
LibraryLady said:
There aren't any requirements that a judge be merciful and loving, only that he mete out justice. According to my Christian friends, God is supposed to be loving and merciful, forgiving our sins. I can't put that together with the idea of eternal punishment.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

The idea of infinite punishment for finite sins is incompatible with my concepts of both justice and mercy. How can an infinite punishment fit a finite crime?
 
RationalReverend said:
You can still read the Bible as a Spiritual Text (as opposed to a science manual) and have grounds to evolution. One does not need to view Genesis scientifically to conclude that evolution is incompatible, because the creation is depicted as an actual event. The point of the text is that it is by God's hand that the world was created, and it is very easy to view evolution as in conflict with that.
Click to expand...

I don't agree personally, but I think we can agree to disagree on certain points, as long as we understand the methodology used to arrive at a conclusion.

After all, I was never very pleased with the whole "Eve after Adam" thing. I always preferred Genesis 1:27 where they are side by side. :)
 
Hokulele said:
I don't agree personally, but I think we can agree to disagree on certain points, as long as we understand the methodology used to arrive at a conclusion.

After all, I was never very pleased with the whole "Eve after Adam" thing. I always preferred Genesis 1:27 where they are side by side. :)
Click to expand...

The second account is merely a more detailed recounting of a section of the simpler first story. It is a common Near Eastern story telling technique found in other Near Eastern Epics. Here is a citation from a source I used in a paper on Genesis. “Comparative studies show that the telling of human origins in doublet is a feature observed in Sumerian and Babylonian stories. In Enki and Ninmah (2000 BC) the first account of human life is a general one, with creation by nipping off clay, and the second covers the same ground in more detail. Babylonian Atrahasis has the first creation account from the remains of the slain deity mixed with clay, and the second elaborates, showing that humans were first created in seven pairs by clipping off clay. In both cases the former is general and the second is specific.” Kenneth Matthews. 1996. Genesis 1-11:26 Broadman and Holman Publishers pg29

 
RationalReverend said:
Such distinctions need not be made. The Old Testament never intended to function as a science manual, and when it uses Geocentric language it never says "Yahweh has instructed me to tell you the earth is flat!" It is an assumption of their writing because of their day not a teaching of the text. If your next question is how do we know, the answer is by reading the text! Again, the clues are obvious.
Click to expand...
To us, they usually are, I agree.

But there are those to whom it is painfully UNobvious and so they read it absolutely literally. They really do NOT see the poetic language, the historical context, or any of the underlying morality story. To them, it is as "real" as a magazine they buy today.

This stems, of course, from sheer ignorance. Clearly you are a well-read person, and we can all politely discuss the finer points of this subject. That is great. But the ignorants cannot do this. Biblical truths as written are the ONLY truths they know - it underpins their lives. And to even question it with external facts raises spectres they dare not face, as they know they are ill-equipped to battle them. So they vehemently oppose and reject any questioning whatsoever of the literal words on the pages. To the point that they will invent towers of illogic to hide in and guard themselves from these assaults... Have you seen AnswersInGenesis??
 
RationalReverend said:
The second account is merely a more detailed recounting of a section of the simpler first story. It is a common Near Eastern story telling technique found in other Near Eastern Epics.
Click to expand...

I agree with RR, and if you are interested in this kind of thing, I recommend reading Secret Origins of the Bible, by Tim Callahan, which traces the myths in the Hebrew Bible back to their Mesopotamian origins.
 
mfaison said:
I agree with RR, and if you are interested in this kind of thing, I recommend reading Secret Origins of the Bible, by Tim Callahan, which traces the myths in the Hebrew Bible back to their Mesopotamian origins.
Click to expand...
Good heavens! You mean...the Bible is...NOT written by God? :eek:
 
mfaison said:
I agree with RR, and if you are interested in this kind of thing, I recommend reading Secret Origins of the Bible, by Tim Callahan, which traces the myths in the Hebrew Bible back to their Mesopotamian origins.
Click to expand...

Let's not draw my words into conclusions they don't warrant. Elements of the story of the earliest part of Genesis are not so much borrowed by the ancient Israelites as shared with the Near Easterners around them. The OT versions are distinctly their own and one would be perfectly reasonable to view them as correctional tellings of the common story. In fact, that could also be the reason that the name for God changes between the two tellings. One is more universal Elohim while the other is more personal a composite Yahweh-Elohim. It makes perfect sense to think that they used Elohim to describe "pre-Israelite realities" in the more vague story and the composite to transition to the more specific claims of Genesis. In other words here is the part of the story you are familiar with Near Easterners, but this is the rest of the story of how Yahweh began a work with us. The composite strengthens the claim by then linking the personal deity of the ancient Israelites with the familiar Near Eastern concept of Creation.
 
Zep said:
To us, they usually are, I agree.

But there are those to whom it is painfully UNobvious and so they read it absolutely literally. They really do NOT see the poetic language, the historical context, or any of the underlying morality story. To them, it is as "real" as a magazine they buy today.

This stems, of course, from sheer ignorance. Clearly you are a well-read person, and we can all politely discuss the finer points of this subject. That is great. But the ignorants cannot do this. Biblical truths as written are the ONLY truths they know - it underpins their lives. And to even question it with external facts raises spectres they dare not face, as they know they are ill-equipped to battle them. So they vehemently oppose and reject any questioning whatsoever of the literal words on the pages. To the point that they will invent towers of illogic to hide in and guard themselves from these assaults... Have you seen AnswersInGenesis??
Click to expand...

If you think Christians aren't aware of such problems you are sorely mistaken. Just a week and a half ago while we were on break in class my Koine Greek professor discussed this very thing with us. And I attend a very conservative Baptist college. (I mean conservative in the theological sense of course) We are not blind to ignorance, but we do not discredit people simply because they are ignorant. There is no crime in a simple faith, and I will not be that snobby college prick that rains of some uneducated persons parade for absolutely no real reason. The AIG people are not stupid or ignorant, they offer alternatives to the vitriol Christians face in atheists everywhere and as long as you exist they will exist.
 
Beleth said:
Methinks you already have; your assumption about me is just as uncannily accurate as edge's is.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Beleth, let's hold hands and sing Cumbaya! and all the parts where it says My Lord, you can say Myself or My Science.
 
Heh, I'd say My Lord too; that's how the song goes, after all. I don't change the words to Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer when I sing it either.

And you do have a cool avatar. Maybe next time I'm in Jesus's Dead Body, Texas, I'll buy you a round of whatever you're drinking!
 
Beleth said:
Heh, I'd say My Lord too; that's how the song goes, after all. I don't change the words to Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer when I sing it either.

And you do have a cool avatar. Maybe next time I'm in Jesus's Dead Body, Texas, I'll buy you a round of whatever you're drinking!
Click to expand...

So, you are familiar with Corpus Christi. That is not common on the internet though for some reason the oddest mix of people I've come across on the net have known it. May I ask where you are from? Are you an Austinite?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom