CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[HoughMade]

I must be reading the wrong version then, that's what my NIV says, what are you looking at?

If I were to say, "I'm as cool as a cucumber", would you ask which cucumber or understand that I used an idiom?

 

[ATM]

I must be reading the wrong version then, that's what my NIV says, what are you looking at?

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

He didn't even create the first day until verse 5, which was an undetermined amount of time afterward.

Your imagination of the text strayed rather quickly from the actual text. You didn't last even a handful of verses before creating your own doctrine.

 

[Jludo]

If I were to say, "I'm as cool as a cucumber", would you ask which cucumber or understand that I used an idiom?

So you dont follow the literal day interpretation?
What about Adam and eve being the first two people and everyone coming from them?
You can see my confusion as, just reading the text I never seem to get correct what is literal and what is idiom. There are as many interpretations of the bible as there are Christians and what's 'obvious' idiom to one is blasphemous to another.
Let's get to a verse you take literally.

 

[foszoe]

It sure helps to have the Church that was around before the bible, the Church whose members wrote the NT, and the Church who decided the canon of scripture to keep one from erring in its interpretation.

The reinterpretation I find most interesting in American Christianity is slavery in the Civil war period.

 

[JettaKnight]

It sure helps to have the Church that was around before the bible, the Church whose members wrote the NT, and the Church who decided the canon of scripture to keep one from erring in its interpretation.

The reinterpretation I find most interesting in American Christianity is slavery in the Civil war period.

I gotta admit being somewhat ignorant of how churches convinced themselves that what they were doing was OK. I dare say that it's really, really hard to reinterpret scripture to condone the action of actively oppressing another race.


I'm sure there were pastors that spoke out, but then I must assume they were run out and replaced with someone that would pour the honey in their ears... oh yeah, I guess that still happens today.


Thousands Come Forward To Accuse Joel Osteen Of Tickling Their Ears

 

[JettaKnight]

So you dont follow the literal day interpretation?
What about Adam and eve being the first two people and everyone coming from them?
You can see my confusion as, just reading the text I never seem to get correct what is literal and what is idiom. There are as many interpretations of the bible as there are Christians and what's 'obvious' idiom to one is blasphemous to another.
Let's get to a verse you take literally.

I'll admit, I don't. Which is a very unpopular view in my church.

I also don't believe that Jesus is literally a door. (John 10:7)


Why don't I fully accept the 6 day view? Well, for starters I don't believe that was written as a historical account, I view it as a narrative that impresses upon the reader the key concept of a monotheistic God that is ageless and the creator of all and all things serve a purpose to him. It's explained and laid out in such a way that the original audience would receive it correctly.

It seems to me like you're attempting to use this as a trap: If you accept a literal six day creation then you're a simpleton; if you don't then you're a hypocrite who reinterprets scripture.



That's just plain bad Biblical hermaneutics. You're taking a book, that is a composite of texts spanning thousands of years and many different styles and languages and attempting to read it as if it was written by one man less than two hundred years ago in English - that just won't work. Even if you don't believe it's inspired and true, you have to be fair to the text and view it through the correct lens. It's not just a dry textbook of facts and rules, but a rich and living book describing God, his many attributes, creation of all, mankind's fall into sin, and the redemption of mankind through God's sacrifice.


This is a good book that lays out an explanation of why a six day creation is not the correct interpretation: https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043

Really, I don't know exactly how the world was created. Science can help us determine how. I know why it was created and by who. That's the key take away from that passage. Isn't that the true purpose of studying the scripture? Read, understand, and apply?

Sure, there's some sticky wickets in the theology over this, like, were there pre-Adamites? Or were lions vegetarians before the fall? But does that really matter that much?

 

[foszoe]

It seems the real question is what is a Christian required to believe about Creation to be a Christian.

I will now reveal the answer! Given in 325 AD before the Bible was completed.

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible."

That is the Christian dogma of Creation.

Accept that and you can argue all day about creation and evolution.

In 381 AD the Church after people chose to argue about such things, revised the statement to

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

For clarity.

That's how biblical interpretation should work.

It's not I sit down and interpret what the text "clearly" means then seek out others who agree with my interpretation then form a body of believers. That's backwards.

It's I sit down and think I decide what the text clearly means but I then submit my interpretation to the Church for approval. However the Church works apophatically not cataphatically.

The Church does not say THIS is how to understand THIS text. That is a VERY rare occurrence. In actuality I can't think of a single occurrence but I don't want to be an absolutist.

The Church USUALLY says THIS is NOT how to understand THIS text.

Even when speaking dogmatically the Church will say

You can understand this text however you want as long as your interpretation does NOT contradict with a DOGMA based on this text.

SO when it comes to creation the Church says you MUST interpret Genesis Creation narratives as

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

Does a 6 day creation deny the above? NO. Therefore you are free to believe it.
Does Evolution deny the above? NO. Therefore you are free to believe it.

The Church will even say find writings of other Christians who believe as you do and argue back and forth about it all you want. This behavior is ENCOURAGED.

 

[Dead Duck]

I just want to know....

If man was created in God's image, then how come we don't look like this?

 

[foszoe]

I've never seen you so

1. I am not sure you exist.
2. If you do, how can I be sure you don't look like that.

I just want to know....

If man was created in God's image, then how come we don't look like this?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I just want to know....

If man was created in God's image, then how come we don't look like this?

The atheist bible/cookbook never described it with meatballs. How dare you present this false god

 

[JettaKnight]

The atheist bible/cookbook never described it with meatballs. How dare you present this false god

Female form?

 

[T.Lex]

Flying pasta that's sentient?

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Female form?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I guess very relevant to this thread...

Joe Rogan did an episode today with Richard Dawkins

[video=youtube;_bN4spt3744]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bN4spt3744[/video]

 

[Dead Duck]

She's eating her hair.

 

[JettaKnight]

I guess very relevant to this thread...

Joe Rogan did an episode today with Richard Dawkins

I thought he died?


No, maybe that was Hitchens I'm thinking of.

 

[T.Lex]

I thought he died?


No, maybe that was Hitchens I'm thinking of.

Or Richard Dawson?

One God was surveyed for the question: is there an afterlife.... survey says!

 

[NKBJ]

Eve was a blond! I knew it had to be!

 

[Jludo]

I'll admit, I don't. Which is a very unpopular view in my church.

I also don't believe that Jesus is literally a door. (John 10:7)


Why don't I fully accept the 6 day view? Well, for starters I don't believe that was written as a historical account, I view it as a narrative that impresses upon the reader the key concept of a monotheistic God that is ageless and the creator of all and all things serve a purpose to him. It's explained and laid out in such a way that the original audience would receive it correctly.

It seems to me like you're attempting to use this as a trap: If you accept a literal six day creation then you're a simpleton; if you don't then you're a hypocrite who reinterprets scripture.



That's just plain bad Biblical hermaneutics. You're taking a book, that is a composite of texts spanning thousands of years and many different styles and languages and attempting to read it as if it was written by one man less than two hundred years ago in English - that just won't work. Even if you don't believe it's inspired and true, you have to be fair to the text and view it through the correct lens. It's not just a dry textbook of facts and rules, but a rich and living book describing God, his many attributes, creation of all, mankind's fall into sin, and the redemption of mankind through God's sacrifice.


This is a good book that lays out an explanation of why a six day creation is not the correct interpretation: https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043

Really, I don't know exactly how the world was created. Science can help us determine how. I know why it was created and by who. That's the key take away from that passage. Isn't that the true purpose of studying the scripture? Read, understand, and apply?

Sure, there's some sticky wickets in the theology over this, like, were there pre-Adamites? Or were lions vegetarians before the fall? But does that really matter that much?

Right Jesus isn't literally a door.
Is jesus literally God and literally the holy spirit?
Reading the bible that sounds figurative to me.

Why is the starting point for us that the bible is perfect and we have to read it as such?
The answer, generally, is because our parents and those around us said so and we just carry on the tradition.

Im not attempting to use it as a trap, I'm pointing out glaring issues with a text claimed to be infallible.
Plop yourself in any other country where Christianity isn't followed by the majority and you'd be in the exact same position I am, wondering how so many people can be so sure their religion is the correct one.

 

[Jludo]

Also im not using it as a trap, it's a self imposed trap when claiming a book assembled by men is gods direct infallible word. It's a trap easier to just plug your ears and make disappear by arbitrarily assigning 'literal' and 'figurative' labels.
And the labels are absolutely arbitrary as proven by the fact that there are as many different interpretations as there are people. Either God isn't whispering the truth in their ears, he can't keep his story straight or hes not actually telling people what they think hes telling them.
The details do matter when making such extraordinary claims.