Ignorance promoted in the name of religion

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think I can best answer by saying that faith in God allows you to see ignorance as ignorance, and not as a crisis of faith, when it comes to Biblical understanding. I'm probably stepping on my own toes here, at some time or another (so be it), but I would suggest that for you to assume that the answer must lie in the realm of your present understanding (giving you only two options) is a very dangerous sort of pride.

This is more than likely one of the reasons that the word of God councils us to trust in the Lord with all our hearts, and lean not on our own understanding. (Prov 3:5)

I have seen Atheist missionaries, as it were, take advantage of Christians in this way. They will present every issue as a crisis of faith, cleverly excluding the possibility of ignorance (and themselves being very ignorant of the Bible). I've seen many people from this BB do it. It is very dishonest. I would go so far as to say that it is essentially an attempt to take someone captive to their religion (that religion, in this case, being Atheism, or Secular Humanism).

I perceive that your deck is stacked against you, so to speak, and I wonder who did the stacking...

[flip]

Typical circle the wagons bullcrap. I believe in God but I think it's funny when someone is presented with something they don't understand, that instead of just saying that, they hurl insults and stick their heads under the covers. Funny you should mention Pride because your posts stink of it.

[Sergeant Thorne]

You may have been insulted, but it was never my intent to insult you in any way. I was trying to be as nice as possible, all the while having a much clearer understanding of the issue than you do. I can't totally take credit for that, but that's the way it is. This isn't the first time I've been accused of pride for affirming something that is unpopular or distasteful. As ugly as that reply was, I'm already considering it--I'll look after my attitude and my motives, but you need to look after yours.

[Foil]

flip, chill.

Although you and I disagree with his young-Earth interpretation, Thorne is right about this one. The arguments you're using (the II Peter reference to \"a thousand days\" and the reference in Genesis to \"replenishing\" the Earth) are mis-using those scriptures.

I used to use those same references, too. That is, until I realized one day that I was making the exact same error the young-Earthers do, by pulling pieces out of the structure of the books and passages they're part of.

Construing that II Peter verse about God's perspective of time as a logical comparison, as well as Construing the words in the Genesis creation accounts as measured increments... they both completely miss and misuse the truth of the passages.

As Christians, we have to look at these books and passages from an honest exegetical perspective (i.e. the context and structure and original intended meaning).

That's exactly why Genesis as a science-book / literal history doesn't fly (and using the II Peter verse as a \"God's time <-> our time conversion\" doesn't work, either). Reading Genesis 1 & 2 as literal science just utterly misses and twists the original meaning!

-----

For those who disagree with me: Do a little research into the literary form of Genesis 1 and 2, as well as the mythology of the cultures the Hebrew people were coming out of (specifically, the Egyptian creation myths, where the sun and moon and stars and other parts of creation were worshipped as gods). You'll begin to see the truth of the passage from it's original intended perspective, the fundamental truth and mystery of Yahweh as the original and sole Creator... not a set of notes about 'how He did it'.

-----

Note: Before this turns into another overly-broad thread (this subject tends to spawn debates covering way too many sub-topics), it should be split into other threads.

So far the touched-upon subjects seem to range from the original topic of school curriculum, to issues of Biblical interpretation, 'flood geology', and more. We really should break these out into separate threads.

[flip]

Who did Cain marry? Simple question.

[Duper]

Who did Cain marry? Simple question.

Nuther simple question (in conjuction with Foil's previous post)

In the plan of salvation, why does it matter? again, it's not the "what" about Cain that is important, but Cain's relationship with God that needs to be focused on in this passage. we aren't given an answer here, not even a clue, so any attempt would be pure conjecture.

sorry Flip, no cookie for you.

[CUDA]

I see my questions are still being ignored. oh well

[Sergeant Thorne]

Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day

No it doesn't. There was no number used, and it clearly means time in the context of the earlier verses. Didn't you watch the video I linked? It's really not that terribly complicated.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

First Moses now Peter Hrm

Which is where we get our 7000-year week...

The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology.

I've never heard this before. Where did you get it? I looked it up. Your partial quote (and perhaps the translation) is very misleading. The entire argument is utterly without basis...

without Basis??? why because you didnt understand it. you give NO refuting arguments you cannot just dismiss it because it doesnt match what you believe.

I did have a little bit of a misunderstanding, and that accounts for what I said about a "partial quote" (I though your first of the two quotes (1 Chron 16:15) was a partial quote of Deuteronomy in another version). Sorry for the confusion. But my refuting argument was that you were misreading Deuteronomy 7:9. There's an important comma in 1 Chronicles 16:15:

15 Remember His covenant forever, The word which He commanded*,* for a thousand generations,

(my highlighting)

and I also see that you conveniently ignored the second part of my argument why??

Because it gets ridiculous. To me incredulity doesn't have any weight against the words of scripture. We weren't there, we don't know what it was like. I could throw out what-ifs that could make it conceivable, but we weren't there and ultimately it's a matter of what the words of scripture actually say.

also what day in creation did God create the earth?

I don't know. The Bible says that the Earth was without form and void in the beginning.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Who did Cain marry? Simple question.

A relative. Simple answer.

[Lothar]

Darwinian Evolution and Biblical Creation are incompatible. The only way they're not is if you "interpret" the Biblical account of creation in a non-literal sense

We often refer to Genesis-Deuteronomy as the "books of Moses", and tradition holds that they were written mostly by Moses during the 40 years of wandering in the desert. The very first people to read the books would have grown up in Egypt, and would have been familiar with the Egyptian creation story.

The Egyptian creation story says that in the beginning, there was nothingness, and then 8 gods sprung from the nothingness, and they protected an egg that hatched and yielded a creator. When the egg hatched, it divided the water above from the water below. Then the creator spoke and created another creator, and then created an island. Then he found that he was lonely, so he created a bunch of other gods, some of which got lost, and got found, and started having babies, and one of them married the creator and then had an affair, and through trickery and mischief various gods created various things. In this story, the gods themselves are subject to other things -- to the great nothingness, to each other, to deception, and so on.

And then we read Genesis 1, which follows the same sort of poetic structure, and refers to many of the same elements. But instead of the nothingness first and God second, "in the beginning God". Instead of the creator being subject, He is sovereign. Instead of multiple creators working against each other, one creator does everything according to His coherent plan. Instead of various aspects of creation being accidental or uncaused (like the waters dividing), they are intentional, and God calls them "good".

The story isn't really about history or creation. It's about who God is: pre-existing, sovereign over all, the one and only creator. It's not an introduction to history, but an introduction to THEOLOGY! Reading it as a literal history is, quite frankly, an insult to what it is meant to be.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I respect your historical insight, Lothar, but to say that it's not meant to be historically accurate just because it is, supposedly, meant to contrast with the false gods of Egypt... Can God lie? No. Were the scriptures inspired? Yes. What's the problem? Other than the fact that it is inconvenient in our day to accept the account as stated... Unless you can convince me that God spun a good yarn for the greater good of revealing himself to Isreal (good luck), I'm going to just accept it as written.

[CUDA]

Who did Cain marry? Simple question.

A relative. Simple answer.

well I guess Levitcus didnt apply during Adam and eve's time then huh because the Bible stricly forbids incest in any form

Lev 18
4 You shall observe My judgments and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I am the LORD your God.
5 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.
6 None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness: I am the LORD.
7 The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover. She is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness.
8 The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness.
9 The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere, their nakedness you shall not uncover.
10 The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs is your own nakedness.
11 The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, begotten by your father—she is your sister—you shall not uncover her nakedness.
12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is near of kin to your father. 13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is near of kin to your mother.
14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother. You shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt.
15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law—she is your son’s wife—you shall not uncover her nakedness.
16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.
17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, nor shall you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They are near of kin to her. It is wickedness.
18 Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive.

[Lothar]

Can God lie? No. Were the scriptures inspired? Yes.

When Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son, we assume it didn't really happen, it's just an illustration about how God treats those who come back to Him. Nobody tries to claim Jesus lied or that passage isn't inspired. We just understand that He was telling a story (in a fairly typical middle eastern style) in order to illustrate a key truth about God. I see Genesis 1 as the same way -- God takes an already-existing, familiar story, and uses it to illustrate some key points about Himself in contrast to those in the original story. That doesn't make Him a liar or uninspired; it makes Him BRILLIANT!

The point is not to accept it as written (or, as translated into English), but to understand it as intended. That's key to respecting ANY written or spoken words -- understanding what the author is trying to get at. Forcing a literal view upon a non-literal text is, quite frankly, disrespectful to the original text.

[CUDA]

I'm going to just accept it as written.

then you are truly depriving yourself of the Depth of God's word. the scriptures are like an onion. as you peel away layer after layer. it splays out exposing to you more of the infinate wisdom of God

[Gooberman]

I'm going to just accept it as written.

then you are truly depriving yourself of the Depth of God's word. the scriptures are like an onion. as you peel away layer after layer. it splays out exposing to you more of the infinate wisdom of God

Ok, that made me lol in real life. Shrek++, (that was the image that popped into my head).

[CUDA]

I didn't say squeeze it I said peel it

[Sergeant Thorne]

well I guess Levitcus didnt apply during Adam and eve's time then huh because the Bible stricly forbids incest in any form

Makes perfect sense. Read Genesis chapter 20. You'll remember that God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the Earth. Also the Biblical account of salvation is based on humanity being descendants of one man, Adam. Take that together with Genesis 3:20:

20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Like Ken Ham said, "hey if he didn't marry a relation he didn't marry a human and then you've really got a problem."

[CUDA]

well I guess Levitcus didnt apply during Adam and eve's time then huh because the Bible stricly forbids incest in any form

Makes perfect sense. Read Genesis chapter 20. You'll remember that God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the Earth. Also the Biblical account of salvation is based on humanity being descendants of one man, Adam. Take that together with Genesis 3:20:

20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Like Ken Ham said, "hey if he didn't marry a relation he didn't marry a human and then you've really got a problem."

it would seem to me that your having too much faith in Ken Hamms teachings and not doing enough research of you own. because on one hand you have God creation committing incest and on the other hand we have God's word being explicit against incest.
how can that be if God in unchanging


Mal. 3:6

The Lord does not change.

Heb. 13:8

Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever

Ps. 119:89

God's word is settled in heaven; it will not change.

Ec. 3:14

Whatever God does, it shall be forever. Nothing can be added to or taken from whatever God does

Heb. 6:17

God's counsel is immutable

im·mu·ta·ble (ĭ-myōō'tə-bəl) Pronunciation Key
adj. Not subject or susceptible to change.


Jas. 1:17

There is no variation or shadow of turning with God. There is absolutely no change with God.

the story of creation has too many questions to be taking in a literal translation. not to mention the language translation.

point in case creation of the earth.
was the Earth created in day 1?? scriptures say it was formless and void. or was it created in day 3 when he created dry land?

when was the sun created? in the beginning God said let there be light. now is this light in general or light as we know it from the sun? where did this light come from? because in Genesis the sun is not created until day 4.
then we have the whole issue of measuring how far light travels. if the earth is ONLY 4000-5000 years old then the lights in the night (stars day4) could not possibly have been seen. even to this day!

CUDA wrote:
and I also see that you conveniently ignored the second part of my argument why??

Because it gets ridiculous. To me incredulity doesn't have any weight against the words of scripture. We weren't there, we don't know what it was like. I could throw out what-ifs that could make it conceivable, but we weren't there and ultimately it's a matter of what the words of scripture actually say.

nothing incredulous about it at all, you just don't have an answer so you dismiss it off hand as a what-if. its not a what if it is a direct valid question from what scriptures tell us.

Gen 4:16

So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [f] east of Eden.

17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.

who was this woman and were did she come from. it seems fairly obvious that she was probably not a family member.

As I stated previously, science and theology should complement each other. The apostle Paul says as much,
Rom 1:20

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

What he is saying is that God can be discovered through the study of nature, or science. I Am not questioning God's creation of the earth and Man,that in indisputable. I'm questioning your Legalistic view and interpretation of it.

[Foil]

The point is not to accept it as written (or, as translated into English), but to understand it as intended. That's key to respecting ANY written or spoken words -- understanding what the author is trying to get at. Forcing a literal view upon a non-literal text is, quite frankly, disrespectful to the original text.

Thank you, Lothar. Again you managed to say what I tried to, only with more clarity.

-------

From a personal perspective, learning the above was one of the more difficult truths for me, primarily because the young-Earth "if you don't take it literally, you don't really believe it's true" philosophy had been so ingrained into my view. As a young-Earther, I knew the rationale for explaining certain non-literal passages like parables, proverbs, etc; but when I later studied proper exegesis, it became clear that those explanations were contrived.

I still have family members who maintain that the only scriptures which aren't literal are the "obvious" ones like parables. Of course, when asked about the criteria for something being "obvious", the answer is equally vague.

Don't get me wrong; having grown up immersed in that kind of teaching, I honestly don't blame them. It's convincing stuff for Christians, especially because one is taught that anything contrary is essentially anti-Christian conspiracy.

[Sergeant Thorne]

the story of creation has too many questions to be taking in a literal translation.

Bingo. So you see the criteria you're using to judge the reading of Genesis.

Too much faith in what Ken Ham says? Possible, but I don't think so. I do give him a lot of credit. The Bible says that by their fruits you shall know them, and Ken Ham's fruits speak volumes. I judge what I hear, as I did before Ken Ham. I don't know if you've realized this or not, but I have a pretty good grasp of most of the Bible. Ken Ham, like anyone else, is not infallible. I reference him so much because I don't hear anyone else saying these things, not out of some personal adoration.

You're making several unfounded assumptions, and you still have no answer for where Cain's wife came from. The law was not until the time of Moses, and there are several accounts in the Old Testament that seem to indicate that marrying closer relations wasn't a big deal back then. For instance, if it was so evil, why did God choose to make his covenant with Abraham when he was married to his half-sister? Why did Abraham have his son Isaac marry from his own kin?

14 "Now let it be that the young woman to whom I say, 'Please let down your pitcher that I may drink,' and she says, 'Drink, and I will also give your camels a drink' -- let her be the one You have appointed for Your servant Isaac. And by this I will know that You have shown kindness to my master." 15 And it happened, before he had finished speaking, that behold, Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother, came out with her pitcher on her shoulder.

What would that make her... his first cousin once removed?

5 So Isaac sent Jacob away, and he went to Padan Aram, to Laban the son of Bethuel the Syrian, the brother of Rebekah, the mother of Jacob and Esau.

And the daughters of Laban were Jacob's first-cousins, right?

Your argument about God being unchanging, though that in and of itself is a valid point, doesn't seem to hold any water against the record of scripture, therefore you must be mistaken.

[Lothar]

The Bible says that by their fruits you shall know them, and Ken Ham's fruits speak volumes.... I don't hear anyone else saying these things

Presumably, Ken Ham isn't the only person whose fruits speak volumes. The fact that he's the only one saying those things, IMO, speaks greater volumes.

I notice you skipped my previous post.

Your argument about God being unchanging... you must be mistaken.

Here, I agree with you. Obviously there's a misunderstanding over what it means for God to be unchanging.

[Spidey]

Maybe it’s not “God” that changes…maybe it’s us.

So why don’t you guys just admit that the Bible contains many inconsistancies, incongruities & contradictions and stop trying to translate it as literal. And just use it as a guide to live a good life, as it was intended.

[CUDA]

the story of creation has too many questions to be taking in a literal translation.

Bingo. So you see the criteria you're using to judge the reading of Genesis.

Exactly!!!! and yet you use the same Criteria in your argument, and yet with all the questions and interpretational doubts that have been brought up you continue to hold steadfast. Oh Well!!

Ultimately in God's plan new earth and old earth is truly a minor point. but to make science a "dirty word" in the scope of God's creation is foolish and goes directly against Paul teaching. science has yet to and will never disprove the existance of God or his creation that we call earth. as I stated earlier even Einstein came to the realization that there must have been a designing force in the universe and spent most of his life trying to disprove it, which he was never able to do.

[Foil]

[Edit: Wow, I took too long to submit this post...]

With all due respect, some here are making the same error the young-Earth folk do, by trying to pick verses out of their structure and meaning.

God being unchanging, for example... those verses you referenced are talking about His faithfulness, His nature, His unending love. However, far too many times it's been applied as \"God can't change His mind\", when it's very clear from a number of places in scripture that He most certainly can, and does.

This is exactly why Christians must look at passages in terms of their original intended meaning. (E.g. Genesis 1-2 wasn't meant to be taken as technical notes, Psalm 19 doesn't mean the Earth goes around the Sun, the numbers referenced in Revelation aren't a 'secret code' for people today, etc.)

[CUDA]

Your argument about God being unchanging... you must be mistaken.

Here, I agree with you. Obviously there's a misunderstanding over what it means for God to be unchanging.

no misunderstanding on my part. I know I streaching what the meaning said. it was more to try to make a point. I was trying to refute a legalistic argument with a legalistic argument.

Edit: Foil I know, I just have little patience for scriptural legalism, it has done more to hurt the cause of Christ than almost anything that we so-called Christians have done.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Presumably, Ken Ham isn't the only person whose fruits speak volumes. The fact that he's the only one saying those things, IMO, speaks greater volumes.

The number of people behind any particular view doesn't mean much to me. In this particular case it's hardly surprising. I was taught and believed in the history of Genesis long before I heard of Ken Ham (in the last several years), and I've always been aware of the fact that I'm in a minority. Neither has the reason been lost on me--It is a very inconvenient thing to profess/believe in that it doesn't at all jive with secular "science". Secular science has huge problems anyway. They are fallible men. Also you know what the Bible says about the heart of man.

The Bible doesn't at all corroborate the notion that there is any certainty in majority opinions. Quite the opposite is true.

I notice you skipped my previous post.

I noticed that too. Just not ready to answer quite yet.

Your argument about God being unchanging... you must be mistaken.

Here, I agree with you. Obviously there's a misunderstanding over what it means for God to be unchanging.

I would argue that if there has been a change, it is simply not God that has changed. I don't think it's even necessary to want to review any definition of God's unchanging nature. For me, right now, it's enough to assume that "incest" as we know it is a result of the fall, and not an immutable law in God's unchanging nature. To me the fact that God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the earth is enough to settle the how.

[Spidey]

So you have this Library of stories (Bibliotheca) written over 2 two thousand years ago, or so…and you sit here and try to tell someone else what they mean…Lothar thinks he knows more than Foil, Foil thinks he knows more than Cuda, Cuda thinks he knows more that Thorne, and Thorne thinks he knows more than everyone.

When you go to church on Sunday, and the pastor gives a great sermon, and you sit in your pew thinking…I really shoud be kinder to my neighbor….BINGO…you just learned something, does it really matter if it was a literal story, or a parable, or a metaphor, or a few words were mis-translated from ancient Hebrew…NO…it doesn’t…you just learned something. And that is what the book is for.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Foil, "original intended meaning" is a slippery slope. We have the text, and the text must be the judge of any supposed "original intended meaning."

the story of creation has too many questions to be taking in a literal translation.

Bingo. So you see the criteria you're using to judge the reading of Genesis.

Exactly!!!! and yet you use the same Criteria in your argument, and yet with all the questions and interpretational doubts that have been brought up you continue to hold steadfast. Oh Well!!

Where have I used the same criteria? I'm saying that you're allowing doubt to drive interpretation rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

Ultimately in God's plan new earth and old earth is truly a minor point. but to make science a "dirty word" in the scope of God's creation is foolish and goes directly against Paul teaching. science has yet to and will never disprove the existance of God or his creation that we call earth. as I stated earlier even Einstein came to the realization that there must have been a designing force in the universe and spent most of his life trying to disprove it, which he was never able to do.

I'm not the one making science a dirty word. Science and observation is a very good thing, but secular "scientific" conclusions are anything but infallible, they are based on a naturalistic philosophy, and they are ultimately contrary to the Bible.

P.S. please reference Paul's teaching.

[Lothar]

Lothar thinks he knows more than Foil

No I don't.

why don’t you guys just admit that the Bible contains many inconsistancies, incongruities & contradictions and stop trying to translate it as literal. And just use it as a guide to live a good life, as it was intended.

does it really matter if it was a literal story, or a parable, or a metaphor, or a few words were mis-translated from ancient Hebrew…

I agree with your second sentence, though I would expand it to say it was intended to teach you to be like God (of which "living a good life" is a part) and to love God. But it's not full of contradictions or incongruities; it's full of stories told within a particular culture and within a particular structure, which make perfect sense and fit together just fine if you read them with that in mind. And it does matter whether certain things are literal, parable, etc. because the lesson you take from them can change depending on those things.

That's what I've argued regarding Genesis 1: if you read it as a literal history, you take away a (wrong) lesson about modern science. If you read it as a response to the Egyptian creation story, you take away a lesson about the nature of God. The passage is of far more value when you take away the right lesson from it!

[Spidey]

One of the lessons from Genesis is…human pride is wrong, how would that be any different if the story was literal or not?

PS…it’s not a good idea to equate the Bible with modern science…that’s just going to get you into trouble right from the beginning.

[Lothar]

One of the lessons from Genesis is…human pride is wrong, how would that be any different if the story was literal or not?

Yes, that's ONE of the lessons. There are a lot of lessons you can take from various passages and from the text as a whole, and SOME of them change depending on how you approach the text.

[Spidey]

Well…when I read the Bible, the messages I get never change with reguard to whether they are literal or not. I read the text, it is processed by “my” language centers, passed on to “my” interpretation centers, it is then made sense of in relation to “my” own knowledge and experiences. (roughly)

I’m sorry but, \"your\" interpretation of the Bible is useless to me…(not meant as an insult) No offence.

In other words…tell me the story, but don’t sit there afterwards and try to tell me what it meant. (that’s the point where religion and me depart ways)

[Foil]

Foil, "original intended meaning" is a slippery slope. We have the text, and the text must be the judge of any supposed "original intended meaning."

The text alone? If that's what you're saying, I have to disagree. Taking text alone, out of the original structure and culture and context, can lead to all kinds of misunderstandings.

[Edit: I used to believe that doing transliterations of the text, with literal textual word comparisons, somehow gave us the most 'pure' meaning. But that's not the case - in fact, I think it more often leads to flawed interpretations.]

[Lothar]

Well…when I read the Bible, the messages I get never change with reguard to whether they are literal or not.

Then you're shortchanging yourself -- you're only getting part of the messages that are in the text. (The same is true of any literary work that you don't take the time to understand fully.) Of course, it's up to you to decide if it's worth the time and effort to gain that additional understanding. If you consider the rest of it useless, don't take the time to understand it... but don't disrespect those of us who've chosen to do so, either. I think it's worth the time to try to understand it better, and I think it's worth the time to discuss it with others, all to get at the meaning the original authors intended for their readers to get. True respect for any text means respecting the author's original purpose and ideas. (In other words, it's not about "my" ideas; it's about trying to get to "His" ideas; see below.)

Personally, I think there's a lot of beauty to be found in Genesis 1's description of the nature of God, and I think a lot of people miss it because they're too busy thinking about evolution. I think it would be a HUGE positive change for the church as a whole to move away from certain bad habits of interpretation, and to move toward your "it teaches you about the dangers of pride and being kinder to your neighbor" approach. But I think you take it a bit too far; the Bible isn't merely about how to live, it's about who God is, and that's the more important part.

Foil, "original intended meaning" is a slippery slope. We have the text, and the text must be the judge of any supposed "original intended meaning."

The text alone? If that's what you're saying, I have to disagree. Taking text alone, out of the original structure and culture and context, can lead to all kinds of misunderstandings.

Exactly.

Understanding ANYTHING that ANYONE has written is an exercise in searching for original intended meaning. It's always a question of "what did the author mean by this", not merely "what does it say if I read it naively" or "what can I make it say" or "what does it mean to me". In order to get at the author's original idea, you should use every tool you have available, large and small. These include:

- cultural and historical factors
- the author's personality
- the structure of the overall argument or story
- specific word choice, and the range of meanings inherent for a chosen word
- general understanding of the nature of communication

See also: Tom and Catherine's notes on Biblical Interpretation. That's still "first draft" quality, but there's some good stuff in there.

[Spidey]

Sure that’s fine, but none of you can agree on any of that stuff either…so you wind up right back in the same boat.

Nothing personal but, I don’t want anybody except the author telling me what their writings mean. I have pleanty of background in the study and understanding of religions and culture to make a perfectly good interpreptation of my own. (although, I’m no expert by any means) I’m 52 years old and have been interested in science, religion & politics for most of my life. (prolly before some of you were born)

And on a final note, I find it ironic when people do exactly the thing that the Bible teaches us not to do.

[Gooberman]

Then you're shortchanging yourself -- you're only getting part of the messages that are in the text. (The same is true of any literary work that you don't take the time to understand fully.) Of course, it's up to you to decide if it's worth the time and effort to gain that additional understanding. If you consider the rest of it useless, don't take the time to understand it... but don't disrespect those of us who've chosen to do so, either.

I think this difference in understanding you are laying out is a matter of faith. It is good that it takes you deeper discussing those details, but as someone who doesn't particularly believe in those details, the bible then begins and ends as "good rules to live by."

That "additional understanding" is an avenue that is only open for someone who believes that there is "additional understanding" to be had. I can accept Jesus as a philosopher and a good man, but that is where the train stops for me.

Let me give an example,

Have you ever been around alot of art nerds? Who can and will talk endlessly about the meaning of a certain painting? They will go on and on about how the blue represents this, and the red represents this, etc.

And you know, and keep saying to yourself in your head, that there is no way in hell the artist really intended "all that." Well that is what this is (to me). You believe the "artist" (God) really did "all that," I don't. The point I am getting at, is that it is not a lack of effort in seeking understanding, but rather a difference in perspective.

And it is from that vantage point, in which I find the minor details to be quite irrelevant. And when I considered myself to be Catholic, still found them as such.

[Bet51987]

...science has yet to and will never disprove the existance of God or his creation that we call earth.

Science does not waste time trying to disprove a God.

... as I stated earlier even Einstein came to the realization that there must have been a
designing force in the universe and spent most of his life trying to disprove it, which he was never able to do.

Einstein never believed in the God of organized religion but would not rule out a higher power that
would not be understood by man. Toward the end of his life, he told a friend.. "I am forced to say, that weakened by age, I have fallen prey to the clergy"

...So why don’t you guys just admit that the Bible contains many inconsistancies, incongruities

& contradictions and stop trying to translate it as literal. And just use it as a guide to live a good life, as

it was intended.

...When you go to church on Sunday, and the pastor gives a great sermon, and you sit in your

pew thinking…I really should be kinder to my neighbor….BINGO…you just learned something, does it really matter

if it was a literal story, or a parable, or a metaphor, or a few words were mis-translated from ancient

Hebrew…NO…it doesn’t…you just learned something. And that is what the book is for.

...I just have little patience for scriptural legalism, it has done more to hurt the cause of

Christ than almost anything that we so-called Christians have done.

Exactly...

One thing this thread has shown me is that the bible is truly made of Play-Doh. I'm glad the people in my church who depend on it for hope see it much simpler.

Bee

[flip]

So why don’t you guys just admit that the Bible contains many inconsistancies, incongruities & contradictions and stop trying to translate it as literal. And just use it as a guide to live a good life, as it was intended.

We'll see this is my problem in the first place. Out of the whole Bible, I can find no inconsistencies other than the account of Cains wife. Which may be not be an error at all. In inconsistencies I mean in respect to the whole collection of 66 books contradicting itself. After many years of reading and studying, I've found that all authors seem to be of one mind and all 66 books seem to compliment and expand on each other WITHOUT controversy. Not to say that anything that is written there can't be disputed, but that it does not dispute itself.
I've challenged others before to find an inconsistency, and the Cain account is disputable. As far as being filled with errors, up till now I only find this one that has the appearance of contradiction. Very interesting views so far. I'm taking all this into account.

[flip]

One thing I'm not sure about. We do all agree Adam and Eve were actual people? From reading some of the other comments, It's unclear. If we do all at least agree that the bible is talking about 2 actual people, then we can reason from there.

[Sedwick]

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.
...
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
...
We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never.

More on Einstein's views...