quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

Actually it is NOT all written in the same literary style, this is misinformation often presented by those trying to argue for a literal interpretation, but it is completely wrong.

Say what?! Iv'e read Genesis plenty of times. I'm sure I could say the same for drmark. We do not present "misinformation" to try to deceive you. It is an observation we make, and it happens to be true. Instead of claiming Genesis was not written the same, can you provide evidence for your claim? What in Genesis 1 leads you to believe it is an allegory? If you find something, I guarantee you read WAY between the lines, because there's just nothing there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Actually it is NOT all written in the same literary style, this is misinformation often presented by those trying to argue for a literal interpretation, but it is completely wrong.

Well, you've certainly dimissed one of the world's authorities on Biblical Hebrew as being misinformed! From the article "Should Genesis be taken literally?":

quote:

Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1
Oh come on now drmark, dismissing the work of "authorities" should pose no trouble for you, even one's from Oxford University. Professor Richard Dawkins is also the world's leading evolutionary biologist and teacher at Oxford University yet you have no trouble dismissing his work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1
Oh come on now drmark, dismissing the work of "authorities" should pose no trouble for you, even one's from Oxford University. Professor Richard Dawkins is also the world's leading evolutionary biologist and teacher at Oxford University yet you have no trouble dismissing his work.

Actually there is a lot of Dawkin's "work" that I have no trouble dismissing either. He has a very hard time separating his non-scientific pet theories from his scientific work. For instance he believes that life originating on some alien planet is far more likely than God being involved with creation (even from a theistic evolution viewpoint).

quote:

I suppose that is what prompted Douglas Adams to imagine God basically said this to His creation, "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

quote:

No one in particular, just one of His creation, unable to believe.

quote:

Don't you mean "our" sins?

quote:

Is it, but recently it was asserted that God will chose me and reveal Himself to me.

quote:

Did he? Wonder why Paul never mentioned an empty tomb then?

quote:

If I had been asked the question you asked on that atheist website I would have said yes, that would have been a good enough reason to believe.

quote:


Again, I am considered egotistical and arrogant. I did not claim it was necessary. I said it would have made it unquestionable and since it's not there it appears God intended for it to be questionable. How is this arrogant? Disagreeing with you doesn't make me egotistical.

quote:

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I must have gathered that from what you wrote and then responded as if you had actually written it. I didn't mean to offend or assume too much.

quote:

Unfortunately for all of us, the best we can actually do is to put our faith in the men and women who have gone before us. Unless you personally have had it revealed to you that JESUS IS LORD, then you have to trust that someone else had it revealed them. Your faith is placed in the people you learned about Christianity from who placed their faith in the people they learned about christianity from, who placed their faith in the people they learned about Christianity from, all the way back to somewhere around 2000 years ago when, supposedly, some human placed his faith in the actual almighty God through directly witnessing his actions on earth.

quote:

One major problem with the world is that ignorant people and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people are so full of doubts. This is in no way directed at anyone here. The fact that "her scriptures change with science" is not only NOT something I'd have a problem with, it's something I would like to see from ALL of my fellow humans. It is simply an observation we can all agree with when we apply it to the certainty of the religious fanatics who bombed the world trade center. Life should be one doubt after another. I wish they would have doubted themselves.

The creator of startrek will be best suited to speak for me in closing. "To me the whole joy and glory of Jesus is the fact that he was one of us. It seems to me that the whole statement of the New Testament is, "Hey, man, you can too, because I was born like you. I died like you. There's nothing special about me that's not special in you. And I'm offering you both." And I think the divinity thing is baloney because they've taken away from the glorious, divine message that he kept saying over and over again. Divine, yes. But so are we. I think that's what he was saying: "So are you."

Jesus came to be part of nature, like us, what could make it more obvious that being part of nature is divine in and of itself?

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
I was speaking to YOU, but yes, I am a sinner (more than you'll ever know) in need of a Savior. But so are you...

quote:

Why?...What did you do?

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

Why do you wanna know?

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod



Wrong. There are PLENTY of historical, archaeological, and scientific FACTS to prove Christianity, specifically the Bible. The fact that a man named Jesus Christ walked this earth 2000 years ago is nearly an indisputable fact.

quote:

This same man fulfilled prophecies written about Him thousands of years before his birth.

quote:

I don't need someone before me who placed his trust in Christ for me to do the same.

quote:

Christianity holds the title of "religion with most evidence to its validity." Perhaps this is a reason it is so accepted?

quote:

Perhaps it is the reason you are even here talking to me???

quote:

Is that what makes you deny the evidence because you did a really really bad thing?

quote:

quote:

quote:

Christianity holds the title of "religion with most evidence to its validity." Perhaps this is a reason it is so accepted?

I'd be impressed if it had even a 50% share of the available adherents to its name. I think it's favor is attributable to its age and many other attractive traits like salvation through faith vice through works and so on.

quote:

That's debatable, but what is also nearly an indisputable fact is that men wrote this history you speak of. Everything you believe is therefore based on recorded history that was written down by MAN. These are the men in whom your faith is placed. It may also lead to faith in God, but to get there, you must admit you had to grant an inordinate amount of default faith in the men who've gone before you.

It is also worth noting that you applied this faith selectively, because you have granted no such faith in ANY other religious historical record.

quote:

So you're saying that because one bible had prophecies in it, and then history records events that align with those prophecies, you are placing your faith directly in God?

quote:

I think maybe you're missing the point. The only reason you know about God is because of what other humans wrote down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Actually it is NOT all written in the same literary style, this is misinformation often presented by those trying to argue for a literal interpretation, but it is completely wrong.

Well, you've certainly dimissed one of the world's authorities on Biblical Hebrew as being misinformed! From the article "Should Genesis be taken literally?":

quote:

Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

quote:

I am told they are even more obvious in the original Hebrew.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

quote:

quote:

Christianity holds the title of "religion with most evidence to its validity." Perhaps this is a reason it is so accepted?

I'd be impressed if it had even a 50% share of the available adherents to its name. I think it's favor is attributable to its age and many other attractive traits like salvation through faith vice through works and so on.

His point wasn't a question about how many adherents there are to Christanity, but about how much historical evidence there is for Christianity.

quote:

The reality is that most secular archaeologists will readily acknowledge that the bible contains historical and verifiable facts to a far greater extent than any of the competing religious books. To deny that is simply sticking your head in the sand.

quote:

Because I read Hebrew, I have no problem recognizing Hebrew poetry when I read it, and Ge. 1 is written in a very poetic style, and this is not completely obscured in many English Translations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
The point remains, poetry or not, that it is inconsistent to accept the creation of man in God's Image, the Fall and the Curse, and the existence of historical Hebrew patriarchs while inventing allegorical meanings for specific created entities on six specifirc days. No amount of literary posturing on your part can change that simple fact, benelchi.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

Considering oneself a Christian does not make oneself a Christian. The reason I take this so seriously is that as a CHRISTian, should not I listen to CHRIST'S words? I mean, the last time I checked, that is kind of a requirement. Where are those words recorded? Scriptures. When Jesus speaks, I listen.

quote:

But, as Gluadys has already admitted, she claims it is an allegory by the science she observes. Her Scriptures change with science, and THAT is something I have a problem with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

So how do you determine that the account of Hebrew patriarchs is factual history, but not the creation of Adam and Eve on the sixth day? Is there scientific evidence for Abraham's existence?

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Because I read Hebrew, I have no problem recognizing Hebrew poetry when I read it, and Ge. 1 is written in a very poetic style, and this is not completely obscured in many English Translations.

Since I do not read Hebrew, all I can say is that many scholars disagree with your literary analysis. Professor Robert Alter claims in his book "The Art of Biblical Poetry" that Genesis 2:23 is the first line of poetry in the Bible (reference cited). So it seems to me that this boils down to the same issue we see with old earth/young earth - my scientists are better than your scientists or my linguistic scholars are better than your linguistic scholars.

The point remains, poetry or not, that it is inconsistent to accept the creation of man in God's Image, the Fall and the Curse, and the existence of historical Hebrew patriarchs while inventing allegorical meanings for specific created entities on six specifirc days. No amount of literary posturing on your part can change that simple fact, benelchi.

quote:

And no, AFAIK there is no scientific evidence for Abraham's existence. I am not sure if we have evidence for any particular biblical figure prior to David. There is earlier evidence of a people called "Hebrew" though there is some speculation as to whether it refers to an ethnic group or a social class.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Or they didnt think the account was a literal story detailing how the earth was created at all. In particular I can think of Philo's exegesis, where he argues that the days are symbolism for the creation of the sequence (or order), and don't correspond to literal days at all.

I always thought the gap theory was a fairly recent thing, for those still trying to reconcile literal/historical interpretation of genesis with modern scientific reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Or they didnt think the account was a literal story detailing how the earth was created at all. In particular I can think of Philo's exegesis, where he argues that the days are symbolism for the creation of the sequence (or order), and don't correspond to literal days at all.

I always thought the gap theory was a fairly recent thing, for those still trying to reconcile literal/historical interpretation of genesis with modern scientific reality.

No, it is not recent at all but goes way back to ancient scholars, Jewish teachers and Origen. Gap theory is also found amongst some of the medieval rabbis and always among Kabalists (whatever one may think of them).

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

But for what purpose would God have inspired Moses or any other ancient writer to use the modern scientific framework of uniformitarianism? Were the Israelites asking how old the earth is? Were they asking about the formation of the Grand Canyon? Were they asking what fossils are? Was it to explain fossils and geological strata that the story of Noah's flood was told and retold?

Or did God inspire these scriptures to answer questions that were much more pertinent to the Israelites? Such as: who is this God who led us out of Egypt? Is he the only God or are the gods of other nations real too? Who made the natural world we know? Our God or the gods of the nations? one God or many gods? Is this world, (as the Canaanite and Babylonian cosmogonies said) the fruit of a war among the gods? Were humans made to serve the gods as slave labour? Or was the world made by one God, the God of Israel, who had no need to conquer other gods? Were humans made, not as slave labour, but in God's image as lords and stewards of creation? Why does wickedness exist in the world? Does God care about wickedness one way or the other?

If these were the important questions, what need is there, in the stories which reveal the answers, to speak in terms of issues like uniformitarianism which would not even be thought of for many millennia yet.

The problem with the AiG rewrite is that it tries to answer questions people ask about creation today. It doesn't deal with any of the issues that were important in ancient Israel. It would certainly be understandable to ancient peoples (the Hindu cosmogony is even older and envisions a process of trillions of years). But it would be nearly useless as a practical aid to faith in the face of their own situation. It would make sense to them, but it would not speak to their hearts.