Only because you refuse to actually study scripture, instead forcing it into a worldview you prefer.
Tell me what’s bad about this theology:
I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty maker of heaven and earth; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the uniquely-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages– God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, being cosubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, Who for us men and our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, He suffered and was buried,
*And on the third day He rose again in accordance with the scriptures, * and ascended into heaven, and is seated on the right hand of the Father, from whence He shall come again with glory to judge the living and dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end; And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets; And in one holy universal and apostolic church, in one baptism for the remission of sins, and I look for the resurrection from the dead, and the life of the age to come.
(my translation from the Greek)
I’ve asked you this before and you have not pointed out anything wrong. Maybe you’ll find it this time?
The text does not tell of a literal seven days. It may look that way in an English translation, but it wasn’t written in English, it was written in ancient Hebrew in two ancient literary genres using the Egyptian creation story as its framework. Reading it as though it was written in your preferred worldview destroys the account’s three messages.
Adam isn’t mentioned in Exodus 20 – not in the Masoretic text, not in the Leningradensis, not in either major version of the Septuagint, not even in the Vulgate (looking there was fun; I only had to look up four words in verses 9 through 11).
We’ve been over this before: that is not in the text – not in the Greek, not in the Vulgate, and not in any of the top dozen English translations.
That’s not in the text either!
No – you’re reading that into the text.
That’s quite the imagination you have – I don’t recall anyone doing any such thing.
Cross-referencing is not doing theology. If you want to talk theology, you have to show from the original language that Peter claimed what you say – which isn’t possible since the Greek text doesn’t say what you claim, though you’re welcome to try to show it.
You excel in trying to force ancient writings into you preferred worldview. You would do far better to actually study the scriptures from the point of view of the original writer(s), which means according to the literary forms they used and according to their worldview.
The Holy Spirit didn’t force ancient writers to write things for your worldview, He moved them to write in ways that the people at their time would understand.
If you are not honest enough to try to step out of your worldview and into that of the ancient writers, then you aren’t serious about understanding the scriptures. It’s not an easy thing to do; it requires a lot of effort but is worth it because it unlocks treasures in the inspired writings that you will never, evver see from reading a translation using a modern worldview.
No kidding. Part of the problem is that we have this philosophical view of God rather than a scriptural one – my favorite example of that is in the difference between Latin omnipotens and Greek Παντοκράτωρ, pantokrator; we use the former, but when we think of “omnipotent” we have the idea “can do anything”, while pantokrator indicates having all the power that exists (so that whatever power there is comes from God). So our inclination is to think that God could just wave a hand and do away with evil.
A part of the problem is that we tend to regard evil as what philosophers would call “accidents”, things that aren’t part of a thing itself – sort of that evil is something painted on and thus can be scraped off without any harm to whatever it’s being scraped from. We fail to recognize that in the biblical view evil is something that has become part of us and can’t be taken out so easily – which as Christians we should recognize since it took Christ dying on the Cross to deal with the issue! From the scriptures we should understand that taking the evil out of people – out of all of us! – requires nothing less than death.
[side comment: this is a part of why early Christians rejoiced when they were arrested and condemned to death – they knew that death was the ‘filter’ that finally freed them personally from evil/sin, that having been united with Christ in His death, their deaths became victories as well.]
[side comment #2: some theologians have observed that the fact that we don’t like evil is evidence that the image of God is not lost in us since if it was then our only problem with evil would be if some evil thing harmed us.]
Perhaps my toughest moment with the problem of evil was when I got to the advanced swimming class I was teaching at a YMCA and found all of my students were in shock – all but one, that is, because he wasn’t there; when a friend stopped at his house after school he found his friend hanging from the branch of a tree in the back yard, a suicide note on his chest. I didn’t teach any swimming that day, I just gathered everyone in the (nice, warm) ‘kiddie pool’ and tried to help them all to deal with it (while I wasn’t dealing with it well myself).
I got mad at his school because staff there had been aware he was depressed, mad at his friends because they should have been there for him, and very mad at God for letting such a thing happen.
yet his doubts about his own doubts are not depicted
I’ve had doubts about my doubts almost as often as I have had doubts!!
This from Willian Whewell struck me:
we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws.
“Insulated interpositions” is a great description of how the heavy-handed deity some believe in would act. Acting through natural laws is the more elegant mode.
Like many others since Robert Boyle and John Ray in the late seventeenth century, Paley had emphasized the wisdom and goodness of the Creator as seen in the many wonderful ways that God had specially created plants and animals to fit perfectly and harmoniously into specific, unchanging environments. As Darwin realized, if his theory was correct, then Paley was wrong: there are no unchanging environments, perfect adaptation is a chimera, and nature exhibits a struggle for existence rather than a harmonious balance.
It fascinates me that I still encounter people who rely on Paley.
But I disagree with the last line: nature exhibits both “a struggle for existence” and “a harmonius balance”. I see “the wisdom and goodness of the Creator” in a system designed to continually adjust to changing conditions, not merely to survive but also to bring forth more variety and more beauty.
Contrary to what is often said, Darwin’s theory wasn’t atheistic, and it didn’t destroy natural theology.
But how do we get that across to those who think those things?
I think more accurately he falls back on the Sabbath, failing to recognize that the Sabbath is nothing in itself but is just a signpost pointing to Christ.
I was hoping someone would say this…
That is the problem when individuals are in the habit of straw plucking doctrine from single texts almost always taken out of context. We develop sound doctrine and theology by a variety of cross referenced resources.
So when one reads exodus 20, one finds a list of commandments given to Israelites.
Sunday worshipping churches are exposed here because they aregue, Christ did away with the commandments at the cross when he said, “It is finished” (apparently referring to the old covenant).
The falsehood there is, the prophet jeremiah ( jer 31.33) hundreds of years earlier had already introduced the new covenant when he said
This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
Then we have the book of 1 john 5 telling us we should keep the commandments
children of God: when we love God and keep His commandments. 3For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome, 4because everyone born of God overcomes the world.
The point is, we know the 4th commandment in exodus 20 is talking about exactly what i claimed because we can cross reference it with a lot of other biblical theology.
As an example, my claim the sanctuary service was already in existence thousands of years before Moses…
Do you know why i am 100% correct on that belief? Well its because of a little part of the description of the sacrifice that often gets overlooked…the skin of the sacrificial animal…it wasnt burned…it was one of the 10 gifts divided among the priests (did you know that?)
God took the skin of the animal in genesis 3 and made clothes for Adam and Eve, thus covering their nakedness.
The sacrificial system is a reminder that Adam and Eves trangression had a direct affect on nature, an animal died to cover their nakedness, their transgression. After God was vindicated of the charge of Satan ik heaven (made before the fall of Adam and Eve), the saved are clothed instead in the now realised hope of Christs robe of righteousness so that “they may walk in boldly before the throne and be judged not guilty” (hebrews 4).
Bedore the cross this wasnt possible because God was on trial and our salvation and redemption was not yet sure.
oh but it does say that St Roymond…unless you are going to head down the idiotic JW path of “show us the word trinity in the bible”
You see you like to make the claim we cannot use the common reading of language to understand what the writer intends us to comprehend we must be able to read the original language.
What you ignore St Roymond, and therefore do not realise the gravity of your situation here, is that Peter is cross referencing the historicity of the flood and destruction of Sodom and Gomorah and he is doing this whilst claiming he received this revelation from the ancient writings, ministry of Christ, and direct revelation from God!
its absolutely obvious through normal reading of language that he[ Peter] means to say these events really happened exactly as written (which completely destroys your theology that they are not literal events of the magnitude described in Genesis!). The JW defense is demolished because Peter is cross referencing the writings of Moses…particularly the narratives of the Flood and Destruction of Sodom and Gomorah!
If we go back further…note what Peter starts out with in Verse 4…where he is referencing the rebellion of Lucifer and his angels in heaven PRIOR to the fall of Adam and Eve (obviously referencing Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28). This means Peter believed in Creation as written because he is citing events that occurred at the time of the Moasic 6 day creation… Also, we know that Peter worshipped the Sabbath with Christ and this is further evidence in support of Peters belief in Exodus 20…incl vs 8-11 (“…in six days God created the heavens and the earth…”)
To address the dog barking up trees complaint about reading in the original language… i posted below from the greek text itself to check on your false claims. And here is what the original language actually does say (or one of the earliest near complete manuscripts we have of the original at least…codex Sinaiticus)
ου νυϲταζει [η̣](javascript:void(0)) γαρ
ο θϲ αγγελων αμαρ
τηϲαντων ουκ ε
φιϲατο αλλα ϲιροιϲ
[ζοφοιϲ](javascript:void(0)) ταρταρω
ϲαϲ παρεδωκεν
ειϲ κριϲιν κολα
ζομενουϲ τηριν
5
και αρχαιου κοϲ
μου ουκ εφιϲατο
αλλα ογδοον νω
ε δικαιοϲυνηϲ
κηρυκα εφυλαξε
κατακλυϲμον [κο](javascript:void(0))
[ϲμον](javascript:void(0)) αϲεβων ε
6
παξαϲ · και πολιϲ
ϲοδομων και γο
μορραϲ τεφρωϲαϲ
καταϲτροφη κα
τεκρινεν ϋποδι
γμα μελλοντω
αϲεβειν τεθικωϲ
So we know that we can rely on the English translation of the above as follows…
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but casting them down to Tartarus in chains of darkness delivered them up to be kept for judgment,
5 and spared not the old world, but preserved Noah, the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, having brought a flood on the world of the ungodly,
6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example of those that shall live ungodly,
It is then abundantly clear from 2 Peter Chapter 1, the apostle not only believes in the literal reading of the accounts of the flood and Sodom and Gomorah, but that its also impossible to describe him as an individual who did not also believe in the literal 7 day creation as He is clearly referencing here the writings of ancient prophets…ie Moses account in Genesis .
What is even more devastating to your views here is that Peter also claims to have received his witness from the writings of the prophets, as an eyewitness to Christ’s ministry, and through direct revelation from God.
Lets not forget, what is one of the most common methods of revelation from God given to prophets such as Moses? Visions/dreams…visual explanations of what God is revealing to them. You would be heading out onto a limb of foolishness to make the claim that human words cannot adequately explain the visual imagery given by God to Moses of a global flood that is being referenced by Peter.
and as supporting evidence for my use of Codex Sinaticus…
Encyclopedia Brittanica states:
Codex Sinaiticus , the earliest known manuscript of the ChristianBible, compiled in the 4th century CE. Codex Sinaiticus consists mostly of the text of the Septuagint, the Greek-language Bible. Some 800 of the original 1,400 handwritten vellum pages remain. Though about half of the Hebrew Bible is missing, a complete 4th-century New Testament is preserved, along with the Letter of Barnabas (c. mid-2nd century) and most of the Shepherd of Hermas, a 2nd-century Christian writer.
The point of research St Roymond, given you are someone who claims to have attended university and therefore have done extensive research during your time there, is that we compile our evidence from a variety of sources in order to ensure the adequacy of our claims. Now the real problem here is that I am not claiming “secular science interprets”, I am claiming Creation Science interprets. Given the bible is my source of authority on the origins of life and how it will end in this lifetime, that is the basis from which all my Christian belief must come. That is why YEC state that anyone who does not take that fundamental position will be lost … they are denying the inerrancy of the bible and therefore God.
The problem is that you change what the scripture says by being sloppy with it, as shown by sticking Adam into a verse that doesn’t mention him.
We are not Israelites, we are Gentiles, and the Holy Spirit made plain that only these few things apply to Gentile believers:
that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.
That’s it – those are the only things that God the Spirit puts on Gentile Christians. No Ten Commandments, no sacrifices, no circumcision, and no Sabbath.
To claim that this means anything from the Old Testament is to call the Holy Spirit a liar.
So why do you hold a position that makes the Holy Spirit a liar?
Is totally bogus. Your argument for it is like claiming that the U.S. Interstate Highway system existed in 1880 because Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. was paved with asphalt in 1877.
No, the sacrificial system was a signpost pointing towards Christ. That you constantly make this error shows that you do not have Christ at the center of your theology.
All of this has been shown to be false. You make claims that are not in the text and then claim that “cross referencing” shows that it is in the text. This is theology by lies.
You can’t – because you always end up saying that the text follows your preferred modern worldview instead of speaking to the people to whom it was actually written. Your “common reading of language” approach is nothing but intellectual laziness and arrogance.
Nope. You only say that because you assume beforehand that that’s what he’s doing. Unless you’ve studied and covered the ancient literature from the time of Second Temple Judaism and earlier you have no basis to claim what Peter was saying – so you stuff your own ideas into the text.
“Normal reading of language” only works if you’re reading the original language and doing that with an understanding of the worldview of the writer and his audience. That includes knowing the sort of literary genres in use at the time.
That’s NOT what Peter is referencing. He’s talking about Genesis 6:1-4, Deuteronomy 32:8, Psalm 29:1, and Psalm 82. Peter is actually quoting from the book of Enoch when he writes " cast them into Tartarus and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment" and by his use of “Tartarus” is including all the Greek gods as “angels [who] sinned”.
This is a major problem with your shallow approach to theology: you are willfully ignorant of the context of the scriptures. You have the arrogant attitude that the ancient writers were interested in making you happy by using genres you already understand without any study. That is an insult to the Holy Spirit and to the ancient writers and to the ancient audiences to who and for whom the scriptures were written!
Except it isn’t – that’s a conclusion based on willful ignorance of anything but your own worldview. You have no concept of how ancient people understood the authority of writings, so you totally miss what’s going on when you impose your modern worldview on the ancient writings.
We’ve been over this: you can only claim visions or dreams when the scriptures say something was a vision or dream! Otherwise you are adding to the text.
Except you don’t – you refuse to consider “a variety of sources” unless they already agree with you. You refuse to consider the original contexts of the ancient scriptures including the ancient worldview and ancient literary genres. By doing so you have deliberately chosen to not be able to understand the scriptures.
The real problem is that you think that the Bible has anything to do with science in the first place – and that you have never bothered to actually ask what the Bible says about it!
I’ve asked before, and I’ll ask again: where does any scripture say that it has anything to do with science?
That’s what you imagine, but your actual authority is a modern view of things that arose from scientific materialism. You have never bothered to even wonder why ancient people considered something to have authority, you have never bothered to wonder how they viewed truth, you just go with things you’re familiar with and force the scriptures to fit.
And in so doing you throw away a great deal of what the scriptures are actually saying. That’s why I spend time refuting your repeated secular approach to Genesis: your view is dangerous because it does not let scripture speak for itself, it forces the scriptures into a straitjacket that makes Christianity look foolish.
I have no hesitation in saying that we are descended from God.
Biologically we are descended from common ancestors with apes, dogs, birds, snakes, fish, and worms. But we are not just biological organisms alone. Our life is not just the life of the body but also of the mind, and the life of the mind dominates the lives of a great many of us. The mind has a separate inheritance quite apart that of the body. And I think our humanity has far more to do with that inheritance than the biological one.
One day in the future it may be like the ending of the film AI, where our only descendants are inheritors of the mind and nothing of the body.
I would be more charitable than that. It is understandable why someone prior to the modern age would take on a more literal interpretation of Genesis. This goes for both modern science and our modern understanding of the cultures that wrote Genesis. Human traditions and institutions can be powerful things.
Was Geocentrism science fiction prior to the modern age? No. Modern, religiously motivated Geocentrism would be bad theology, bad science, badly mixed. However, I can fully understand why people in the 16th and 17th century still believed that the Universe moved about the stationary Earth.
