Yes, I am interested in your draft, thank you.
1 Like
I assume you meant Abram, not Adam?
Adam/ humanity was given the sacraments for food. As general categories grass/ vine = bread and wine. Genesis is teaching theology not science, Metaphysics not physics.
And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.
Ok here it is… I am not a trained theologian. I was asking the same questions you are and this is what I am working through. I wanted a new way to comprehend Genesis. Covid offered the time and space to think about this all. I hope it is understandable, I’m still working on it. My hope is that a unified understanding of Genesis can bring the Church into unity.
Cheers
There’s no speculation involved; that’s the worldview within which Genesis was written, and for the sky-dome it’s what the word means.
No, it isn’t – it’s the worldview within which Genesis was written.
That’s not relevant to anything. They existed when Genesis was written and Genesis 1-11 conforms to those literary types. It is utterly illogical to think that the Creation accounts were written with 21st-century questions in mind, it is thoroughly logical to think that they were written in response to the worldview that continuously infected Israel.
The way to do that is to apply the historical-grammatical method, asking what the worldview is the material was written within (and in response to), what kind of literature it is, and thus what the meaning was to the original audience.
Starting with the ANE worldview and literary types is how to reach spiritual understanding because that’s the path to understanding the actual message.
It’s not about accepting, it’s about how to understand ancient literature. This is why my grad school prep courses were loaded with literature from different times and places: to get us in the habit of asking, “What would the first audience(s) have understood from this?” It doesn’t matter if it’s Shakespeare, Cervantes, Sophocles, or Genesis, the meaning of a piece of literature is what it meant to the original audience.
Huh? Before Genesis 1:1 there was no heaven; that’s right there in the text. And the first sin we know of would be the Deceiver/Serpent in the Garden asking, “Did God say…?” Speculating by adding to the text is risky at best.
And given the status of ha-Satan in the Book of Job, that sin wasn’t enough to get the Deceiver/Accuser banned from heaven, either, so the idea that there was something massively destructive in Genesis 1 is a huge stretch.
The big question about the opening of Genesis 1 is whether the text is telling us that the chaos/darkness condition is intended to be taken as pre-existing or not. The issue in the text itself is whether the temporal aspect or the indicative aspect dominates; those who say the temporal dominates argue that “When God began to create” informs us that the chaos/darkness was already there, while those who go with the traditional position that the indicative dominates argue that “In the beginning God created” informs us that there was nothing before God began to create. One argument that the former group invokes that since the pre-existence of chaos/darkness was the common ANE view then that is what the Genesis writer is saying – but I take that same common ANE view and assert that the Genesis writer is saying the opposite, that nothing pre-existed, because the whole point of all three aspects of this opening Creation story is to say, “They’re wrong!” and thus the text means that even the primeval chaos/darkness (with its accompanying Great Deep) is YHWH-Elohim’s creation, thus repudiating every vestige of the ANE view.
So it isn’t that we are to accept or believe the ANE views, it’s that we need to know what the Genesis writer is trashing quite thoroughly.
2 Likes
Very allegorical – something with a long tradition in the church.
1 Like
I was never YEC and never could have been. I only looked at the Bible to see if it made sense when science is accepted as fact. I decided it did. I also don’t think the YEC position makes any sense based on the text of Genesis itself.
I do not doubt the events as actually described but see no reason to interpret any of these as magical events contrary to the laws of nature.
My theology does not require a virgin birth but I see no reason to object since there is nothing contrary to science in this. Birth requires fertilization not sex. And now with invitro fertilization we see many virgin births. So how about fertilization without sex or invitro fertilization? Very unlikely but not impossible. Definitely a miracle but not contrary to the laws of nature. But do I believe Jesus was conceived without any contribution of DNA from a human father? No I do not. Jesus was God become man, not a biological offspring of deity like many human rulers claimed to be. And being human means having a biological mother and father. Jesus being God has absolutely NOTHING to do with DNA.
We see many spectacular magic shows and it only seems magical because we don’t know what really happened. But same applies to all the miracles of the Bible also.
So do I believe nothing supernatural? That would be incorrect. I believe in God and God is supernatural. But I believe God created the laws of nature for a reason (to support the process of life) and it seems inconsistent for God to break His own laws especially just to impress a bunch of ignorant savages who couldn’t possibly know the difference anyway.
Read 1 Corinthians 15.
There is nothing contrary to the laws of nature in the resurrection of Jesus to a spiritual body since in such a thing the laws of nature wouldn’t apply.
Depends on what you mean by that. Can someone truly be a Christian and doubt God breaks the laws of nature He created? Of course. Can someone truly be a Christian and doubt there is any truth to the accounts told in the Bible? Not so sure… cannot even see what the point would be.
Regardless, I think the sort of Christian who refuses to see, hear, and understand – willfully blinding Himself to everything God sends to us from the earth and sky is not in good accord with the teachings of Jesus. That isn’t faith but willful ignorance.
1 Like
Did I give you the impression I said so? I think not.
That’s only partly true, many many things were not understood by the Jews, the original audience. I have an Orthodox Jewish friend, he even reads the NT and yet he calls the devil a servant of God, prophecies about Jesus (like Isa 53) he rejects, etc.
-
It’s very well defensible, consider when the devil was tempting A&E he was already fallen from grace, the question is when.
-
Many texts speak about – before the foundation of the world – Efez 1:4, John 17:24, Rev 13:8, 1 Peter 1:20, thus before Gen 1:1, so the fall of the devil before Gen 1.1 can not be excluded.
-
Compare Eze 28:13-15 (describes the fall of Satan) with the description of the new Jerusalem in Rev 21:11, 18-20, both describe a similar heavenly place with about the same stones.
-
Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.
God addressing the heavenly audience, popular said, guys we have seen this before.
Hi Adam, Here you just emphasize St. Roymond’s point. Your comprehension is different from that of the Jew, the Greek, the Roman, and the Catholic. You are evaluating the words you read with a different detailed understanding of each of those words. Yet, because there is an element of commonality in our understanding of the meanings of the words, we can try to have a conversation. But you need to understand that the complete totality of what you understand any complex word to mean, including all the personal idiosycracies that your unique personal experiences have associated with that word, are not 100% the same as any other person’s detailed understanding of that same word. And one of St. Rotmond’s major points, made quite often in this thread, is that your understanding of the specific words in the English translations that you are reading does not give you the same identical understanding of any particular passage as the message that the author intended to pass to his readers when the passage was originally written in a different language. Then, for you to infer that what you understand the passage to mean must be what God intended for the passage to mean when God inspired the original author seems to me to be quite a stretch. Though I do believe that God knew before He created the universe, billions of years ago, that you would make those assumptions, and you would try to convince others that your interpretation of what God meant was correct, that St. Roymond would object to your interpretation, and that somehow, for all of His people observing the discourse, that somehow the experience, in the context of all the other experiences each of us is having, would turn out to be good for each of us, in satisfying His purposes for each of us.
- Pretty hard to believe that God is in control in the U.S. today. There’s a strong “WTF?” opinion running rampant among my tribe right now.
1 Like
I can understand that. Keep in mind we avoid discussion of politics on the forum because it tends to be a distraction, but if anyone wants to start a private discussion about “current events” in the US, feel free!
I have been distracted by some political activities going on here in the USA, will now try to lose myself in meaningful discussions, where people with very different beliefs on subjects that matter very much to them are able to hold rational, meaningful conversations without getting too personal at least most of the time!
So here are some specific responses, to some points where I don’t think you understand where I am coming from.
What I mean by taking interpretation out of context is that you are not taking into account what the original author intended the message to be, and what the original audience would have understood the message to be. A secondary concern I have is what do you consider to be an appropriate source of information, with my experience in a very conservative Lutheran education through the first two college years of pre-ministerial training, is the desire for a provable, unambiguous, undeniable source of absolute truth (which, by God’s design of the world into which He has placed us, does not exist). And then taking the source “we” believe in, and accepting no other source as valid information about God.
This discussion point seems to me related to the higher level question of what exactly is the world that God put us into. I believe that God, as creator of the universe, must exist outside the created universe, as well as being able to be anywhere in that universe that He chooses to be. The really important point that comes into play based on 20th century physics is that God exists outside of the space and time dimensions of the created universe. So God does know everything that ever will happen in His universe, before creating it, and chose to create a universe where, in our infinitesmally tiny corner, we can take actions that have real effects on other people, and on our small part of the universe. In order for our choices to be real, our choices must have effects. And if those choices do have consequences, good, bad, or indifferent, both intended and unintended, then God knew when and how He would have to intervene to fulfill His promise that all things would work together for good for me. And a significant part of His desire that I know that my choices have real consequences is that He has determined to stay at least partially hidden from our sight. But nothing at all says to me that God didn’t intend the world for me to live in to be just like it actually is. That is, I think it is foolish theology to claim that God ever intended us humans to live in heaven here on this earth. And if Satan is necessary to introduce evil, so that our choices are real, then that is what God chose to do, and why God would have let Satan into His world.
Science, as St. Roymond has tried to tell you, is looking to understand the world in which we live, based on actual observation, and the assumption that the laws governing the physical world interactions are not changing over time. Certainly the examination of the physical world and the natural physical laws will tell us nothing about the supernatural, especially since all of our observations are constrained by uncertainty, and the deduced laws that explain so much of what we as a human race have observed over the centuries are still not 100% able to explain everything, especially things we have not yet seen.
I would say that scientific observation of the universe gives us another view of something about God, that helps my “mathematically indistinguishable from 0% of the total infinite description of God” describe more about that God to help me improve my relationship with Her.
Your interpretation that the bible is the only source of information about God is wrong, but not 100% wrong, in my view, because it does say a lot about God, IF INTERPRETED CORRECTLY!
As one quick example: Did God ever tell God’s people to do something at one time, and then at a later time say, oh, no, you don’t have to do that? And my other complaint about those who would claim that the bible, and Christianity, are the only way that any human will get to heaven, do you really believe that God woul place a soul into an Australian aborigine in the 15th century, and place that soul into a place where the person would never have a chance to hear about Jesus, and then send that soul to hell? I leave this question to God, trusting that God loves everyone, and is not willing that any should perish. But that leaves me at odds with some of the theology I have heard, especially in my early YECish years. And leads to the fact that we don’t really know the entire purpose that God had for bothering to create a universe, with hundreds of trillions of stars, lasting for billions of years, and put us into a tiny part of that universe, for decades, not even centuries.
You are reading something into this that I did not say, so far from what was actually said that you are placing a lot of doubt in my mind about your ability to interpret written words. I have never said that Satan doesn’t exist, or may have different objectives. I do not accept that Satan gets to control the world that God created, over God’s objection. Is that what your theology says? If Satan can circumvent God’s will, then was God foolish, or incompetent, or what? I believe that God knows better than I, or any other human, or all of us together, know what God wanted this world to be.
1 Like
Yes.
Story of Abraham and Isaac.
This is routinely rejected in Christianity because it basically means you have rewritten the Bible yourself and think you could do the job better than God did. I don’t believe that.
Indeed! I do not accept that either. It is not what my theology says. Satan is an angel which God assigned to a role for the redemption of mankind. Anything else is more like Zoroastrianism and is a demotion of God to impotence, incompetence or immorality.
That is a question for science, since that is the only source of reliable answers on this question. On the larger scale it is a world of fixed mathematical rules which care nothing about what we want or believe. But on the smaller scales it is a quantum world of superpositions of many possibilities and those mathematical rules on the larger scale derive from probability distributions. It is an open door for interactions from outside its system of rules as long as those probability distributions are not altered. This means it is a world in which miracles can happen but only because these are rare exceptions to the rule.
Exactly! Yes He exists outside and independent of what He created. But He is also a participant as part of what he created.
Nope. This does not follow. We can create something without knowing everything about it, especially in the process of creating it and when we work together in this with others. Just because we exist outside a book doesn’t mean we cannot read it in order or even participate in the writing of it in that order, without knowing how every subplot will end. I believe we are a story that God writes together with us, not one which God has simply written Himself, alone. Is God really a part of our lives or is it just a role He has written into the story? I don’t believe in the latter, don’t see any point in believing such a thing – atheism is more worthwhile and makes more sense than that.
Otherwise you turn not only us into robots or inanimate objects, but also the God we interact with as well. And it is wrong. The future exists as a superposition of possibilities. It is a scientific fact. A specific future simply doesn’t exist until all the interactions with other things are done. And that would include God’s interaction with things as well.
Physicists (myself included) no longer believe in absolute time. Time is a local measure, and there can be many such measures. It does not follow that being outside of one measure of time turns everything in that measure of time into a static 4 dimensional object. It isn’t even coherent when you think about it – otherwise you are falling into the trap of putting everything into some overarching absolute time. And it isn’t required anyway because of quantum physics where things can exist as superpositions of many possibilities. It only becomes a singular history when together with us God makes His own contributions to events.
Satan like everybody else God created has a free will and with it made a choice against God, nevertheless Satan is on God’s leash (Job).
Same comment as above. Addition, God did not throw the devil in hell immediately when he fell from grace and/or successfully tempted A&E, but indeed God used the devil to show His love, His mercy, His forgiveness, His righteousness showing it to mankind and the heavenly creatures by sending His son for redemption of mankind and it cost Him dearly.
In the end all critical voices are shut, as the Scriptures say -
Isaiah 45:23 - By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’
Filipp 2:10 - so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Filipp 2:11 - and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
It does follow, if you understand what it means that God exists outside of space AND TIME! If God exists outside of time, then God is existing both before the beginning of the universe, and after the end of the universe. And I believe that God can, and does, see the entire universe that He created, that God, in definite stark contrast to us humans and what we create, did know what He was doing, did fully understand what He was creating, and why He was creating it, and why He was creating it exactly as He was creating it. I do not believe that He was intending the world to be different from what it turned out to be, and also that He does “interfere” (or a better term, intervene) when He feels it is necessary for His purposes. Actually, I think He intervenes quite often, many times daily in my own life, almost always through simple, seemingly natural things that happen to me. But He also stays enough out of the spotlight to be sure that there is no indisputable, observable evidence of His existance.
Note that I didn’t say that God makes me do things, so that I am just a puppet. I am claiming that God knows what will happen in the exact same sense as we know history. But God does have a more active role that He plays. And then we bump into the purposes for which God put us into this world, rather than just create us in heaven to be with Him…
I agree with you that overarching absolute time does not exist. But think of God looking at the universe from outside of its space, and from a historical perspective. But I do not insist that God had to create something that He didn’t fully understand how it would work; I would rather believe that God knew exactly what He was doing.
2 Likes
I am well aware of some of the genealogy claims…the trouble is St Roymond, the dilemma with that claim against genealogies is this…even if some generations are missed, the main characters are not missed.
In addition to that problem with your belief there, almost all of the genealogy characters have siblings, aunties, uncles, grandparents etc who are clearly born in the same lifetime as the main characters (such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph)
Now lets be frank, if you are going to try to make the claim that the time period between known biblical historical figures such as these are millions of years, that is 100% untennable given the evidence.
Also, another problem with your claim is you are attempting to make changes to human behaviour in the way that we record our history. We still use the same invesigative techniques for determining human timelines today as what has been used thousands of years ago. The only difference is family relationships, however, those “claimed gaps” simply do not account for millions of years in time…particularly given the other biblical stories in parrallel time periods with some of the bigger bible characters that fill in many of those gaps (some examples being the stories of Job, who fits in with the time of Abraham, then Ezekiel and Esther, who align with Israelite captivity in Babylon and Persia), and external writings about the Maccabean period in the centuries before Christ). We also have other ancient sources in writings from other civilisations that help date bible stories.
One of the usual evidences used by your camp is Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. The really troubling thing about that evidence is the stupidity in that it doesnt change the length of the Babylonian domination as a world power (because we can also date the time period with other cultural calculations), nor does it affect the time period of the Isarelite captivity! The argument is absolute nonsense and the evidence 100% proves the argument there is delusional at best!
You can harp on all you like about lies, that is nothing more than a redneck “Donald Trump” statement. I follow the historical evidence and internal consistency in the biblical writings…for me the genealogies are not problematic and a normal reading of language provides a sound basis for believing it. You are welcome to explain away all you like…thats what you always do…explain away truth.
I do not think that is the appropriate theology. God is love, creation is one of the evidences of that.
Genesis in its creation account i think demonstrates this when it says:
Genesis 2:
7Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.
Creation was personal, intimate, sharing, loving…it was not a demonstration of setting up humankind for suffering…i do not accept that theology is biblical. Suffering enterred this world because of free will of mankind to choose, it was not thrust upon us by a God intent on inserting pain, suffering and death.
John 3:16
16For God so loved the world that He gave His one and onlye Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
The significant thing about John 3.16 is that clearly God already loved the world before the fall of mankind and it was because of this pre existing love that it was decided that Christ would die for us.
That is not God using the devil, its the complete opposite, God is showing us that the devil represents the very opposite of love and that the devil seeks to destroy us.
What i think you are leading to is the notion that God created Satan for the purposes of demonstrating, through evolutionary processes, how a fruit bowl of molecules, acids etc, became primates that eventually developed intelligence, and indeed learned lessons of morality and adhearnace to law throughout the tribulations of the old testament, and then obtained the Gospel in the first century AD with Christ.
The problem there is that the wages of sin and the sacrificial system as well as righeousness by faith through grace were long known long before Christs ministry.
Genesis chapter 4 tells us, Cain attempted to use the fruits of his own labour ( v2…“Cain was a tiller of the soil”) as a sacrifice to God and it was rejected. Abel offered a lamb (following the symbolising it represented in that Christ would die for the wages of sin in the future) and his offering was accepted!
Genesis Chapter 4 aligns perfectly with Isaiah 64 6Each of us has become like something unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
and of course we know why Cains offering was rejected from the story of King Saul where Samuel said:
1 Samuel 15:
22But Samuel declared:
“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obedience to His voice?
Behold, obedience is better than sacrifice,
and attentiveness is better than the fat of rams.
23For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance is like the wickedness of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He has rejected you as king.”
Of you would stop lying about others here there would be nothing to harp on.
Really? So you’ve accepted that the first Creation account is lifted from the Egyptian creation story but severely edited, which is a historical fact? and you’ve accepted that that account is both ‘royal chronicle’ and temple inauguration, which are also historical facts? plus that there was no such literary type as historical narrative before something like 300 BC, which is a historical fact?
I explain the idiocy of the YEC position in order to uphold the truth of the text.
Firstly, the statement, no one had a term for “historical narrative…” that is an intellectually challenged argument. The day you put that in an academic essay and not get earbashed for the stupidity of such a statement is the day pigs fly. Its not a defense mate, its pathetic argument and nothing more! If you truly want to use the attack that because humanity didnt have a phrase for the notion of historical record, then they could not have recorded history…honstly, thats a really poor claim mate. Anyone who wants to lend support to such stupidity go ahead, im not going to allow my intelligence to be insulted by statements like that.
You statement about Egyptian Creation account… It is you who wish to take foundation on the claim that the ancient Egyptian versian is the only real account…the problem with that is that it is one of a number of accounts of creation and the flood, you are simply choosing to make that one your fact and here’s the problem there mate…
If you are a Christian and you choose pagan facts over biblical ones, then you are not actually Christian are you? I say that because you do not believe the Bible account is the “inerrant” word of God given directly to His people and preserved througout the ages.
My claim is that Gods word, the Bible, is more than a compilation of fairytales intended to provide morality to humanity, its inerrant, infallible, and the only true historical witness of the earth and all humanity. I base the foundation of my entire world view on the Bible account…every single part of it is true if i am to be Christian…no exceptions.
As i have said many times before, atheism does not need the bible or God for morality…it [atheism] will cite the very same evidence you are using to prove your claims false! For example:
Google AI answer to the question “Where did morality come from?”
Morality is a product of both evolution and culture:
- Evolution
Morality is a mental ability that evolved to help humans interact with and get along in large social groups. Some evolutionary biologists believe that morality evolved because it provided survival and reproductive benefits. For example, early humans who worked together to forage for food developed a sense of sympathy and cooperation with their partners
The inconsistency in your world view is so blantantly obvious, that fact you are oblivious to it is rather concerning to be honest. The idea that an inidividual is incapable of recognising serious world view conflicts within their own belief system, that is why we have so many people struggling with the Christian world view in that they cannot reconcile it with mainstream science. They are smart enough to see the redneck idiocy for what it is…then they deny God because the religious view being presented is a basket case of inconsistencies within its own philosophical defense!
You cannot get someone to believe in fairytales…thats the problem there. If Moses didnt really exist (as you seem to claim), if the history of Christs own family lineage is false, then the idea that Christ is God who can cause dead rotted corpses to rise up out of the grave and meet with individuals who are alive at the second coming, all of them rising up into the atmosphere in deficiance of the law of gravity, move off into space (where there is no oxygen)…anyone would claim thats delusional given the evidence you provide in support is a basket case of fairytales illustrating morality! That is why the consistency of bible history, theology, and doctrine are so incredibly important.
For example, you indicate to me in your responses that the Old Testament Sanctuary is a first convenant “done away with at the cross” ritual.
What you dont indicate any knowledge of in your responses about the Sanctuary is that the Tabernacle illustrates to us that Christ is THE BEGINNING of the salvation process!
The Tabernacle is not a first covenant only ritual…it describes atonement and salvation. Without the illustration and explanation of the Old Testament Sanctuary, there is no model humans can use for understanding and believing Salvation! There is no appropriate explanation of the importance of the acknowledgement and forgiveness of sins, no process of cleansing…humanity is condemned in its entirety…we are all lost. Thats the entire reason why God saw fit to impress upon His chosen people (all the saved) the importance of the Old Testament Tabernacle and Sanctuary.
How do we know this?
Well thats rather simple…take a look at the tabernacle and in particular the location of the alter of sacrifice. Its the very first element in the tabernacle! (see the altars location in the courtyard near the main entrance in the image below).
Without going into excessive detail, we know that the tabernacle/sanctuary process is not finished yet because:
-
We are still all here!
-
Clearly no one has yet seen the Second Coming
-
No one has yet seen the laying on of priests (Christ) hands and transferring the responsibility for all sin onto the scapegoat (Satan) that is cast out into the wilderness illustrated in the final chapters of the book of Revelation when the devil and his angels are cast into the lake of fire!
-
The events of the books of Revelation regarding this doctrine have not occured yet mate!!!
Back to the timleline point though…
I take my ancient history from the obvious historical timelines an example of which is found here:
The Kings of Israel and Judah!
Another example here:
Sennacherib (Neo-Assyrian Akkadian: 𒀭𒌍𒉽𒈨𒌍𒋢, romanized: Sîn-ahhī-erība[3] or Sîn-aḥḥē-erība,[4] meaning “Sîn has replaced the brothers”)[5][6] was the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire from the death of his father Sargon II in 705 BC to his own death in 681 BC. The second king of the Sargonid dynasty, Sennacherib is one of the most famous Assyrian kings for the role he plays in the Hebrew Bible, which describes his campaign in the Levant. Other events of his reign include his destruction of the city of Babylon in 689 BC and his renovation and expansion of the last great Assyrian capital, Nineveh.
But the Egyptian version is the one that Genesis follows, though it is similar to a few others. I didn’t choose that, it’s just a fact. It’s also a fact that makes good sense since Moses was educated in Egypt and would have known the Egyptian temple stories well.
That Moses chose that as his starting point doesn’t make the Egyptian story a “foundation”, it makes it a framework and starting point.
Who’s doing that? The only “pagan facts” in the opening Genesis Creation account is that all those beings the Egyptians called gods were created to serve YHWH-Elohim.
Back to lying again. I defend the text because it is “the word of God given directly to His people and preserved througout the ages”.
And you’re arrogant enough to believe that you’re the only one here who believes that.
Where does the text claim that?
But you reject the historical truth about the text, which means that the above is your personal illusion.
Exactly – which is why you need to humble yourself before the text; not your view of the text, but the actual text.
If atheists cite that evidence it would mean that they are almost certainly ANE scholars; not many other people would know this information. And they can’t prove facts false by citing those facts.
What inconsistency? My worldview says that I cannot impose my native worldview on literature written under another worldview.
YECers fail to recognize their worldview conflict because they think that the Holy Spirit had to cater to their worldview so they don’t actually have to examine it. Indeed I’ve yet to encounter a YECer who actually knows what a worldview is.
You keep using that word though no one else does. Why is that?
Another lie. Are you ever going to repent of your repeated violation of one of the Ten Words?
It’s only false if you demand that it conform to modern views of a lineage. That it doesn’t conform to one is evident in the fact that Matthew skips generations in his genealogy yet asserts three times fourteen generations even though he only has forty-one.
Into space? Where is that in the text?
Another lie. You’re really setting a record here. The evidence I provide is the text of the scriptures and what that text is.
And what has morality got to do with it?
Which you ignore with great determination.
It is. If it isn’t, that would mean that Jesus didn’t do His job right.
Jesus disagrees:
Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
As I’ve pointed out before, I’ve known people who came to Christ who knew absolutely nothing about the Mosaic sanctuary – which matches what Jesus said, since they had recognized that they were “heavy laden” and they needed Someone who could give them rest.
Given Jesus’ words above, that isn’t necessary.
That’s not just false, it’s blasphemous! The victory on the Cross owed nothing to the Mosaic sanctuary, indeed the reverse is true.
Second-century Christians would disagree – one of the big reasons that Revelation got into the canon is that Christians back then (especially in the western part of the empire) read it and saw in it what they saw happening around them.
You have made an idol of both YEC and the Mosaic sanctuary rituals. Here is the theology of a Christian, which you have ignored every time I (or others) have posted it:
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.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, consubstantial with the Father;
through whom all things were made.
Who for us men and for 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,
On the third day He rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures
and ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
and He shall come again in glory
to judge both the living and dead;
Whose kingdom will have no end.And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father,
who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified,
who spoke through the prophets.And we believe one catholic and apostolic Church;
we acknowledge one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and we look for the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come.
That is the measure of a Christian, not all the doctrine you throw around.
1 Like
That’s quite some statement, do you apply that on other Christians as well if they do not agree with that?
I can compile a long list of discrepancies for you if you desire so, the most simple one is to put the 4 resurrection accounts next to each other and spot the differences.
Am I not a Christian now for not believing (any longer) the Bible is not inerrant and not infallible?
In fact the discrepancies in 4 resurrection accounts show typical human error remembering details false and are harmless because the message is loud an clear - HE IS RISEN. I may assume you agree with me that if the Holy Spirit was the author of the 4 resurrection accounts would not contain any discrepancy.