On what authority do you get to tell God how he had to reveal himself? This just sounds really presumptuous to me. We have the Bible God gave us, not the one that we think in our human wisdom he should have given us.
No, he chose to describe them in a way that was very comprehensible and meaningful to the original audience, who was very different and had a very different frame of reference than us. Isn’t kind of ethnocentric and superior to think that God should have tailored his ancient message to us now instead of the people he was actually speaking directly to at the time? Why not the Chinese people 300 years from now? Why not 17th Century French people?
Can you give an example of what you consider “twisting”?
Well, speak for yourself. If Scripture is reliable, it says otherwise. Do you want chapters and verses?
I believe Scripture is reliable, I’m just pretty sure we mean different things by that word. Oh, and if two people from the same culture, language, and period in history can miscommunicate, imagine how exponentially more difficult it is for God to communicate with us only through words of a language no one speaks anymore written to people with a radically different worldview thousands of years ago. Good thing we have the Spirit of God to speak to us and lead us into all truth. (John 16:13)
Welcome to postmodernity! Yes, all our understandings are inherently bounded by our subjective, embodied, human perspectives. Including our understandings of what Scripture means. So what “reliable source of truth” do you propose?
I propose personally relating to God through the Holy Spirit as the best option we have available.
No, I have proven that Genesis should not be treated as some kind of complete account of the history of the species. I have shown that the very peculiar treatment of the Genesis by a particular sector of the the United States is unsupportable. But this is not how the Bible has ever been treated in Europe. You know… where the first written response to Darwin’s book was from a clergy and full of praise and congratulations. The problem is in the distortion of Christianity by this strange group of people in the country that resurrected slavery after it was abolished in Europe, worships guns, and cannot manage a decent medical care system.
Says who? This text was not written as a history according to the modern meaning of the word. It was told/written in a time when there were no such specialized human activities such as history, law, science, religion and entertainment. Thus trying to force it to fit into one of these roles doesn’t make any sense. This doesn’t mean the text does not have an historical intent as part of its function. It just means that it is not quite what we mean by the word “history” in modern times (let alone a science text), not unless you believe in talking animals, magical fruit, and ancient necromancers making golems of dust and bone. You might as well claim that Walt Disney’s “Sword in the Stone” and “Robin Hood” animations are the history of England.
Yes! He most certainly is the author of confusion according to the story in Genesis chapter 11.
Welcome to the forum! There are several minds here that have grappled with the very topics with which you’re wrestling, and you’ve already received several intellectually rigorous responses within just the first several hours of your OP. One of the reasons I like this forum is that it’s a safe place to raise questions without fear of being judged. Debate can get heated at times, but a mutual respect of persons is valued here.
Responsible biblical interpretation requires that we understand the writer’s words in the historical and cultural context in which they were written. In the two texts you have cited, we modern readers hone in on what appears to be an expansion of the human diet to include meat. Now it doesn’t actually say this as @pevaquark notes, but what is crucial to see is that both texts contain a provision followed by a prohibition that will relate to Israel’s ethnic identity in the ceremonial law. In the first, plants are given to eat (Gen 1:29-30) except from the one which is forbidden (see 2:16-17). In the second, animals are provided to eat but consuming their blood is forbidden (9:4). Rather than initiating the practice of meat-eating, this far more likely approves of what humanity has already been doing. More importantly, and what would have been crystal clear to the ancient Hebrews, is that no distinction was yet made between clean and unclean animals (as will later come in the ceremonial law of Leviticus). Still the prohibition against consuming blood foreshadows the symbolic connection between blood and life that is further established in the Jewish sacrificial system (Lev. 3:17, 7:27, 17:10-11; Deut. 12:16). This will later culminate in the atoning work of Christ (Hebrews 9:14, 22) who renders obsolete the ceremonial law including its dietary restrictions (Acts 10:9-16).
To expect that these texts are addressing modern curiosities about the natural history of meat-consumption are to read them against the historical grain and in fact misses the critical theological message intended by the author (which the ancient readers would have picked up on more readily). The inspired author(s) of Genesis 1-11 doesn’t give a play-by-play, documentary-style history to answer many of our modern questions, but rather is laying the foundation for the origin of the Hebrews that will ultimately culminate in the person and work of Christ. Our task is to understand the author’s words on their own terms within their original historical and cultural context rather than assume the author is necessarily giving us a lesson in natural history. It’s not always easy to follow this rule (especially as moderns), but doing so can lead to a satisfying harmony of scripture and the natural world. Again, glad you’re here friend.
No, in the verse before humans are commanded to subdue the earth, using military language, implying animals could (and likely would) die and could pose a threat to humanity.
[Bill II] Maybe you have never felt his presence but I assure you that I and more than a few others have.
Bill, I am “one of the few others” who have assuredly felt the presence of God in their lives. Both you and I seem frustrated that, apparently, there is no way to convince others that this is reality, not imagination–that these “visions” should be disregarded because they are NOT a source of Truth. I will grant that one of my experiences (posted as ‘Miracle of Panel Truck’) is an “extraordinary claim”. However, it was witnessed by three skeptical, agnostic scientists–so the “extraordinary evidence” that @Truth_Seeker demands is available. I also am, by nature, enough of a skeptic that, every time I recall the incident, I find it hard to believe that it really happened to me. But it did. And now I also know He is beside me always–just as He is for every human on the earth. Most of the time He chooses to remain hidden (as in the Book of Job). Why He chose "this incident" to make His presence manifest to three medicinal chemists is, indeed, a mystery. To establish the ‘incidence’ as Reality, Prof. Kubinyi instinctively looked for a human causation, and blurted out: "Al, how in Hell did you manage that?"
If there is, indeed, any Truth to be gleaned from this incident, perhaps it goes beyond the reassurance given to my colleague, Prof. Eric Lien (that he and his forbears were NOT damned because they did not profess Christ as their Savior), but also that some of our life’s prized accomplishments that we are most proud of needed some “outside help” to materialize.
Al Leo
You mean, the interpretation of the meaning of the text that up until now you have considered to be the only one or the right one does not match with what we know of the world around us.
Or five, the Bible is a message from the real God that takes some work to interpret, but you are confused and mistakenly attribute that to God’s intention. That’s a little egocentric.
Why do you assume this should be the case? What do you believe about God or the Bible that leads you to the presupposition “The Bible must be taken at ‘face value’ and should be understandable as such.”
Do you realize that all ancient texts require study by scholars and some degree of interpretation before they are translated? You can’t read the Bible without the intervention of people who studied it and made lots of decisions about how to communicate its meaning in a way you could understand. What’s wrong with continuing to rely on scholars as we study the translation? Again, it is a misconception that Bible scholars explaining something other than your “face value” meaning are somehow motivated by scientific fact and “squirming” to come up with something that fits science. That’s not how hermeneutics works. The framework view of Genesis (a non-literal interpretation) has been around since 1924 and was not proposed because of science.
Some people wrestle their whole lives. I also still experience countless moments where I don’t have good answers when I read certain passages. But I wouldn’t define the goal of the Christian life as “making sense of the Bible.”
God is not the author of confusion. Why do you assume the point of Genesis was to reveal objective facts about creation? It clearly was not the point. It is a theological text meant to reveal truth about God and humanity. It was very effective for its original audience and it has valuable lessons for us today that can’t be learned through science. I believe it will hold valuable lessons for future generations, even if our scientific understandings move far beyond what we know today.
There is a difference between catering and accommodating. A certain degree of accommodation is necessary for communication. The mysteries of the Kingdom were not incomprehensible to the original audience, they were difficult.
What makes you say this?
There is plenty to marvel at in Scripture. Why would it have to be scientific? Again, why do you think the point of God’s revelation was revealing information? The point is to reveal God, something the Bible has done effectively for generations in diverse places and cultures. You are basing the Bible’s authority on whether or not it would make a good encyclopedia.
It made perfect sense to the original audience because they already thought that way. It’s not like the Bible was answering their questions about the structure of the universe and teaching them what to think, it was just not bothering to correct them because doing so would have been a huge distraction from the intended message. I don’t see why this is a big deal.
Considering how this is typically misused, equating confusion with diversity of thought, I think it is far better to refute this. The most consistent lesson of nature is that God LOVES diversity. This can be demonstrated not just in the 350,000 species of beetles alone but just about everything you find in nature. For another example, the diversity of stars (something you probably only find out when you take a closer look at them) seem rather gratuitous to me – like the work of an artist who refuses paint the same picture twice. It is pretty amazing when the facts suggest they are all still the product of the same universal mathematical laws.
Of course, when the passage from 1 Corinthians 14 is referenced then you can point out that this had nothing to do with any kind of diversity, but simply about disorder in human conduct during a meeting. It is really about how disruptive behavior obstructs the purpose of such meetings. Thus it is more proper to say that God is consistent rather than whimsical like the pagan gods. His strategy might change, but His purpose remains the same, and his actions are consistent with that purpose. So we also should act in a manner that is consistent with the purpose of a meeting.
I only say He is the author of confusion because this is more accurate than your denial – and there is the question of what this actually means. Instead of these mindless one-liners an intelligent look at the question would be more discerning with such questions as, “in what way is God an author of confusion?” The story of Genesis 11 shows that in what largely looks like a change of strategy, God opposes a one-world language and culture to promote the division of humanity into a multiplicity of languages, cultures and nations. Looking at nature we see that diversity is one of God’s most consistent ways of doing things.
But it is perhaps easy to see why this would be a plan B in dealing with humanity for this has been the source of considerable conflict and there are few evils greater than war. But it is even worse to have a evil civilization where there is no possibility of improvement ever. At least with competition, there is a limit to how far into evil (abuse) a group can sink without having its citizens flee elsewhere and having other take advantage.
Likewise there is no contradiction with 1 Cor 14 because that passage is not about diversity of culture and thought, but about disorder in meetings which disrupts the purpose of those meetings. God is not the author of that kind of confusion.
Why does God withhold Eden/paradise from us, where everything is easy? Instead, He said we must work for everything we get. When does a parent do this? A parent does this when His children are not being responsible. Should God hand us all the answers when we already show a tendency to use those answers for horrible things. Isn’t it far better to require that we find such things out for ourselves so that the misuse of knowledge is spread out over time and besides if we find these things out for ourselves then the responsibility is naturally our own. Knowledge is power, and it is foolish to give too much power to immature children before they have some social and moral development first.
Frankly, at this point, much of what you say sounds like little more than excuses to me. Which is not to say that they are not reasonable within your own framework of thought. But my framework of thought is quite different. For example, all the evidence I see point to a simple truth that making people believe in God is not His greatest priority, because a relationship with God is not of universal benefit to all people. Actually, this is a scientifically demonstrable fact. My point is that your subjective reasons are sufficient for your own decision about whether to believe in any of this stuff. But it will never convince other people because they do not accept the same subjective premises. Furthermore I see a logical connection between these subjective premises and the very things which make a belief in God something of value to a person or not. For example, if the role your thinking automatically puts God into is one of being responsible for the problems of the world, then I don’t see how a belief in God would be of any value to you.
My apologies. I misgauged your original post thinking you might be interested in a response based on biblical theology. I won’t likely be able to help your concerns about scripture since you’ve already made your judgement about it.
This seems very passive-aggressive… I apologise if I did not respond to your post. Things kind of turned from diet to mythology vs reality. Your post, as well as others and the links provided, helped me solve my original question. I should have said so. However, like I said, the topic took a turn from that and I became caught up in the new path.
First of all one thing must be stated: The stories of the old Testament were around way before the birth of Christianity. Our faith doesn´t center around the literally (as we understand it today) truth of Genesis (YEC position), but around the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Keep that in mind when we work on your points. Genesis was written by ancient people, and contains story that has been passed orally for a long time before it was written down. I personally believe the bible is written by fallible humans about their experiences with God and is therefore divinely inspired, but of course not the word from God himself. That´s why I have a differing view on biblical inerrancy, since there are several passages in the old Testament, where the author has an added reason to write a text in a certain way, may it be propaganda in the passages of divine power or exaggeration in the passages describing the kingdom of David. If you want to learn about biblical history here, I recommend reading the many discussions between George Brooks and Jon Burke, tremendous stuff.
Back to your points, iregarding the old Testament I´d subscribe to your third point to a certain grade, meaning that added motives by the author doesn´t automatically take away the historical worth of the texts, it just has to be compared to 1) the archaeological data and 2) especially regarding chapters like Genesis, compared to contemporary stories, since the premier purpose was certainly not amusing people a few thousand years later, but to understand the world around them with contemporary knowledge. And including stuff into the stories, which doesn´t fit modern data, does not take away the meaning the text had and has, especially since it was very common at the time to mythologize history.
The case for the New Testament luckily is entirely different, and this is important, since it´s the ground our faith is built up on. I could write my points down but I rather give you this video of Gary Habermas, a distinguished New Testament scholar. Watch it when you have got the time.
First of all, much respect, that is an incredible amount of time. Secondly I don´t think reading the bible alone is enough unfortunately, since I think that we made the big mistake in the past that we read ancient texts through modern eyes, rather than taking the “right” road and read in contemporary context, since we are in danger reading something into it, which was certainly not meant, for example Hugh Ross, who uses passages of Genesis to say that the bible predicted an expanding universe. I know that it is hard to find the right context of the chapters to read the bible appropiately, but it´s also the reason, why you´re never really “finished” with it. I have to admit, that I find some sense of peace in this thought.
Let´s think a bit further and take a look at our contemporary knowledge. I would think that we ourselves couldn´t handle the data of revealed creation in the way, that I think, that our scientific knowledge even today is by far not vast enough to understand it. Also I admit, that I myself am not that much interested in the creation aspect itself, because my focus lies mostly on Jesus. The creation aspect will come over time with our increasing knowledge about nature. And the most imporatant point I´d make is , that nowhere in scripture does the focus lay on knowledge, but on grace. It´s not stated, that we have to know the ultimate truth to receive God´s grace. The bible is not a science book. Once you realize that statements like
become useless.
E: I´m gonna need some time to respond to the rest, the direction of the conversation was rather unexpected
The authors intention for writing the text has to be extracted. It doesn´t mean that it has to be thrown out, nor does it require every word viewed through our modern glasses to fit our scientific data, if the text is written through the subjective account of fallible human.
First of all, your points are confusing. I wouldn´t hold God guilty for our terrible ability to judge what to do with gained knowledge. Also it sounds a bit like bargaining “Yeah, we screwed that one up, could you help us out here with some other knowledge?”. It sounds very similar to Calvinism.
I don´t see the NT as a message of fear but rather as one about hope
The problem there is that when my children ask me how the Universe began and how we got here, do I tell them something that may just be added or made-up fluff by either exaggerators or plain liars 2000+ years ago? Leading them to become just as confused as I am today. OR do I explain to them the Big Bang and abiogenesis of life? Things we have evidence for. If Hugh Ross is right, I can kill two birds with one stone and everything is wrapped up in a nice little package. If he is wrong, I have no reason to read my children the Biblical account at all.
How would you respond if I told you that I despise the idea of faith? That it has been nothing but a never-ending source of pain and frustration for me since day one? That I NEED some kind of revelation based on FACT in order to accept the possibility of miracles, which Christianity is solely based upon? Jesus is useless to me if I cannot believe in Him. Faith is useless to me if I cannot have it. If God cannot provide me with SOMETHING I can hang my hat on and say ‘yep, wow, no way some stupid cave-dweller 5000 years ago could have known that! Must have been a God involved!’ then I’ll go nowhere with it and neither, as far as I can understand, will anyone else.
Humans that, for all I know, were stoned in the desert one night and had a sudden existential crisis, resulting in a story where a God helps the scary world make sense? (Forgive my crass language, I am frustrated).
And I want so desperately to share that hope with you all. But my mind will not relent until it is satisfied. Until I have something to hang my hat upon, as I mentioned earlier.
I didn’t mean to come across that way. I was being sincere without such intent. After my post, you made the following statements:
If this is what you believe, then we start from very different presuppositions about scripture. This is not an attack on you or a judgment about your authenticity whatsoever. I’m sincerely glad you’re here. I just meant I was doubtful I could propose something of help to you from biblical theology because doing so requires accepting the presupposition of the internal coherency of scripture. I have no argument with you, friend.
I can’t believe in an ancient book without it containing something that must have come from God. Some revelation. I could never put my trust in mere humans. Especially ancient and ignorant, desert-dwelling ones, pulling ideas from all the horrid little vermin of the land and mixing them into what we call ‘The Bible’… If this is what you are all proposing I do, then I am without hope.
To have the chance Thomas got… That would be a gift greater than all the treasure in the Universe. Yet here I am, writhing in frustration and doubt. Spending night after night scouring whatever I can in order to hopefully become satisfied enough to get through this fragile existence with some semblance of real meaning and purpose…
Imagine if tomorrow, you found out there was no God. You would suddenly be struck with the realisation that all possible point to existence was nothing but a delusion… You would be forced to react accordingly. Your only peace would be to immediately become nothing. What a nightmare!
I’m not expecting Jesus to appear to me and tell me to stick my fingers in His side, of course. But you have to admit, Thomas was the most privileged person in all of Human history… To immediately have all his doubts dissipated…
That is how important the Judeo/Christian God is to me. It is how important He should be to us all.
That I´m with you in the sense that pure faith with no rationality is intellectually unsatisfying and I´m not believing this way.
Correct me if I´m wrong but you seem to be open/attracted by the ID movement and their arguments. One problem I see is, that you seem to value natural theology and believe that revelation theology can only stand on the ground prepared by the former. However although I view natural theology in a high regard, it can only bring you so far, to Deism at best I´d say. I don´t believe that we can approach to the miracles of Jesus with natural science. History is our best shot at getting there and I see the evidences are strong enough to be the ground of a reasonable faith in Christ.
I´m not quite sure what you´re saying here.
Okay, this is important to remember for the further direction of this discussion. I have to admit, that the last twenty posts here made it seem like this would be a dead end, but I see you have serious concerns. I think you will stick longer with us and soon you will realize that several people have already brught up very similar topics. In this and in the quality sense I´d say this site is pretty much unique. I can only tell you what helped me tremendously. One of the most interesting threads on this board, maybe usefull here: Pevaquark Doesn't Like Fine Tuning Apologetics and Neither Should You
Of course, when faced with doubt one tries to find proof and obviously the first thought goes to the natural science. But after a time I came to two important conclusions: 1. Finding proof about the supernatural in natural science is an oxymoron and 2. natural theology is most usefull for those already believing, since it makes yet another perspective on new findings possible. Of course there are exceptions, most notably Anthony Flew, but for me the hints of the other realm which I could see in nature aren´t so strong like the historical evidences to the events in the NT in overwhelming ones doubts.
E: Writing all of these reminded me of one important thing Joshua Swamidass said (I paraphrase here):" The evidences you find in nature (natural theology) will only lead you to a generic God. The Christian God is revealed in Jesus."
It seems as though your experience with religion has given you the expectation that it should give you confidence that you have the answers to all questions. That just seems like you’re putting way too much pressure on yourself and your religion. I can certainly see how wanting to do right by your children adds even more urgency to your quest.
I wonder if you couldn’t provide them with the truth just by being forthright about your own doubts along with your desire to believe? There wouldn’t seem to be any shame in admitting that no one really knows why the world exists or how life began. You could just tell them that some believe it just happened naturally while others believe in creation by a higher power, though there doesn’t seem to be any way to convince everyone which is true. But as human beings we can ask the question and, even in the absence of certainty we can still discover what it is we believe.
Now I personally am not a Christian. But I do not hold that abiogenesis is a fact. It is simply what I believe most likely to be true. But I don’t think less of people who believe differently than I do, leastwise not if they don’t overstate the case for what they believe. On either side of that divide, humility is the best way to respect yourself and others.
If Scripture is reliable, it says otherwise. Do you want chapters and verses?