The Choices We Make

Faith & Science Conversation
21

As usual you seem to mix things that are meant to be real with things that are not. Are these just random to you?

Talking snake? allegorical, not real
Balaam’s donkey? No problem either way.
Ax head? Genuine miracle
Pillar of fire (and cloud)? Of course! What the hell are you querying that for?

IOW they are not all the same. You cannot generalise Scripture this way. It demonstrates a complete lack of basic Biblical understanding. (IMHO)

You might as well ask if God has wings or whether Joseph really dreamt he should go to Egypt. You can not compare the resurrection and Jonah in the whale. They are not the same sort of writing so they do not follow the same rules of reality or belief.

Ok, I will ask. Did Joseph, father of Jesus dream he should go to Egypt?

So you claim to believe in miracles you chose to believe in, and reject ones you don’t like. This is the cafeteria-style Christianity I was speaking of. I figure if God can raise a man from the grave, he can allow a snake to talk. It seems easier to me to make a snake talk than to raise a man from the grave.

In my mind, choosing what to believe and what not to believe shows a lack of belief that god is who he claims to be. If he is truly God, he can do all of it. If he is a magician, he might be able to do some of it.

Of course, you bring up the tired old things about God’s wing taken from a song, but fail to accept the rather historical language of the Fall. Now, no doubt you will have some other story of the Fall, but it isn’t the story told in Scripture of the Fall, it is something made up by you or others to replace that story. this new story matches none of the facts in the first story, but everyone doing this thinks they are so good to rid the Bible of its errors. I don’t think I am as good as you because I don’t feel competent to correct God. I don’t feel that I, the clay, should tell God what he should have done; what story he should have told. But maybe you do feel such competency

Changing the stories in the Bible to be something other than what they actually are is like me saying that the book The Peloponnesian War is really about World War II because there was indeed fighting in Greece during WWII. It is like saying that A Tale of Two Cities is really about the American Revolution. I think such exercises are really quite self-defeating and I will post something on that in a day or two.

22

Don’t you think that the Bible is a collection of quite disparate works and authors, and should be taken by their unique background and what they’re trying to say? God used the different authors, but they speak in a different way, with different goals.

I do agree that chronological snobbery would be a mistake.

The NT accounts of miracles are nearly light years different from Genesis, which has to do with relationships with the surrounding cultures, liturgy, memorization, patterns, and symbolism.

Thanks.

1 Like
23

Don’t you think that the Bible is a collection of quite disparate works and authors, and should be taken by their unique background and what they’re trying to say?

My problem comes down to the question “Whose message is in the Bible?” To put it into your terminology, if it is the words of disparate authors with disparate messages, then it is no better than what disparate historians say about the Civil War or any other event in history. And if it is the messages of various humans, why then should I believe it has anything to do with God? Why would I devote my life to living according to the precepts of a book of human wisdom?

It all boils down to what constitutes ‘inspiration’ in the Bible. I keep saying if God can’t get these people to write HIS message, he is not a god worthy of worship. He is a powerless, impotent god.

1 Like
24

All good points. However, I see that God hasn’t protected most of the world’s children from not getting the Bible; or getting a mistaken version, anyway. It seems that He cares about the entire world (Hindu and Muslim children, for example) as much as He does us. Bottom line, it seems that He won’t judge us if we don’t understand.

The Textus Receptus and KJV are mistaken in many ways; the New World Version more so.

But the purpose of Genesis isn’t what the NT authors’ purpose was.

There are good resources (Walton, Biologos pages, etc) that show that Genesis wasn’t intended to read like the NT.

Have you had a chance to read Mark Noll’s “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” section on dispensation? It was very interesting to me.

Thanks for your hard work. Blessings on your health.

1 Like
25

I know this. We are in sales, not management. Thus, I hate to second guess God on some of these issues, but that said, I do tend to think those who didn’t hear will have a chance to hear. I would cite 1 Peter 4:6
For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead*, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.*

New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (1 Pe 4:6). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

The dead at the time of Christ would include all previous humans who held the image of God and I would think this included all future dead as you suggest because Hell is not constrained by our temporal order. But even they have to chose what to do. I do not believe in universal salvation. I do believe in universal opportunity. I don’t think we all get participation trophies in life.

I try to stick closely to what I believe the scripture says but I do think this verse and a couple of others do indicate this.

2 Likes
26

Good point. I’m not sure how that works, either; but thanks for the reminder of this verse. It sort of boils down to God’s being ultimately just, doesn’t it? Thanks

27

If things are so logic then why in your opinion did God not gave us the original NT manuscripts of the 4 Gospels, the letters of Paul etc,? We only have copies of copies, the oldest NT fragment Papyrus 52 dated between 150-200 AD is of the Gospel of John.

Using your reasoning:

  1. Was God not powerful enough to give us the original NT manuscripts?

  2. Did God prefer us to have copies of copies with questional passages not found in earlier manuscripts?

1 Like
28

Why? Do you not understand anything of what I said?

It seems to me that your main “beef” is with my not accepting early Genesis as history? As if that affects my reading of the rest of Scripture? Only if you take the bible as one complete unified text, and I do not. It was cobbled together by a committee. Perhaps God was chairman?
Really, you have a romantic view of the origins of Scripture that is not realistic. It is by human hand, witnessing about how God has been revealed, rather than a specific instruction manual sent from God that you need to read before living.

Yes God could have created the Garden of Eden and all the wonders within. Yes God can make animals speak. He has done and still does still do miraculous things. But, Scripture is not just a record of what God has done. It is more than just history. Each “book” has its own style, agenda(s) and authorship. They are not one, nor were they written by a single mind. You only have to read it to see the variances. Or maybe you think that the use of Jehovah or Elohim is just random and interchangeable? (not that modern translations necessarily distinguish them.)

Richard

29

If things are so logic then why in your opinion did God not gave us the original NT manuscripts of the 4 Gospels, the letters of Paul etc,? We only have copies of copies, the oldest NT fragment Papyrus 52 dated between 150-200 AD is of the Gospel of John.

Not to nitpick here but I think you mean the word ‘logical’ rather than logic.

Might I suggest that God knows we humans will worship icons rather than what he says too easily? Look at the Hebrew faith in the ability of the ark of the covenant to protect them against Philistines rather than God? Look at how some churches revere icon’s and bones of Saints rather than the God behind them. If the original still existed we might treat it as a magical item along with those old bones and the ark of the covenant (whether one believes the story or not, the Axumite Christians in Ethiopia do revere the ark of the covenant even today).

Might I suggest that copies might have been good enough? It is the message, not the copy number that is important. The original manuscript of a book of nothing but human babblings is of no value in teaching humans salvation. I don’t know what is so hard about understanding this. It really is simple. God supposedly wanted to give us a path to himself, so he allows humans to write a book of purely human scribblings, and then those humans proclaim it is from God, when it is full of errors. Exactly how does a book like that teach us about God? Can we trust the message of salvation from a book, full of errors and with a message over which God had no input? No veto over what the human writer scrawled on that parchment?

Sheesh, the constant opposition to God having something to do with the message in the book just amazes me. Are yall so strange as to think that it is ok to call it God’s Word when God had nothing to do with its writing? Last time I looked, putting your name on someone else’s writings was called plagiarism. Is God a plagiarist to put his name on human babblings about metaphysics?

In light of the human based origin of the Scripture should we change a few verses in the Bible. Hebrews 4:12 should read: "For the word of ancient human writers is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,

That has a ring to it. I am sure people will flock to the churches to hear the Word of ancient human writers!

Or 1 Tim 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of ancient human writers

And I think the most important verse to switch to this new view of Scripture is 1 Thes 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of ancient human writers which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of God, but as it is in truth, the word of ancient human writers

Before someone tells me to stop misrepresenting things, this is what I see y’all doing to the Scripture with this constant opposition to God having any control over the Biblical message. Y’all tell me how God accommodated his message to the belief system of ancient human writers. This is equivalent to a parent accommodating his rule against stealing to the child’s view that stealing is ok. Are you as a parent going to let your kid grow up thinking stealing is ok because you want to accommodate your message to his culture? Accommodationalism also changes our theology to that of the altered 1 Thes 2:13 above, for that is precisely what is being said with accommodationalism—Scripture isn’t the word of God, it is the words of ancient human writers. If that is what the Bible is, you can have it and stuff it where ever the sun don’t shine–it isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit in that case.

30

Maybe because I find it incoherent and ill-thought out.

you wrote:

It seems to me that your main “beef” is with my not accepting early Genesis as history? As if that affects my reading of the rest of Scripture? Only if you take the bible as one complete unified text, and I do not. It was cobbled together by a committee. Perhaps God was chairman?

My beef is with the unbelief that God would have anything to do with the message contained in the Scripture. After that we can figure out what the text meant. Yes, I believe early Genesis is history, but more importantly I believe that God inspired that message and it is afterwards up to us to try to figure out what it means.

I am going to alter 1 Thes 2:13 to your view of Scripture which you say is cobbled together by a committee.

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the cobbled together output of an ancient human writing committee which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of God, but as it is in truth, the word of ** an ancient human committee of writers**

Sounds like something everyone is going to want to hear about–the output of a committee. Churches will be full to the brim over this kind of thing, with people standing and sitting in the aisles to hear the commettee’s latest cobbling.

Blockquote

Really, you have a romantic view of the origins of Scripture that is not realistic. It is by human hand, witnessing about how God has been revealed, rather than a specific instruction manual sent from God that you need to read before living.

Oh gee, no one calls me a romantic, not even my wife. Thank you for being the first to do so. Do flowers come with it? lol

I have a view that says I don’t care what humans say about the matters of eternity. Such things are of no interest or value to me. I am quite interested in what God says about the matters of eternity because He, unlike any human, knows what is on the other side. Human speculations about Heaven, hades, Nirvana etc are the mutterings of the blind. None of us have been to the other side of death or gone into eternity and come back to tell us what was there. Neither David, nor Moses nor Paul at the time he was writing had been there. Thus, their “witnessing about how God has been revealed” is not that of an actual witness. They saw nothing and thus can have nothing to say. Only if the message is from God can it have any weight because He and Jesus are the ONLY witnesses to what eternity is like. Thus, the opinions of your committee of writers is of no interest to me.

Yes God could have created the Garden of Eden and all the wonders within. Yes God can make animals speak. He has done and still does still do miraculous things. But, Scripture is not just a record of what God has done. It is more than just history.

And I gather while you believe God could have done things as written, you have a lack of belief that he did the things written there. I don’t think the Bible commends Abraham for his lack of belief.

So let’s see how your unbelief affects your view of Genesis. You don’t even try to see if there is an interpretation of it which would make it be true. My guess is that you don’t believe in the story of the Fall either, which is the one thing Jesus’ death was designed to overcome.

Over in https://discourse.biologos.org/t/my-story-an-intellectual-journey/41726/12 the 11th post is my account of my debate with Henry Morris III. It was posted with you in mind since you think I am just a YEC, which shows how little actual research on me you have done. In that debate I presented a theological case for old earth and an evolutionary way to read the Genesis 1. My goal was to undermine the YEC claim that they are the only ones with a historical reading of Genesis. The accommodationalist view of Genesis, that it is nothing but faerie tales, plays right into the YEC’s hands.

And frankly I agree with the YECs that if God didn’t get his message into the Bible in a way that is largely true, both scientifically and historically, then the Christian God is clueless about creation, impotent at getting his message to mankind, and He becomes something like Plato’s demiurge, cut off from humanity by his inability to communicate with us. If that is the kind of God you want, have at it.

32

Sigh.

Why does a different view mean unbelief? I never said that Genesis 2-4 had no meaning. I never said that I did not believe it or what it has to say in any shape or form.

I seem to have to keep repeating that I believe… but not as you do. And that is not a crime, or a sin, or a disaster.

And, just because the words are human does not mean that God is excluded from them.

In fact they have more value as a human witness than they would as some sort of automaton printing. The fact that people felt inspired and confident enough to write what they believed and experienced is much more telling than something that is forced upon me by an all powerful but inhuman God.

You realise that Genesis is not an eye witness account? Do you know what happens to stories that are passed down from generation to generation? They get embellished and adjusted to ensure that they are appreciated by the new audience. You do know that most if not all of the books in the Old Testament have different scroll versions? And they are not identical? There is no single source document(s)

By saying that God could, I am saying that I believe that God does do miracles, not in theory, but in practice. I know. I have both witnessed and “performed” them (with God’s strength not mine) So stop looking down your nose at me.

You can bury your head in the sand if you like, but the existence of the committee that decreed the content of the bible is a matter of historic fact.

Richard

33

Yep, my bad.

Absolutely. The main message is crystal clear. And as a whole miraculous preserved by the tireless efforts of some individuals.

Skipped the rest of your post full of weird assumptions what I according to you believe.

34

Those were not assumptions about what you believed. they were the deductions of where we go if we say that God’s message is so muddied by humans that it is unrecognizable. This leads to us saying that the Bible is the word of man rather than the word of God. Many of the people who I know who left Christianity left for this reason–they didn’t see that the bible was anything worthy of listening to because it was just a man-made object.

35

Richard, again you miss my point. Of course creation can’t be witnessed by a human who was non-existent at the time of creation. The only one who can tell man about what creation is, is the one witness to the event, God. Thus, if God didn’t tell us the truth about creation, then I would take that as evidence this isn’t really the creator.or as evidence that God had nothing to do with the message the human writer wrote.

Again, if Scripture is just a bunch of stories handed down by word of mouth and altered beyond recognition, what is the point of treating those stories or the book in any way other than the way we treat Roman mythology? Again, if the Bible is just the Hebrew equivalent to the Roman Gods, or the Chinese Xi and gui zi, of what value is it?

I don’t know, obviously, how to get this across to you. That is my failing.

Let me try this. If the bible is just a philosophy book, why is it better and more to be revered than Kant’s Prolegamena to any Future Metaphysics? If you can answer this question then maybe our discussion will go somewhere.

36

This is what you said earlier in this thread:

Perhaps you underestimate people?

Please don’t put words in my mouth.

And another yall.

37

Perhaps I understand the implications of what they say. Those yall’s were for lots of different people here. As to what you believe, you jumped into the middle of a debate on the nature of inspiration, and your first post was certainly not supportive of what I was saying. Maybe if you don’t want to be misunderstood you should lay out your beliefs on the nature of inspiration. Then you could easily claim the y’all’s don’t apply to you.

ProDeo, I can’t read your mind. All I can do is infer your beliefs from what you wrote.

38

And you miss mine.

Scripture does not have to be dictated or authored by God to be valid. That is where we are at odds. You seem to think that Scripture can only function if it is a direct revelation by God, rather than man’s growing understanding of him. IOW you are assigning a specific function to Scripture that it does not need to fulfil (IMHO). I do not see Scripture as you do. It is a different mindset, or understanding.

As I see it the Bible records how man has come to know God, and at the beginning (Genesis) it was as a Human with all the traits of human intact, including walking on earth, getting angry, punishing a spoilt child and so on. The view of God grows as Scripture progresses. I do not see the need for a perfect start, only an enlightened finish.

And I do not see the coming of Jesus as being anything to do with Genesis. I see that as making God both inept and human. All this talk about Man being corrupt! And God just ignoring it for at least 2000 years having tried unsuccessfully to wipe it out (the flood) It does not paint God in a good light. And it does not reflect the God that Jesus proclaimed and epitomised.

I know there is a following for your message. But it is not the message I see in Scripture. Nor is it the one I witness to.

There is so much more to this than can be put down here. Not the least being the ramifications of your message to the millions who have found God from another tradition, or live perfectly good and, dare I say, righteous lives, without the shackles of Christianity, or any other religion.

So we will have to let it be. Suffice it to say, I do understand your position, but I do not accept it as… necessary.

Richard

39

The problem with the ‘growing understanding of him’ view is that Islam thinks it is a more grown understanding of God than early Christianity and Mormons think they are as well, given that they say the Apostolic group was re-constituted via Joseph Smith. Such an understanding of God means that anyone can claim to be more evolved, or have a better understanding, and thus superior to those others who dont’ share their view.

But you are right we disagree fundamentally on the nature of inspiration.

There is so much more to this than can be put down here. Not the least being the ramifications of your message to the millions who have found God from another tradition, or live perfectly good and, dare I say, righteous lives, without the shackles of Christianity, or any other religion.

You appear to be a universalist, believing that any religion or no religion will do just fine. That would negate the need for the cross, and Jesus’ statement that “No man comes to the father except through me” If any ole religion will suffice for eternal salvation then none of this matters in the least.

40

If Jesus is God in human form then that statement is a truism (Trinity et al)

Richard

41

We agree on this. And if Jesus is God in Human form, just any religion or no religion will do.