Tony, I don’t have time to go over all your points, as I’m typing this on my phone. I will make a more exhaustive comment tomorrow, perhaps.
One point though — the term Elohim is like the term Sheep or Fish. They are plural terms but you have no idea whether it’s talking about just one sheep or several sheep without context. The term is thought to be singular due to other passages in the Bible that say, “I (singular) The Lord your God (Elohim) created the Heavens and the Earth.” — this clearly seems to refer back to Genesis 1 even though term Yahweh isn’t used. Exodus 20:11 says, “For in six days The Lord (Yahweh) made the Heaven and the Earth and the Sea.” <<<. Don’t you think this is referring back to Genesis 1?
Of course things get a bit complicated because of the “Us” and “Our” imagery used in the creation of Man. And in the Babel episode the “Us” imagery is used again. Some people think this is referring to angels — others still to the Trinity, like in the New Testament where Jesus is credited for the creation of the universe.
I acknowledged that books like Genesis show signs of various authors — Genesis 38 is another example where the flow is disconnected from Genesis 37 and 39. I don’t know why this means the text has been “corrupted” however … Is it so impossible for God to inspire multiple people to write the same book? The misconception that people have is the assumption that books like Genesis were written down in a single setting (or even a couple settings). But the evidence shows that it was most likely a process of time, through a multitude of voices, that gave us these texts. Editors were probably. involved, to try and make the stories fit together to form one complete narrative. The book of Ezekiel for instance switches Points of References from I to They — if The prophet Ezekiel unexpectedly died and his followers wanted to collect his writings into a single book, they wouldn’t just grab all the pieces of parchment and patch it together with a stapler. That’s not how books work. They would make it into a coherent story that flows … It’s still the work of Ezekiel, just with some editorial assistance.
Taking the Bible as a whole (called the Narrative Approach) I think works quite well. I think you might find inconsistencies in some places, here and there, but the overall theme does it job in demonstrating Salvation History.
As far as your one remark about me contradicting myself, I read that over again and yes it was worded awkwardly.
Let me re-explain.
I believe the inspired author who wrote Genesis 1 was not the same inspired author who wrote Genesis 2 and 3. From a literary point of they, they are entirely different. One is more theocentric and the other anthropometric. One is very sophisticated and concise — the other tells more of a story narrative with profound theological implications. Also the chronologies aren’t the same (this is what leads many people to think that perfect chronology wasn’t the message in a literal-historical sense).
I’m not sure who decided to put both of those stories together … But they both carry profound meanings and I can see why Genesis 1 proceeds Genesis 2 and 3.
If you claim the Bible has been corrupted by the “most wicked men of all time” then can you tell me (objectively) which parts are still the Original Bible?
Tim, I’m already aware of the context component and how it can change the intended significance of a term. The terms Elohim, Eloah, Yahuwah, Yahuwah Elohim, etc., in the different passages—as you explained that the inspired author who wrote Genesis 1 was not the same inspired author who wrote Genesis 2, and 3, and that from a literary point of view, they are entirely different—only reinforces the idea that the authors themselves had disparate views regarding the essence of God [objective reality]. Yes, perhaps Exodus 20:11, “For in six days The Lord (Yahweh) made the Heaven and the Earth and the Sea,” is referring back to Genesis 1, however it does not imply that the concept itself is correct—clearly there are conflicting ideas portrayed within the scriptures. The question is, which ideas are the correct ones?
The meaning of “Us” and “Our” in the context of the creation, and of building the tower in Babel is not defined in Strong’s Concordance. Perhaps in the original Hebrew specificity would give some insight into this complication. As for referring to angels, or the trinity, I don’t subscribe to that point of view. Regarding angels, I simply don’t believe they exist—except for in dreams, trance states, and visions.
According to the text the angels who visited Abraham and later visited Lot in Sodom were men. Here is a past comment I wrote to another forum member on the matter;
“Your comment, “It is not always the case that the angels are encountered in dreams, trances and visions in the Bible” has a certain truth to it in that “humans” are sometimes referred to as angels—the situation of the [visitors] Abraham and Lot received just before Sodom was destroyed. In Abraham’s case, in Genesis 18:1-8, the [visitors] are called [men]. Abraham tells the [three men], “Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and [wash your feet], and rest yourselves under the tree:” and also, “I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts,” and tells Sarah, “Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.” The passage states, “and they did eat.” Would angels need to have their feet washed, and would they need to eat physical food? Genesis 19:1-5 states, “And there came two [angels] to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom:” and to the [angels] he said, “Behold now, my [lords], turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and [wash your feet], and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways.” Again, would [angels] need to have their feet washed?” and also, “ye shall rise up early,” would they require sleep? “He made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.” Again, would [angels] need to eat physical food?" Finally, “And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the [men] which came in to thee this night?” Here, the [angels] are called [men]. Ergo, God’s [angels] are [human] messengers, after all, the definition of the word angel [is] messenger. Therefore, the Bible teaches us that angels are God’s human messengers who deliver his instructions and at times they appear in dreams, trance, and visions to deliver these instructions."
Jacob was blessed with his famous dream at Bethel (Luz), “And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac…” (Genesis 28:12-13)
In regard to the prophet Daniel scripture confirms the view that spiritual angels (as opposed to the men Abraham entertained) are seen in dreams, trance states and visions, “Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the [vision] at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.” (Daniel 9:21) And God reveals His messages in dreams, “In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a [dream] and [visions] of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the [dream], and told the sum of the matters.” (Daniel 7:1) [Emphasis Mine]
Within the New Testament the appearance of angels in dreams, trance states, and visions is no different than what we see in the Old Testament: “…in the sixth month the [angel] Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the [angel] came in unto her…” (Luke 1:26-28) Jacob’s dream tells us something important about where the personal God and the angels exist… they exist in the dreams of men and women. As for it being the angel Gabriel that God sent is very telling—since the angel Gabriel appeared to Daniel in dreams, trance states, and visions. Therefore it shouldn’t be ridiculous or outlandish to suggest that the angel who visited Mary visited her in a dream, trance state, or a vision. In fact, it should be totally clear for everyone to understand and should be accepted as conclusive—it’s simple deductive logic. Again, “…the [angel] of the LORD appeared unto him in a [dream], saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 1:20) Finally, in the words of John the revelator he also is given God’s communication through a messenger; “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his [angel] unto his servant John.” (Revelation 1:1) Here, again, it is plainly evident from where this angel is communicating from. “I was [in the Spirit] on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.” (Revelation 1:10-11) Of course, [in the Spirit] has occult connotations and suggests the spirit world [the Astral Plane] into which John entered through the trance state. Also, the dream symbolism is everywhere and throughout the book of Revelation—another profound relevance and concern in occult practice. [Emphasis Mine]
On a side note, the seven churches in Asia Minor (Anatolia)—what is known today as modern day Turkey—were located on the coast line amid the communities where the Ionians (an Ancient Greek tribe) established the philosophical and scientific communities in the 6th century B.C… Subsequently, I don’t think it was by accident that the Christian Churches found their home amid the birthplace of philosophy and science, and that John of the Revelation was directed by the Spirit to exhort them.
Concerning the relation of “Us” and “Our” to the creation of man and to the Trinity—I simply believe there is none [except that it is an anthropomorphization of Elohim (the eternal animation force) speaking to Himself]. Likewise, in the New Testament where Jesus is credited with the creation of the universe there is a misconception in the interpretation of the text. John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” is referring to the beginning of the Word of speech—the point where man begins to develop language, reason, and rationality. If you look up Strong’s Concordance for the Greek word used for God here, you will discover it is the word [Theos]. Theos refers to the Man God of the trinity—the Father (Adam), the Son (Jesus), and the Third Person (?). In Genesis 1:1 the term for God is [Elohim] the eternal animating force. At the beginning of the universe (the creation) the eternal animating force did not have any speech or word. It is only through cosmic and biological evolutionary creationism and the birth of mankind that speech and the Word came into being. Hence there were two beginnings in scripture—the beginning of the universe and the beginning of the Word through man. Many Christians can accept the principle that God became a man in the Person of Jesus Christ, however, they cannot accept the principle that God became a man in the Person of Adam. Jesus Christ became a man through the line of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob… David… Joseph and Mary (both having lineage to David). The family line originates with Adam through Seth. Elohim (the eternal animating force) created Adam through the process of cosmic and biological evolution through which Jesus Christ was eventually born. Yahuwah (the Higher Self), a creation of Elohim (the eternal animating force) was present with the birth of language, reason, and rationality. With [the fall] a disconnection with Yahuwah (the Higher Self) occurred in the being of Adam—a schizophrenia we might say between the conscious and unconscious aspects of the person. This mental illness (spiritual sickness and death) was passed on to the rest of the human family.
In a corrupt world where dishonest men and women have the ability to rise to power and control large portions of land and militaries, it shouldn’t be too difficult to state that it is impossible for God to inspire multiple people to write the same book [over a period centuries nonetheless] truthfully and accurately. In this kind of world there are those with their own agendas who don’t agree with the consensus on the social contract will do what it takes to protect their interests. This is why it’s not that unreasonable to believe the scriptures have been corrupted—not to mention the illogical and irrational concepts and contradictions contained within. Your point is well taken about the misconception that people have in their assumptions. And although the scriptures were written down over a process of time and through a multitude of voices, and that editors were probably involved in its making the story should fit together to form one complete narrative. The problem is that it does not fit together to form one complete narrative that makes sense unless the illogical and irrational concepts and contradictions are repaired. The same for your point about Ezekiel—sure if he unexpectedly died and his followers put together the pieces to make it into a coherent story, fine. However, it is not a coherent story about the nature of reality—the pieces do not add up. Alternatively, however, prophecy concerning the first and second coming of Christ is meticulously accurate in its timeline and circumstances.
How the narrative approach demonstrates Salvation History works quite well, I’m sure, for the insiders and those who have discovered the deeper truths and significance of the story for themselves—like myself, at this later stage in life. However, if I knew these deeper truths and significance of the story at the bright young age of childhood the narrative approach demonstrating Salvation History would have worked quite well for me too at that young age and would have saved me, and others a lot of heartache. But those are the consequences of a system where the ends justify the means because the benefits outweigh the harms in how releasing this information at the appropriate time is necessary to hold the balance of power together. Nevertheless, the corruption issue of the scriptures still stands as a case in point.
I would have to say that the entire Bible is still the Original Bible but with different parts within it having been changed. I cannot say for sure (objectively) which parts were changed (added or removed)—that would be a futile pursuit and an impossible task. Still, I believe that, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) However, the different parts within it that teach illogical and irrational concepts and contradictions about the nature of God and Satan, angels and demons, heaven and hell, and an afterlife are hurtful and damaging to the person. Of course, to include in this list is the nature of the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus Christ.
That is essentially what the Catholic Church has done along time ago. Only the NT (minus Revelations) is ever mentioned as well as just a few quotes in the OT.
When I first became aware of the correlation between science and religious belief I began discussing these insights with a close friend mine. He suggested (as you are) that I should just junk the Bible and religion altogether—he said, “you don’t need the Bible and religion to explain the reality of the world.” Although there is a correlation between the way religion (minus its illogical, irrational, and contradictory points of course) explains reality and the way science does, science itself is all that is really needed from the atheist’s perspective. However, since the person in organized religion cannot abandon his beliefs because of the nature of his delusory state, it would be prudent to present and display the accord that exists between science and religion (taking into consideration the correlation of the semantics between the two). This is simply to keep society together and prevent anarchy and revolution (however, within different nations this will be inevitable to some degree). As God’s kingdom comes to its final stages of fully taking over the reins of power, changes will be made to the social and professional infrastructure in society. Many will not accept these changes which include the coming together of Church and State. Therefore, in the attempt to save the souls of those under religious delusion, clarity of thought regarding what is going on in the world in these perilous times is pertinent. This involves exposing the errors and falsehoods contained within scripture so that science and faith come together into full objective agreement.
This is why I spend so much of my time studying the Bible and arguing about it. Being a Christian involves loving God, His law, and everything He represents, and, loving one’s neighbor as one’s self. It’s just the right thing to do—for me it’s first nature… it’s who I am. I don’t deny the coherence of the narrative story, neither do I deny the coherence of prophecy concerning Christ’s first and second coming. I don’t deny the coherence of the law, nor do I deny the coherence of how God communicated with the prophets through dreams, trance states, and visions. As for the Christian tradition, if you’re referring to all the hocus pocus, meaningless chants, and venerating idols of “saints” in the churches, you’re right I disagree with it. If you’re referring to the white haired bearded man in the sky god, or, the horned Satan with his pitch fork, you’re right I disagree with it. If you’re referring to angels and demons, and, heaven and hell, you’re right I disagree with it. And if you’re referring to the resurrection, the ascension, and an afterlife in a world of disembodied souls—again you’re right, I disagree with it. I stand guilty as charged and I am fully proud of it.
An interesting point to make that I believe I haven’t yet mentioned here at BioLogos is concerning Ancient Greece and the group of migrant teachers called the Sophist Philosophers. Sophist philosophy was an educational movement which began in the city-states of Ancient Greece in the second half of the 400s B.C. and came with new concepts for the newly found democracy. They taught grammar and public speaking in the developing democratic state. A well known Sophist was Protagoras who held that old customs and ceremonies should be observed to keep society together. Our modern day democracies founded on the Ancient Greek model have respected this principle of [keeping old customs and ceremonies]. People of different religious backgrounds have had the liberty to practice their respective faiths—to keep society together. However, when The Day of the Lord arrives, how will all the confusion because of the numerous different religions, and denominations fare with The Return of the King? This is a question for serious consideration.
Christianity is NOT keeping society together and preventing anarchy and revolution. The secular US society is doing quite well with Christians now comprising less than 70% of the population and getting smaller every year.
Stop the fear mongering. There is no take over of the reins of power in the United States.
Most will fight any attempt to force religion into Government. Take a look at how many nativity scenes at Government sites are being take down this year.
I have made some changes to my original comment to you. However, it doesn’t really change what I said except, perhaps, to make things clearer. I was occupied with something else… sorry.
First, I wasn’t talking specifically about the US society itself but about the democratic system in general. Second, my point about [keeping society together] was in relation to the Governments of democratic nations, where people of different religious backgrounds have the liberty to practice their respective faiths. So, I wasn’t claiming that Christianity is keeping society together and preventing anarchy and revolution. We should admit that the US and practically all other democracies in the world have prevented full-blown anarchy and revolution—in my original comment I should have actually included civil war. As for Christians in the US now comprising less than 70% of the population and getting smaller every year—doesn’t that make you think that there is something wrong with Christianity? Of course immigration with people of other religious backgrounds is also a factor.
You might call it fear mongering but I’m just stating it as I see it. I believe the United States of America is still the strong arm of the world. Where I said, "As God’s kingdom comes to its final stages of fully taking over the reins of power… " I was referring to the reins of global power. But yes, the way that I see it, the US is the head of that global power;
“And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold. And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind. (Revelation 4:4-6)”
Don’t you see the United States of America in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne? It’s right before your eyes… if you can only understand the symbolism.
The only religion being forced into Government—or the coming together of Church and State that I was referring to is the enforcement of the Law. After all, thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not steal is part of the Mosaic Law. Of course there are all kinds of considerations to take into account concerning these two commandments (laws under the criminal code) and the other eight as well which I will not go into here. And as I said before, the Church is not a building made of wood and stone, but the people who abide by the law. The people who abide by the law also work in the Government. Therefore, the Church and State has already come together in union with the law. Where I said, “Many will not accept these changes which include the coming together of Church and State,” I was referring to the people (Church) and government (State) together in union with the law on the global scale.
So… they are taking down nativity scenes in the US, are they? Is there any criminal code against the government doing this? If not, I don’t see any problem with it.
Yes there is a lot wrong with Christianity. First of all, it isn’t a single block. Christianity is very fractured with over 44,000 denominations through out the country. No (real) person alive today speaks for all of Christianity. Biologos is trying to harmonize science with Christian faith where most of Christianity (Catholics and Mainline Protestants) see no conflict whatsoever.
Regarding US policy - the US is a secular nation and the elected Government makes policies in the best interests of the people of the US. Yes, the US has big role in the world economy. But the US is to be completely secular in accomplishing this goal. Quoting John Kennedy, “I believe in an America where the separation of Church and State is absolute”.
No it don’t. I see the book of Revelation as a completely fictional story written by a delusion person 2000 years ago.
The United States is a secular nation where no Church is allowed in Government. We have a system of laws that no religion is above. For example, Kim Davis’ proclamation that she would not give out marriage licenses was “on God’s Authority”, had no basis. She spend 5 days in jail, while the laws were followed.
I am referring to nativity scenes at US Government sites, likes town halls, public schools, State Capital buildings. They belong at either private properties or churches but certainly not at Government locations.
James, quite a puzzle! I feel the same loss of equilibrium when an Atheist critiques a BioLogos
essay because there’s all together too much God in the article .
I probably should have closed this topic sooner, but I’m doing it now. A reminder that discussions at BioLogos need to be BioLogos stuff—origins, faith/science topics, etc. Political discussions of almost any sort are usually not relevant to BioLogos discussions.
