Greetings Heino and bmyers,
Originally posted by bmyers
First, I'm going to have to say up front that much of my response here could be taken as disrespectful to this belief system; I do not intend such … I hope you will take the following in the manner it is intended.
Thanks. I will not infer disrespect. I maintain that the truth ought to be able to withstand some scrutiny.
Originally posted by Heino
I, too, subscribe to scripture, but I draw the line when parts of it are open to interpretation…. The Bible is clearly figurative and poetic in some places, and clearly literal in others.
I agree that Genesis is open to interpretation. If Genesis is intended as figurative, then I’d like to understand exactly what the referents are. Figures still shadow something concrete or they serve no purpose.
Originally posted by Heino
I believe that evolution is one of his great inventions. It does not shake my faith to know that the universe is older than 6,000 years. I do not think less of mankind because we evolved from homo erectus.
I care a great deal about science. I care less about how old the universe is and more about uphold God’s integrity. As I’ve said before, there is only 1 ontological truth. If one were to watch the year-to-year mutation of the evolutionary model, it is clearly not something I want to put my faith in. Is evolution true?
As a computer programmer, I’ve been so certain that a piece of code was “correct”, only to have egg on my face days later, when bugs appear. Computer code is a form of actualization. To the degree that I can understand a model, I can attempt to write code which will make that model come alive. Even when I have all the pieces right in front of me, I struggle to find a stable solution.
When I consider that evolutionists are attempting to model the generation of the universe, it is simply mind boggling. To think they could scratch the surface of depicting reality is a stretch, yet they will wax dogmatic that this or that occurred billions and billions of years ago. Then, every few years, they change.
Given this sandy foundation, the Bible appeals to me. It makes substantive claims about our origins and purpose of existence, and does so with authority. If inspired, surely this is a reason to give credence to it. If not found factual, then this would undermine my premise, that the Bible is from God.
Originally posted by Heino
I believe there is good evidence for localized floods in the region of the middle east. I believe that whoever wrote that the world was flooded, could easily have been exaggerating, because as far as the people who experienced the flood were concerned, it was the whole world. These people could not see the whole world. They only saw what they could from their boat. The earth is round, and you cannot see beyond the horizon. What is not important is the size of the flood. What is important is the lesson learned from the chapter. As I said earlier, [how] many animals and the exact size of the ark is trivial. What is important is that we understand that God can pass judgement on us at any time, and we behave as he commands, and treat one another as we wish to be treated, and we must honor God's commands.
Okay. I think I agree that you’ve isolated the more important concept.
Originally posted by Heino
I do not believe that genesis has to be false in order for evolution to be true. I believe that enough facts are left out of Genesis to allow them to be compatible.
If I could get to this point, I might be less belligerent towards evolution. I need scripture to be true (and trustworthy) even it a particular passage is judged to be allegorical or figurative.
Originally posted by Heino
I believe that you are thinking about things that were left not said in the Bible.
Okay. The Bible is the basis of my worldview, so if I am inferring facts not in evidence, then please bring that to my attention.
Originally posted by Heino
I must confess that I do not let my hair grow long, I do not stone people to death who sin against God, and I was never circumscised, all of which are things that God tells us to do (or at least he told the Hebrews to do). There are clearly commandments we have got from God which no western Christians practice, you or I included. How do you determine which commandments we follow, and which we don't?
I’m a dispensationalist. As an interpretive tool, this allows me to understand that God deals with different peoples in different times in different ways. God chose to manage the nation of Israel according to the Mosaic code. While I can learn from their experience, I am not directly bound by it. I wish I had hair to grow long. I would not generally advocate stoning (with the possible exception of child rapists). I do not think circumcision is required in this dispensation.
There are many hard passages in the Bible, but traditionally I hold that there is a resolution which upholds Biblical inerrancy.
Originally posted by bmyers
I do not understand, for instance, why it would be impossible to judge the earliest stories in the Bible - the Genesis accounts being the most obvious example - to be merely a collection of Hebrew myths, allegorical at best, while still believing and trusting in the truth of the other lessons of a moral and spiritual nature that the Bible has to offer.
If a text is written as poetry, proverb or allegory, then there should be contextual earmarks indicating such. I currently don’t hold anything in scripture to be myth. A myth is a fable, a falsehood. Of course, this is why I get into trouble with non-literalists.
Originally posted by bmyers
The Bible itself makes the claim that it is, in its entirety, "directly inspired by God" and therefore assumed to be inerrant. However, it should be clear that if it is not in fact so inspired, at least in its entirety, it could still make such a claim. The claim would just happen to be one of those parts which is not from God, and thus a human-induced error. In short, the validity of any given piece of the Bible says very, very little about whether or not God exists, or whether the moral and spiritual values given in this text are correct. To believe otherwise - to insist that either the entire Bible MUST be true, or else none of it could possibly be trusted - seems to me to be setting up one's faith as a house of cards. Should any one piece be removed, the entire structure falls for lack of support.
Yes. That is my position. This is why many inerrantists can get quite fussy when the scriptures are attacked. That is why there is so much fervor of the evolution issue. Heino seems to have resolved the matter by judging Genesis to be figurative.
I would have an easier time accepting its figurative value over having it adjudicated as myth. The former communicates something true; the latter is fantasy and serves no contemporary purpose or application. Further, the latter impugns the veracity of the document; i.e. makes the Bible not credible.
Originally posted by bmyers
That the entire Bible might NOT be literally true in fact says only one thing about the nature of God - that he does not reveal himself quite as explictly or clearly as might otherwise be the case.
Ouch. That’s a sore spot. Many argue for the perspicuity of scripture. I personally struggle with that. Given the plethora of denominations, it would seem that God intended scripture to be enigmatic on a number of specifics. So you’ve got me over a barrel here.
Originally posted by bmyers
Fundamentally, though, your choices are still that - your choices.
Yes. But, given scripture (as inspired), and given that I am being honest in my interpretive approach, then my morality is a derivation and not a machination. If I am not being honest, then this thinking falls over.
Originally posted by bmyers
And oddly enough, those "boundaries" seem to be drawn pretty much the same by all of man's religions. There are clearly differences in what one "should" do in order to be personally saved or exempted from whatever punishment a given religion describes, but the basic codes of behavior - the fundamental morality in each system - seem to be very much the same. Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, and so forth. Why is that?
You seem to be suggesting a common thread amongst religions.
Please forgive me as I strive to view my worldview as distinct, so please allow a short digression. Christianity has a distinction, and that being the centrality and uniqueness of its gospel message. Other religions stress becoming a better person, so as to either please god or just simply for the intrinsic value of “being good”.
God calls me to be perfect. In fact, only perfection will be allowed into God’s presence. One of the lessons learned from the Old Testament is that man can never rise to the level of perfection that God demands. So now man has 2 problems to over come. First is the stain on our souls of all the wrongs we’ve done, and second is that fact that we can never achieve a level of righteousness required to enter God’s presence. I believe that both these problems are solved in the person and work of Christ (Romans 4:25).
Other religions fall over because they do not address these problems. Guru’s and “holy” men attempt to become better. They fail in the specific goal, but also do nothing for the crimes committed by mankind in general. Man has done unspeakably cruel things to his brother: murder, rape, enslavement, stealing food from each other. The guru’s self denial and mystical awareness can offer no healing to the street person who has stooped to murder his neighbor over a loaf of bread. How can such an cosmic imbalance and moral injustice ever find resolution? There is no way to be “good enough” to makeup for taking another man’s life. I believe that this consideration is solved in the person and work of Christ.
Originally posted by LightSon
for me to question the Genesis account is to question the resurrection of Christ. If one could be false, so could the other. Once Christ is dead, I have no compelling reason to trust the Bible or the God purportedly revealed therein.
Originally posted by bmyers
I'm sorry, but that still strikes me as quite a leap; you are saying in effect that your status as a believing Christian is totally and utterly dependent on the literal accuracy of the Genesis account (again, pull the one card out, and watch the entire structure crumble).
Yes. It is a leap isn’t it. If scripture is inspired by God, then it is trustworthy. I trust what God has said – it is a matter of honoring His credibility.
Originally posted by bmyers
There are, in my experience, any number of apparently extremely devout Christians who do not have this same problem
Thank you. I appreciate that. Heino is no doubt one of them. I’m trying to pry my mind open so as to understand how one can keep the baby, yet loose the dirty bath water.
Originally posted by bmyers
Literally, no; but then, if "breathed into Man" is taken as allegorically referring to WHATEVER process God used to bring forth an intelligent species on Earth, what's the problem? Is it a greater miracle to mold a human from dust and "breathe life" into the body, or to arrange a process to operate over hundreds of millions of years? If anything, the former description reads to me just the same as any other primitive creation story - only the minor details are different.
Yes I see your point and am giving it consideration.
Originally posted by LightSon
Man ceases to be a special object of God's love and interest.
Originally posted by bmyers
Why? Does God have a short attention span, such that he sees things as less interesting if he has to spend a long time in their making? (In contrast, we tend to be very impressed with human craftsmen when they spend a long time perfecting something...) Most theologists seem to consider God as being "outside" of time, anyway - a day or a billion years, what's the difference? It would seem only the fact that we humans can't really comprehend the latter. In insisting on a six-day creation, do you force God down to human scale?
I only insist on a six-day creation in order to honor the intent and authority of scripture. If I can come to a better and still-honest resolution by seeing it as figurative then so be it.
Nevertheless, I see your overarching point that God’s attention span regarding man as being special, need not be lost within the failings of my oversimplified view. Your keen logic is starting to bug me, but bring it on. I can take it.
Originally posted by LightSon
Do you see how the whole Biblical theme of redemption begins to fall over? There is no reason why a man should cleave unto his wife. Marital boundaries can be deemed anachronistic. If we are merely two biological life forms, looking to procreate, I might as well spread my seed wherever I choose.
Originally posted by bmyers
Why? Even the most atheistic of evolutionary scientists would note that there are many species that mate for life, because it has proven to be in their best interests to do so; there is no reason mankind has to be an exception. But if coming from a theistic perspective, how does the process employed to create the human species have anything to do with the behaviors expected of the final result? If you believe in God, and yet reject the literal reading of Genesis, what you're saying is that God still made it all, he just used this other process to do it - a process that until very recently mankind could not even begin to comprehend. How does that change the rules - the moral code - that God would still be presumed to have set up?
Again, your logic puts me in a corner. I hate it when that happens.
