Momof3
-
Posts
400 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Momof3
-
-
For snack we do
ants-on-a-log (celery, peanut butter & raisins)
carrot sticks w/ Ranch
apple slices or other fruit
yogurt
popcorn or pretzels & raisins
(one of those...not all of them every day :))
-
We do pbjs, tuna sandwiches, mac n' cheese, or leftovers mostly... Unless I just cut up some apples & they eat those with yogurt, crackers, pretzels, raisins...whatever we have in the house. ;)
I'm looking for some new ideas, too... I don't like to make anything more complicated than box mac n' cheese for lunch. :)
-
Just saw this...
Now they're saying the plane "didn't have permission" to fly that day at all??? How does that happen? I hope people quit flying with this airlines until they get this sorted out...
Transport Ministry spokesman J.A. Barata said the airline was only permitted to fly the route on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.
“So AirAsia has committed a violation of the route that has been given to them,†Mr. Barata told The Wall Street Journal. He said the company’s flights from Surabaya, Indonesia’s second-largest city, to Singapore had consequently been suspended on Friday.
-
:bigear:
We're not here yet...but I am curious to hear from the Hive on this... I have been eyeing BA as a fun/challenging different-kind-of-math for when we're ready for a break from MM...
-
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge... Proverbs 1:7
Meditating on this phrase today...
-
I'm a little behind here, which is a pretty sad considering this whole thing was my idea. Did anyone else notice that the temptation of Eve was the same as the temptation of Jesus? "Eat this" Genesis 3:1 (fruit), Matthew 4:3 (bread), "You will not die" Genesis 3:4 (by eating it), Matthew 4:5-6 (by jumping off of a building), "You will be like God" Genesis 3:5, Matthew 4:8-9. In the end Adam & Eve were ashamed to be seen by God in Genesis 3:8, while Jesus was ministered to by angels in Matthew 4:11. The difference being that Eve questioned God's word while Jesus used it to combat Satan.
Momof3. Something I've questioned is when the angels were created. They were at the creation (Job 38:4-7) and are not restricted to space like we are. So, does Exodus 20:11 apply to them as well? Or do they predate the creation? And if so, what did they do? So many thoughts...
Very neat! (I have seen many of those parallels before, but not all of them.) Genesis 3 also has parallels to I John 2:16 - the world tempts us with the lust of the eyes, (pleasant to the eyes), lust of the flesh (good for food), and pride of life (desired to make one wise).
I like the bolded. That's a great point!
Angels, yes... I've wondered that, too. It will be interesting to know the answers to all of these things some day... :)
-
I don't know if I'm going canonical or chronological yet, but the readings are the same for today, so I'm good. :)
I would argue as per Exodus 20:11 that he did it all on the first day.
" For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
Thanks. Yes, that looks pretty clear. :)
-
Is it ok to discuss the reading on here? Or is that more suitable for another thread... If it's OK to wonder aloud...
I wonder if the universe itself was in existence before God created the "heaven and the earth"...so if the "heaven" refers to just earth's atmosphere...or our solar system...or something like that... Gen 1 seems to indicate there was darkness and water... Any speculation or theories about what it was like b4 day 1 of Creation?
Thanks for posting the Every Day in the Word reading, Slache. I'm going with that one. :)
-
Looks great. Thanks, slache. :)
-
Aargh! (pretend grimace) I need to get off this computer! :)
Not at all.
I would encourage you to do just that. I would encourage you to study it apart from religious explanations. Learn about the natural world and the information we can glean from it. There are all kinds of really great resources for those exploring this for the first time. I find this site to be easy to navigate, and good for limited attention spans.
This is a misconception. The scientific literature contains no such debate, and hasn't for decades and centuries (explained in the link).
That depends on how you define science. :) I'm not really wanting a 101 on evolution...been there, done that. :) I would be more interested in some points of "science" that lead you to no possibility that a global flood could have covered the earth for a single day. I enjoy science, and I am not afraid of finding anything irreconcilable with the Bible. Like I said, I haven't seen anything like that yet... Scientists are often wrong...and scientific opinions do change with time...but it's always interesting to study. :)
The evidence doesn't support this hypothesis.
It depends on whose evidence you are looking at. :)
There is no evidence to support any of that.
If you mean outside of the Bible account and (for the resurrection, at least) history, than, no. I take it nothing could make you believe in a "miracle" that happened 2000 years ago... No historical record, no eyewitness account, etc. You would only believe something that is scientifically plausible or could be repeated... Right? So, in your worldview, there is no room for anything beyond this existence...what we can see, feel, smell, etc. Do you see that this view takes as much faith as mine?
I think you mean people are not always reliable with regard to understanding or analyzing historical events. Again, the more evidence we have, the more dots we can connect. The author of this article is encouraging people to accept evidence that exists outside the bible. The more you know...
Yes, this is what I mean. Sometimes. But the "more evidence" has to be right, valid, etc. The "evidence" this author is colored by his bias.
He could have left instructions written on the side of a mountain, or given us brains with a biological part that corresponds to his non-biological essence, or forgiven Adam and Eve in the garden, or made the wages of sin a really bad headache for a day. There's lots of things God could have done that we can never explore, confirm, or deny. We can, however, explore the natural world. We can become familiar with different aspects, we can delve into the details, and experiment with hypotheses. We can submit our ideas to the review of those who are trained in such areas. We can falsify claims and identify and correct mistakes. There is so much we can do. It's rather fascinating what we can learn about our world, our universe, and ourselves.
The only evidence for this claim is the same source that makes the claim - the bible. This is called circular reasoning and is dismissed in every other field. In fundamental religious theology, it's embraced.
If you choose to reject evidence outside of the Bible, than yes, all that you have left is the Bible. :) But history supports the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and the resurrection account. So ?
You're saying the same thing Teannika is saying - the bible has a secret code that is revealed only to a select few deemed worthy, and it confuses and confounds others. Don't you find it interesting that while everyone thinks that, everyone disagrees about what that secret code really is?
No, I'm telling you what the Bible says. There are people who would like to blame God for their unbelief - If I'm going to believe in Him, He's going to have to make it more obvious... God is asking for you to believe on Him because He says to...and the evidence for His existence is all around us...
Less than civil, or less than flattering?
Less than civil.
-
To momof3:
this is a good example of the arrogant, and condescending tone inherent in this argument. The author has apparently rejected the bible, and very likely has rejected God. What must he think of the bible? Why does he hate Jesus? ;)
The stereotype that people who don't hold a fundamentalist interpretation don't really know the bible is patronizing and dismissive enough, but to suggest they reject it outright is no less obnoxious than the stereotype that fundamentalist Christians don't really know the bible any more than to find out verses here and there to support their bigotry, the sole purpose of study.
Forgive me for being less than supportive of you Christians, but I can't help but wonder why, if you are "little Christs," you lack this basic insight about each other. How in the world can you trust the holy ghost to guide you if it can't be counted on even to clear up these simple, hurtful misconceptions? After 2000 years, you guys are no closer to figuring this stuff out than you were at the beginning. That's not such a comforting track record in my opinion.
This is a new idea for me! How fascinating. The idea that your god made the bible to be understood in layers isn't new to me, this Pesher method of interpreting the bible is as old as any of the texts, but to hear that he deliberately had it made to be confounding and confusing to those he wants to keep blind is. If it were any other character from history or mythology doing this, I suspect society would find characterize him as deceptive, untrustworthy, and capricious. It's almost as if you understand life to be a giant riddle to be solved, the game ends when you die. If you solved the riddle correctly, your reward is avoiding pain and suffering for all eternity. But of course, that would be the confusion talking.
This is why I find the article doesn't go far enough. It isn't enough to expose fundamentalism as problematic when used as motivation for public policy and private behavior, but the idea that faith alone - regardless of any evidence, even the most obvious, and regardless of logic - is an [the most?] accurate source for information puts society in general at risk. There simply exists no accountability for this kind of thinking. People could do any heinous action and believe genuinely that their faith compelled them, and the rest of society would attribute it to mental health, but of course we would be blind to the truth according to this explanation.
What I take away from this argument you're presenting is that these behaviors may not necessarily be attributed to mental health, but to a genuine belief that one's actions were guided, or at least condoned by the holy hand of their god. That's not to say mental health isn't responsible for such things, but when following your logical argument as presented here, we're not talking about mental health. We're talking about faith. That, to me, is enormously problematic. Thank you for highlighting this very issue. I think if more people were aware of how religious believers think, we might be able to prevent at least some traumatic events in the future.
How interesting that everyone thinks they have the finger on the Right Way to interpret the texts, but you have the Really Right Way. I find it interesting how you use the same methodology as momof3 and the author, and yet this same exact method now reveals three diametrically opposing solutions to the problem of the right interpretation.
Do you mean only literate English speakers can understand the difference between literal and allegorical communication?
By this logic, we would ask you, How would you know? Have you followed the author around and watched what he has seen? Do you happen to personally see the line from Alexandria and the line from Antioch? No you haven't, therefore, we must conclude, in this regard you are a liar.
*Sigh* I think you are reading a lot into her tone. That's what you walk away with...and I think I've personally learned some things in this thread about how to avoid that take-away... but, with respect, IMO your post reads with a much more patrionizing and condescending tone. Teannika is defending the Bible...you are mocking her for it.
I think you should let her define her terms. What does she mean by "rejecting the Bible"?
Your issue with Christianity runs much deeper than your allegations that the Bible contains contradictions/error. Faith is a danger to society? Really? I totally agree that faith in a message of "go out and kill people" would be dangerous...but does it follow that faith is dangerous? I don't follow your logic. So all religions must be false because some religion could use faith to make people do bad things?
Yeah...I'm not really wanting to tackle all of this... Just when I thought I was done with this thread. :) Um...I don't think our different methodologies are problematic. Like I said, there is more than one way to resolve "problems" in the Bible. I don't claim to have the only possible solution. I'm saying some of the passages are not meant to be chronological...Teannika said the passages must be understood in proper context & time. I don't see that as "diametrically opposed."
I'll let her answer the rest... Just one other note, the original manuscripts do not exist. That's why she said he cannot have seen them. Neither has Teannika, but I don't think she's claiming to have. ;)
Okay...I've spent yet another entire naptime on the Hive... Gotta go, folks! Happy New Year! :)
-
I think first you have to ask, where are these lines being drawn? By what objective measure can you confirm the lines are drawn accurately?
I'm not sure what lines you mean? Who believes the Bible is true and who doesn't? I guess I'd take a person's word for it...?
I agree with you that he wasn't representing fundamentalism responsibly. He was proposing a foolish caricature, which certainly makes it easier to knock down. The contradictions he exposed do exist, however. His points are sloppy I think, but he's got a legitimate point under all that posturing.
You don't have to explain to me why you take certain passages figuratively and certain ones literally. I believe you believe what you do, and I believe you've thought about this long and hard and are not making rash decisions. Nevertheless, his argument stands - when the claim is made that the bible is meant to be read literally, that it contains reliable information, there are significant factual, logical, and social problems that follow.
In this case it's not a figurative vs. literal interpretation. It is understanding the topical flow of this passage as opposed to the clearly chronological "day 1, day 2, etc." flow of chapter 1. There's no need not to understand the passage literally. God very literally created Adam. He very literally brought the animals to Adam, and there was no companion found for Adam among them. It's a question of timing. Did God make Adam or the animals first? Chapter 1 tells us outright that animals were first. So...animals were first. Why question that? Especially when chapter 2 can easily be understood to be topical...? I'm only saying that the Bible is not strictly chronological...I don't know any Christian who would disagree with me there. :) (There are many other reasons why a two-Creation accounts theory - where this Genesis 1-2 questioning really comes from - involves more logical juggling than a plain reading of the text as it is...)
And if every Christian agreed with you, the problem would be far easier to resolve, don't you think?
My explanation is not the only possible answer. :)
That's an interesting solution, but the problem still stands - the bible says two different things happened (here and in a great many places). People who advocate accepting the bible as accurate accounts of history are required to juggle logical arguments to keep everything working. In other words, you may believe this explanation, but others find it a pretty sloppy excuse to continue believing the unbelievable. To avoid this, claims made in the bible must be carefully vetted out. The only way to do that is to find more information. His article introduces some of that information, and it changes the scope of the practical use of the bible from the conventionally respected book of facts, to the modern view of a book that is a snapshot in time, capturing the thoughts and social/religious beliefs of a people long ago and far away. His final point is that people who rely on faulty logic, who refuse to accept information, cannot be trusted with regards to knowing what's right and what's wrong, and that includes moral questions.
If something is contradictory they can't be reconciled, right? So...if they can be reconciled, they aren't contradictory?
Why is it "sloppy" to show what "waters prevailed" means in the context? You pulled two verses out of the passage. I am showing you what the adjoining verses say. You can read a contradiction into the passage, but you have to ignore a solution to do so.
I don't believe the Bible is a "respected book of facts"...and I don't think that is the "conventional" Christian view, either.
You make it sound as if things that are "unbelievable" ought not to be believed in. :) That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I think it stands to reason that if there is a God, he would be able to do the "unbelievable." Human rationalization would not necessarily be enough to answer every question...and we would need something outside of what we can observe, handle, etc. to explain the "unbelievable." You say that you would like to have the Bible "vetted out", but you will not accept a "solution" to apparent contradictions. I guess I'm curious what you feel it would take for you to believe the Bible's claims?
I understand that's how you've worked this out, but we know for a fact there was no event in earth's history in which water covered the whole earth. Not even for one day. People [actually, a select few followers of the Abrahamic religions] accept this claim on faith, and they have every right to do so, but they are wrong. We know this because their beliefs cannot be corroborated in any meaningful way. Not for lack of trying, mind you. There simply is no evidence for it happening, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. People who believe it anyway are working on faulty information and faulty logic. He's appealing to people who are increasingly questioning these claims to recognize the flaws in the arguments, and to recognize the hazards of trusting this logic to guide anyone with regard to understanding the natural world, and even moral issues.
You've made some bold claims. :) This is probably not the thread for it...and I don't know that I have the time right now (we just started school again this week) but I would love to study the scientific implications of the flood more closely. My experience so far has been that scientists have been waging a debate about a myriad of observations, theories, etc. in support of or in opposition to the idea of a Flood... My understanding is that the majority of scientists discount the idea of a Flood...and that this is largely because a global flood is irreconcilable with evolution... The "evidence" can be reconciled with a Creation/global flood account, but because they don't want to believe in a global flood, they choose (as you have done) to dismiss potential solutions as "logical juggling" or, at best, an "interesting solution" (by which they imply that it doesn't deserve a second glance). I have started looking into the arguments on both sides these last days, and I haven't found any so far that could not "be corroborated in any meaningful way." But you can give me some suggestions of where to look at maybe... :)
I am comfortable with the idea that God is able to do the "unbelievable." The Virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, the many miracles of Jesus...I don't accept these because science supports them... And 'history' is not always reliable... I don't believe God is obligated to leave a clear trail of proofs for Creation and/or the Flood in science/history... He could have written the Gospel in the sky where it would be indisputable. He chose instead to give us His Word. The amazing fulfillment of biblical prophecy, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ verified by thousands of eyewitnesses... As Abraham said in Jesus' parable (Luke 16), "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." That being said, I would love to do more study of the science behind the Flood.
Of course, his argument is that his understanding of the True Right Real Message of the bible is what we as a society will naturally want to utilize to answer the questions we have about life, the universe, us, etc. Needless to say, I don't personally agree. ;)
Well...I will continue to check in here as I can...but with school now, I won't be able to live at the Hive for as long as I've been. ;) Also (I did skim the next several posts)...the tone is starting to turn less-than-civil, and will probably be less enjoyable for me to partake in... But thanks again for conversing!
-
Do you mean "fact" when you say "true"? That's how I'm reading you, but I don't know if that's what you're saying. If that's the case, I would agree with you in that there's a difference, significant even.
I'm comfortable with a google definition of true: "1. in accordance with fact or reality. 2. accurate or exact." I believe that the original manuscripts (again, I'm not a KJV-is-perfect person, and I don't think every Hebrew/Greek manuscript we have today is perfect either) came from God who cannot lie, and so they are true (accurate, reliable, not false, not erroneous).
Yes, I see a significant difference as well. This is why I make a distinction between believing the Bible to be true...and not. Someone might believe the Bible is totally false/not true. Someone else might believe the Bible is partially false/partially true (e.g. Thomas Jefferson). Still another person might believe that the Bible contains truth...but would not be comfortable saying it is true. I guess I'm finding that some are okay blurring the lines in the third category?
I'm not sure I'm following you, but I don't think that's a good summary of liberal interpretation. It's not about reading the whole bible as a set of facts. Like you say, there's poetry, analogy, things that are clearly not meant to be factual.
Okay. I thought that's how you were defining a liberal interpretation. My bad.
Gotcha. His tone threw a lot of people off, I think.
I think what's implied here is that people who don't come away with the same general beliefs as you haven't sufficiently weighed both sides of the argument. It's the same thing the author is saying. If that's the case, I don't agree with either of you.
It's not that every person who sufficiently weighs both sides will agree with me. I'm only answering this article because I felt it didn't fairly represent "the other side." He presents a water-tight argument...but (I think) much of it is learning on straw men.
;)
This is an illustration of the above.
To be fair, I don't know if he's a Christian, but it is the impression I walk away with after reading the article.
Sure. No problem. :)
Here's what the author says:
First off, "Careful readers" is obnoxious. Clearly a great many intelligent, educated Christians have read the creation stories carefully. They, like you, simply do not agree with his interpretations, and therefore his conclusions. Just felt like I wanted to get that out of the way. Don't know why. Maybe because it's sloppy and deceitful in my opinion to present opinions as careful journalism. I have a problem with Newsweek in general for this very reason. But okay, moving on...
Skeptics Annotated Bible has done the work for me:
You say,
I think the problem here isn't about the articulation (or lack thereof) regarding plants, but the order in which these things are offered to have literally happened, plants included. Either animals were created and then man was created (Gen 1), or man was created and then animals were created (Gen 2). Plants are part of the whole shebang, but the two accounts give opposite time lines, and the author proposes that's a problem for the fundamentalist position.
He said vegetation. I assumed this is referring to plants. But as to animals... Yes, I can see where you get man created before animals in Gen 2. My bad, I wasn't thinking of v.19 in that way. To me, the entire passage reads very naturally. I read verse 19 as referring to something that happened previously. God created Adam first...and then recognized the need for Adam to have a companion (v.18). I see v.19-20 as necessary repetition...to emphasize/explain Adam's loneliness, the reader must remember that God had created animals & birds...and though Adam was familiar with these, none were qualified to be a suitable companion. And so, the chronological details continue with v.21 where God makes Eve. I see no problem with the 6 days of Creation being taken figuratively...so Adam & Eve were not necessarily both created in a 24-hour period, but some would disagree with me.
But I have read Genesis many times...and am very familiar/comfortable with the style (repeating stories, adding details for emphasis, summarizing previous events, jumping around on the timeline)... I think the style to be very beautiful, personally.
Here are some examples from the chapters following the Flood:
In Genesis 9, after Noah & his sons are off of the ark, v.19 says "These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread." This doesn't mean that the whole earth was populated with Shem/Ham/Japheth's descendants before the next verse begins with: "And Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard..." Verse 19 is peeking ahead...giving that overview of events...
Chapter 9 ends with some notes about Noah's age at death, etc. Then chapter 10 begins: "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood." I take that to mean simply that Noah's sons had sons of their own...after the flood. That could mean that they had children already before the story about Noah's vineyard/drunkenness/etc. The purpose is not to be strictly chronological. The purpose is to give a flow of details & events, unfolding the story of mankind and how he relates to God...particularly now that sin has entered the world.
Chapter 10 provides us with lists of descendants for each of Noah's sons. Some of them are not born chronologically until many chapters later. Chapter 11 begins with the story of how God confused the language and scattered the people...but verse 10 backs up... "These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood..." The rest of the chapter gives us Shem's descendants from Arphaxad all the way to Abraham...and succinctly tells the story of God calling Abraham out of Ur...which story is repeated with more details at the beginning of chapter 12. Chapter 11, with a focus more on the biological connection between Seth and Abraham, tells us that Abraham's father Terah moves the family to Haran...and references Terah's death. Chapter 12, with a focus on Abraham's relationship to God and his own journey of faith, leaves Terah out of the details, but tells about God speaking to Abraham, calling him to move to Canaan. So which is true? I believe both are. Each story has a different emphasis. The details are not contradictory...just complementary.
I apologize if that was more than you wanted. :) I could continue through the entire book of Genesis...and at least the historical books of the OT. Even the gospels are not meant to be chronological...except for Luke which I believe is...his is a sort of biography of Christ's life/ministry...
This isn't the only contradiction. Noah's ark is another supposedly historical fact for which the bible isn't reliable for information. The KJV bible (favorite with fundamentalists) says, "Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days" Genesis 7:17, but also "And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days" Genesis 7:24. You may say that means the rains came for 40 days but the floods kept rising, but the bible doesn't say that. His point is, if you're going to say that God created the earth in 6 days because the bible says so, then you have to accept that the floods came upon the earth for 40 days and also that the floods prevailed for 150 days because the bible says so.
What do you take "the waters prevailed upon the earth" to mean? I have always taken that to mean that the waters had sole occupancy for those 150 days... 7:17 says "And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth." So I take that to mean that it rained for 40 days/nights, during which time, the water level increased. 7:18 says, "and the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters." So when it says "the waters prevailed" I've always read that to mean that the water had covered everything by this point, and now the level has 'stabilized.' It's not raining anymore... The ark isn't rising, just floating around... 7:19 repeats the idea of "waters prevailing" and adds that everything was covered. 7:20 tells how high the water level was, and reminds us (in case we haven't gotten the full picture yet) that the mountains are covered. 7:21-23 tells us several times in several ways that everything is dead - v.23 reminds us that Noah & his family are on the ark, still breathing. 7:24 recaps, "And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days." So 7:18-24 takes place in 150 days.
In chapter 8, the Flood story is again recapped with this: "And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark; and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged; The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; and the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated." This is a very brief recap...leaving out a bunch of details (the rain lasted 40 days, etc.) bc the purpose is to let the reader know that God remembered Noah...and the water did start to go down.
It's another reason I think his argument is sloppy - he's assuming fundamentalists see this discrepancy and opt to ignore it (to support their bigotry, dontchyaknow). I don't think that's an accurate depiction of a fundamentalist explanation. Nevertheless, there exists a glaring contradiction there. Contradictions are repeated throughout the bible, and that's a problem when the claim is made that the bible is factually accurate. There comes a point when a Christian has to wonder if all these explanations sound an awful lot like excuses and poorly constructed rationalizations, and he's banking on his audience being ready to wonder that with him.
-
Sorry, don't know why the font size went wacky in the pp.
-
I interpret your saying Christians who hold a liberal interpretation of the bible to not believe it to be true to imply they start from a foundation of unbelief, a lack of trust, and ultimately, a lack of respect for it (for if they respected it, they would trust it to be true, right?). I interpret that from your distinction between being a "bible-believing" Christian (one who shares your beliefs), and one who presumably doesn't believe the bible.
I agree with you that he came across as disrespectful in his tone. I think this might be why people assumed he was mocking Christianity, and by extension, Christians. I think instead he was mocking fundamentalist interpretation, and fundamentalists in general. It's undoubtedly disrespectful to suggest Christians who read with a fundamentalist interpretation do so because they are "God’s frauds" who pay less attention to their own religious sources than they pay attention to a side dish, or that they intend to be biased and hypocritical and so to this end they "twist phrases and modify translations to prove they are honoring the Bible’s words." It was, I think, as erroneous and disrespectful as suggesting the opposite, that Christians "either believe the Bible, or don't." While you didn't go on to make disrespectful little analogies, I guarantee liberally believing Christians have heard them via the extension of this argument, and have been accused of similarly disrespectful intentions and ignorance.
Did he misquote the bible? Did he change what the text actually says?
I'll let others explain how they understand the concept of biblical truth without having to rely on factual accuracy, but I'll just suggest that one might read "truth" as the greater concept, the greater message. It's like suggesting Aesop's Fables don't contain truth because ants and grasshoppers don't really discuss with each other the merits of hard work. The "truth" of the story is in its illustrating the virtues of hard work and the perils of improvidence.
I guess it depends on what you want to say. ;)
I get that.
:)
Is it fair to say that there's a difference between believing the Bible to be true and believing the Bible to contain truth? I see a significant difference between them.
If believing the Bible contains truth but is not necessarily entirely true is a liberal interpretation, then, no, I don't think that has to be from a foundation of unbelief, distrust or disrespect. But unbelief is relative and pretty broad. :) I'm an 'unbeliever' if that means I don't believe the KJV to be the inspired Word of God. Does that make sense?
I see now... It's this quote:
He can say, I choose to read these verses as contradictory instead of complementary...recognizing he has a bias against the Bible and that is coloring his lens...and I can say that I choose to read them as complementary rather than as contradictions, recognizing I am a "Bible-believer"...
It may frustrate you that Bible-believing Christians have a convenient answer for every "error" :)...but we do have an answer. So....then it's up to you to take your pick. Either believe the Bible, or don't. :)
I need to clarify. I wrote the above assuming that he was not a Christian. That's probably my fault for not reading more closely... His tone caused me to make the assumption. That's why I distinguished the Bible-believer vs. (presumably) non-believer.
And I'm not trying to say that Christians either believe the Bible or don't. I just didn't effectively communicate what was going on in my brain. :/ I was trying to say that in all fairness a person has to weigh both sides of the argument.
Yes, Noah stayed in the ark for a year when the rain only lasted 40 days. Contradiction? Maybe...but at least consider that the rest of the text tells us...that he waited for the waters to abate before leaving the ark...there were 150 days that "the water prevailed on the earth"...then 2 months later the mountains are visible...etc.
When you consider both sides of the argument (and there are at least two sides to any of the contradictions, etc he presents) you are then able to choose to believe the biblical text as true/accurate, or to believe them to be contradictory/inaccurate.
So...now I understand he is Christian, I wouldn't differentiate between him & me, referring to myself as a "Bible-believer." Does that make sense? I would probably have said something like "I believe the Bible to be without error"...
Well...he seldom quotes directly from the Bible. But he misreferences it. He claims the Bible has vegetation created after sun/moon/stars in Genesis chapter 2, which would contradict Genesis 1 which says God created sun/moon/stars before plants. But that's not what Genesis 2 says. It says God "planted a garden eastward in Eden." He's making a logical assumption - and he's not acknowledging his assumption. He does this repeatedly throughout the article. I'm not making any assumption here. I'm only quoting the text. Does that make sense?
Thanks for taking the time to dialogue. :)
-
Sorry, I missed this question earlier.
I think that raising the level of Bible-familiarity and critical thinking skills, while continuing to assert that 'faith' itself is mostly about trust, relationship, and loyalty (not about 'mostly information') -- is a very difficult thing to do.
In a healthy Church context, good preaching with those twin goals at the forefront is likely to be effective among believers who attend services and are more interested in a sermon than their own distracting thoughts -- at least most weeks. Honestly 52 sermons per year for 10, 20 or 60 years is a ton of time to accomplish the goals if all parties are willing participants.
Preaching, modelling/storytelling, and pastoral relationships that are open to critucal questioning are all essential... Not just preaching. I think very few Christians recieve personal pastoral care in most Churches... We need lay-pastoral workers, not just paid preachers.
It can be somewhat rare to have healthy Churches and good preaching that is able to strike balance...
So maybe there is a solution somewhere in preacher training/ordination: so, I guess Christisn higher education? It should probably be cheap/free, and anyone willing and able to pursue it should view such learning as an act of service to their community.
Parenting is huge too, but it's so touchy and easy to become a controlling environment as very personal topics are broached in a one-best-method way.
Sunday school content too could use a re-vamp to ensure that what is drawn out as 'conclusion' from a G-rated version Bible passage is consistant with the 'real messages' of the uncensored version -- so that a person can easily absorb the omitted info at an age appropreate time, without having to drastically alter their conclusions/meaning about that particular passage.
(Example: Rahab the 'innkeeper' can be interpreted to children as heroic for hiding spies as an act of faith and a change of loyalty in spite of being an enemy resident of an enemy city. Later, Rahab the *prostitute* is still heroic for the same faith/loyalty reason, but now in spite of *both* being an enemy *and* being someone who blatantly did not adhere to Judeo-Christian sexual ethics. The final detail led to 'the same conclusion, but more-so' -- not 'a totally different conclusion, why did they hide that?')
Which means that we need, again, better trained Bible scholars working in children's publishing.
But, then, I have a calling that involves Christian higher education, so it is natural for my 'godly tunnel vision' to lead me towards solutions that are within my wheelhouse. A person with a different gifting/calling would probably give perfectly good but completely different answers.
We have weekly "Bible institute" classes (usually 2-3 classes a semester) that meet in the evening. They provide more focused training on a variety of topics including book studies, Koine Greek, sign language, Eschatology, prayer, etc. The classes are well attended, and have been extremely helpful. Some are more informational (sign language) and others focus more on helping us to have a better relationship with God. We often have members of neighboring churches take the BI classes as well. This has been a great alternative to those without the time or means to take actual college classes...
Also, I think a preacher who uses expositional teaching (teaching that actually explains the Bible as he preaches) is key...and a culture of being approachable...so people feel like they can voice their questions without being shot down.
My pastor used to use the second Sunday service as a more informal "teaching" service. He would walk us through a passage or a topic week by week, and allow for questions/comments as we went along. It was very helpful, and I enjoyed learning from the discussions.
-
I think the question is, "Why is your connection accurate? What evidence do you have to support this opinion?"
"It's a human book" might mean it's a collection of texts, letters, poetry, law, etc, and these texts were written by people who did their best to preserve the faith of the community, the faith of a god whose nature is not easily identifiable, but is nevertheless a part of the collective identity of the people. Saying bats are birds and plants were made before the sun ever existed is factually wrong, but understandable for a writer who didn't have the resources or knowledge of the natural world we have today. That doesn't mean "God didn't know bats aren't birds," but rather, inaccurate information doesn't change the overall (Right) message of the bible.
I don't think you are presenting yourself as a superior person, or that those who don't agree with you are inferior. Rather, I think you are supporting an argument that you've learned, and accept as accurate: a liberal interpretation of the bible starts from a foundation of unbelief, a lack of trust, and ultimately, a lack of respect for it.
You and the author have diametrically opposing conclusions about the real function of the bible. Yours is (please correct me if I'm wrong), the bible is the inerrant word of God, and functions to reveal the identity and nature of Jesus, through whom one can have eternal life if they have true faith. His is (as I understand it), the bible is a collection of works from the ancient Israelites, and while their knowledge wasn't accurate, it doesn't change the general point that there is a god who is, in essence a loving being, and can reveal moral and philosophical truth to those who know how to listen. If the first is true, then the second cannot be, and vice versa.
I'm not saying he is right and you are wrong, or that you are right and he is wrong, but I'm saying that you can't both be right. I'm also saying I find it interesting that the way in which you determine you are right is the exact same way he determines he is right. And yet here you are, with two directly opposite conclusions.
Oh, okay. My mistake. :)
Let's. ^_^
I don't think the bolded is necessarily true. I'm not sure what I think about a liberal interpretation of the Bible & how it relates to the following. I'm only speaking for the Newsweek author's approach to the Bible. He did come across as disrespectful in his tone, and seemed to have a lack of trust in the reliability of the biblical text. If I'm misreading the article, I apologize.
I was only trying to point out where I think he is wrong - by showing what the text actually says. (With my biases ;))
[FWIW, I don't think that a non-literal interpretation is founded in unbelief either. I don't think the entire Bible should be taken literally. I don't know anyone who thinks that (but I'm sure there's someone out there...). :) ]
When I say that I believe the Bible is true, I believe that it (the original manuscripts) is/are an accurate record of what the Holy Spirit moved those men to write.
I guess I've never thought of "the Bible is true" being equivalent to "the basic gist of what Jesus said is right and the idea of a loving God in heaven is right, too, but a lot of the other stuff is inaccurate/made-up/etc." I have understand "true" to mean reliable, trustworthy, accurate, etc. And when I say, "the Bible is true" I mean that not just the basic concepts, or certain passages are true, I mean the Bible as a whole (that's not the same as believing it should be taken literally).
By my definition, the article's author does not believe the Bible is "true." And, by my definition, I think he would agree with me.
So...how should I better say it?
ETA that I'm not trying to elevate one view above another here...just trying to clarify the difference between them.
-
I've been really struggling with whether I should even post in this thread. I read the article and didn't find anything new in it, although I did think it was a nice summary of many things I've read elsewhere in more detail.
But here's the thing: Over the last few years, I've been tiptoeing closer and closer to something resembling a Christian faith. (This is after a religion-free childhood and an adulthood spent in Unitarian Universalist churches.) And it is analysis of the type in this article, which gives me permission to read the bible and draw inspiration from it without the obligation to accept it as unflawed, that makes it possible for me to be making this transition.
What I now think is that the bible is historically unreliable and full of contradictions and written by highly imperfect, fully human people AND is still a source of inspiration. I believe it was "divinely inspired" in the sense that it represents the best attempts of those well-intentioned, fully human people to tell their stories and honor their faith. I can accept those stories as metaphors from which I can draw lessons that resonate with my own heart. And that results in a faith that is meaningful and valuable to me.
I'm not alone in this approach, by the way. There is a growing movement toward progressive Christianity, which seems to encompass a lot of the understanding I've been coming to as a result of my own study.
But the unfortunate truth is that I still do not feel comfortable identifying as a "Christian," mostly because of the hostility that I continue to see leveled toward these progressive viewpoints from those with more traditional/fundamentalist views. So, I suppose I would just ask you and others who are made uncomfortable by articles like this to see if you can find it in your hearts to make a little room for those of us whose hearts and minds are leading us down a different but parallel path.
Thanks for sharing that, Jenny! Your explanation of your journey is very helpful. I do apologize if I came across as hostile. :) I don't agree with the article - but I am glad it makes you feel more comfortable reading the Bible. I am taking to heart what you said... Thanks for the post. :)
-
Did they ever reach a conclusion about what happened to the last plane?
-
Oh no!
-
This is precisely why your argument is condescending. I don't mean you personally, but the argument you are supporting now, one that is supported by many people. The only connection between a liberal interpretation of the bible and "doesn't believe in it" is the connection you are making. The author has said no such thing, and his arguments support no such thing. I'd argue the author is proposing the exact opposite - he does believe in the bible, and furthermore, he believes in the bible the Right Way, whereas you believe in it the Wrong way. I find your argument a patronizing one because you're dismissing his interpretation as being founded in unbelief. That's what I mean by his interpretation (and extension those who agree with him) as not counting. You didn't say the words, but your argument does make this assumption, quite boldly, even if you don't personally do so yourself. In other words, you may not see it, but I guarantee others do.
Okay, I'll admit I do make a connection between "the Bible is full of contradictions" and "doesn't believe it to be true." But why is that inaccurate?
The article said that the Bible is not inspired, is a human book, is full of contradiction/error, is historically unreliable, etc. I guess I equated that with "not believing the Bible is true." But (I am totally being genuine here, please don't read any sarcasm into my words :)) maybe I'm missing something. How can the Bible be true if it's not historically reliable, it's not divinely inspired, it's written by sinful/imperfect human beings, it's full of contradiction & error? I guess I didn't know anyone actually made that claim. Maybe I'm more sheltered than I thought. :) Or maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you're saying again...
I'm still not sure what you mean by "not counting." Not true/accurate? Or that I think I'm superior (the idea behind "condescending")? I don't believe his interpretation is accurate...I certainly don't "superior" to this author at all. I do apologize if I somehow communicated that idea. I don't equate being right or wrong to be superior or inferior. It's just right or wrong. Accurate or inaccurate. I'm sure a lot of things I think to be true are wrong. I really do learn something new every day. :) That doesn't give me an inferiority complex - anymore than believing myself to be accurately interpreting the Bible makes me feel "superior" to anyone I don't believe is interpreting accurately...
I'm genuinely curious what you mean by the Right Way to believe in the Bible...and how you conclude that one way to believe is Right and another way to believe is Wrong?
You believe this, I understand. There is no objective reason to believe this claim, however, and so I do not agree with it.
I get the impression you don't understand my point about the biases. My point is your bias is the same as his, just in different directions. He also believes the bible is true/reliable/etc, but in a different context than you do, and he takes measure to explain exactly why, and how. You seem to think his argument is biased and wrong, and yours is unbiased and objectively true.
I think we're talking over each other here... You did say that. And I was agreeing with you. :) I don't believe my argument is unbiased. I am biased, and fully willing to admit that.
Can we still be friends? :)
Indeed.
-
I don't think it's necessary either. Your particular understanding of the texts will be shared by some, but not by others. I don't agree with earlier assessments in this thread that the author is making fun of Christianity, rather that he's doing the same thing you are - appealing to his audience to learn more about the texts in order to understand the Real Message better. So you and he do the same thing all Christians do, and yet you all come up with different Real Messages. It's why your assurances of knowing the Right Real Message is no more persuasive than his assurances of knowing the Right Real Message. TranquilMind, Erin, DesertBlossom, Milovany and others assure us they know the Right Real Message, but they don't all agree either.
It's been one. Here are a few places to start. The last one is interactive.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions
The solution to the creation discrepancy for you is to say one is written to support the other, in more detail. Others will say it was meant to be read poetically. If we were to list all the contradictions in the bible, and all the possible solutions that are used to explain those contradictions, we would still not find the Right Real Message because everyone uses the same methodology and yet comes away with different conclusions. And yet you will all say the other is mistaken, doing the method wrong. The ironic thing is, you are all doing the exact same thing, the exact same way.
How about saying it's full of contradictions, based on contradictions found in the bible itself. There are also contradictions based on historical evidence, but if one has faith the bible is right, then historical evidence that does not contribute to the Right Real Message is systematically dismissed.
I find his argumentation rather patronizing, as I said upthread, but until now I didn't see the patronizing nature of your argument. This last sentence illustrates it though. According to his argument, people who don't agree with him are just unreasonable fundamentalists hell-bent on justifying their bigotry and hate. According to your argument, people who don't agree with you don't really believe the bible to be true, they don't really have faith/trust God/love [the real] Jesus. I understand why Christians who don't maintain a conventional interpretation of the bible might consider that a slap in the face. It's every bit as patronizing and condescending as his argument. I'm sure neither of you mean to be mean, and yet you both support arguments that are elitist and arrogant by nature - those who don't agree don't "count," because they don't get it. Alrighty then. ;)
I never said that. I was just trying to point out that we're both biased - the Newsweek author is biased against the Bible (bc he doesn't believe it to be true) and I'm biased for the Bible (bc I do believe it to be true). I don't think I said anything about people who do or don't agree with me? I don't believe people who disagree with me "don't count"...
I do believe truth is objective...and some people are right and others are wrong...about a lot of things. That's not supposed to be an insult. I certainly don't believe that I am right about everything. :) I do believe the Bible is truth, and I try to study and learn from it as best I can.
Anyway. I think we agree about the biases. And we disagree about whether the Bible is true/reliable/etc. Good thing there's room for differing views on the Hive. :)
I'm glad the article pointed people to read the Bible for themselves, and (like I said before) I hope more do.
Well, I don't, and for many reasons. Ultimately, watching these discussions between Christians, the discussions about what the bible really means to say, is rather like watching people discuss astrology and homeopathy and other superstitious and pseudo-scientific arguments. There exists no evidence to support such ideas, but they're deeply held and revered as being reliable. The bible is trusted to help guide people with regard to knowledge of the natural world as well as how to interact with others, but it's no more reliable than astrology or homeopathy. That's what I find dangerous. His rationalization is no more comforting than yours. Well, a little more comforting as his rationalization incorporates more objective evidence, but ultimately you both rely on unreliable sources for information and understanding - faith. That's problematic, as we can see in history and around the world.
I'll let someone else explain how your rationalization doesn't support the Right Real Message. It makes no difference to me how you rationalize the bible, it makes a difference to me whether or not you rely on it for any kind of accuracy. The author does, just as you do. Interestingly, you both come to diametrically opposing views while utilizing the exact same method. Seems to me, the method should be scrutinized a bit more. It hasn't been found to be all that reliable in all this time, and yet people keep using it.
-
I'm in. :)
I can't guarantee how faithful I'll be to the forum through the entire year... Maybe this will keep me tuned in. :)
I'll probably do canonical this year bc it's just easiest for me to keep track of where I'm at...but I might start with NT, since the kids & I are studying through the OT in Bible...
Thanks for the thread! :)
-
Genesis 1:25-27 has humans created after the animals, whereas Genesis 2:18-19 has humans created before the animals. This is simply how it's written. How the text is interpreted is the part the Christian has to contend with. The author does not agree with your interpretation, and as time goes by, fewer and fewer Christians are persuaded as you are that the confusion is due to "poor, poor writing." But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Who killed Goliath? How long did Noah stay on the ark? How many animals did he bring with him? Don't get caught up in the details, but look to the bigger problem: The bible simply says more than one thing on many subjects, and sometimes those differences are in diametric opposition to one another. While you may find comfort in certain interpretations, without an objective source to confirm your hypothesis, your belief is as credible as his. This is the first part of his article - exposing the problem of accepting the bible as an accurate account of the historical record. It fails any credibility test without ever having to go elsewhere for outside information.
The second part of his article seems to be pointing out the hypocrisy in accepting the bible as a moral guide as used by fundamentalists. He asks, according to the bible, is the Mosaic Law superfluous (the answer is no)? What is the role of women in society (the answer is keep quiet)? How is the government to be treated (the answer is respect)? His argument is, if people are going to accept the bible to be correct as written, there's additional problems of hypocrisy. He points out that the conservative Christian community is going against the literal interpretation of the bible with regard to public policy (namely, women politicians, denying equal rights based on Mosaic Law, and disrespecting the government).
You can justify these things to yourself, but you're an audience of one. The trick is justifying it to an audience the size of the American public. The justification you accept is loosing credibility as more information continues to be exposed, and as people actually read the bible rather than assume what they've been taught is reliable. He thinks, I think, that by reading his article fundamentalists will slowly, contritely, nod their heads and see that they've been misled, misguided, and mistreating others because of it. It's one reason I find his article patronizing and insulting. I think that by reading his article, conversations like this will continue, and people who hold traditional stories and beliefs accepted as true by virtue of faith will start to demand some support, some evidence, if they are to continue believing them.
Now, in answer to your statements here...
The Mosaic Law... Here a quote from the article...
Some of the original disciples said yes, an opinion that seems to find support in words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets....†The author of Matthew made it clear that Christians must keep Mosaic Law like the most religious Jews, in order to achieve salvation. But Paul, particularly in Galatians and Romans, says a person’s salvation is won by his or her faith in Christ’s death and resurrection—nothing more. Those who try to follow Mosaic Law, Paul believed, risked losing salvation.
Now, the burden of proof is on him to show where "the author of Matthew made it clear that Christians must keep Mosaic Law...in order to achieve salvation." He has quoted Jesus in Matthew 5:17, but he stops before finishing the verse...
Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets: [remember, the book of Matthew was specifically addressing Jewish audience] I came not to destroy but to fulfill."
Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the OT Law. In verse 20, Jesus says, "For I say to you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven..."
He then proceeds to quote the OT Law, and demonstrate His higher standard. The Law said, Do not kill. Jesus says, If you are angry without cause you are in danger of damnation. The Law said, Do not commit adultery. Jesus says, If you have lust in your heart, you are guilty of adultery. He concludes in verse 48, "Be therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect."
This is no way contradicts Paul's writings.
The book of Romans (chapters 1-5) beautifully expound on this idea...that Jesus came to fulfill the Law, because we cannot. The Law is a higher standard than can be humanly kept. No human being can be perfect as God is perfect. And so we are all disqualified from eternal life. The only way any person can have eternal life is through faith in the work that Jesus Christ did on the cross. His death satisfied the wrath of God for my sins. His righteousness enables me to have a relationship with God and eternal life.
In both Romans and Galatians, Paul addresses those Jews who had believed in Jesus, but were still holding to their Mosaic Law rituals. In Galatians he teaches that those who taught that new believers should also be circumcised, etc. [aka, keep the Mosaic Law] were clouding the doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone.
Bible Accountability 1/4-1/10 Not too late to start!!
in The Chat Board
Posted
Interesting question.
I think there are plenty of ways God could have done any number of things...so the fact that He didn't just tell Noah to leave doesn't really surprise me... But I've never thought about why the raven & dove...
Just did a quick google search... This is from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (which I know nothing about :))...
Lot of technical stuff in there...but here's the last paragraph...
To sum up our discussion: we have noted that there are some scholars who believe that the raven episode is misplaced because it interrupts the literary structure of a threefold sending out of birds such as is present in the immediately following verses and in other ancient Near Eastern flood narratives. The mission of the raven is also suspect because it was considered an unsuccessful experiment from which Noah did not learn anything. The rabbis of the Talmud and the Church fathers were in agreement that the raven did not complete its mission, and this tradition may also be seen in the Septuagint, Peshitta, and some Vulgate translations that interpret the text as though the raven did not return to Noah. If the raven’s mission can be deduced from the special characteristics belonging exclusively to that bird, then the ones widely cited in modern commentaries, namely the raven’s ability to scout for land or that the raven is by nature a scavenger, would not have been the ones likely to have been useful to Noah. The trait most likely to have helped Noah is the raven’s ability to endure inclement weather conditions so that the mission of the raven was to discern what the atmospheric conditions were like. Thus, contrary to widespread assumptions, the raven’s mission can be viewed as a useful experiment and can be seen as another justification for including Noah on par with other legendary ancient Near Eastern flood heroes to whom extraordinary wisdom was attributed.
I'd have to do more study to confirm any of that...but it sounds like an interesting explanation. :)