The Bible, homosexuality, and semantics

[sojourner]

See my post above.

I see. It's not relevant to you because you eschew scholarship. Fine. Let's see you take ancient fragments of Hebrew and Greek text (bearing in mind that ancient Hebrew contains no vowels and a different alphabet, as well as a different set of grammatical rules -- and ancient Greek is written in all-caps with no spaces between words and no punctuation) and make sense of it -- even with the "help" of the Holy Spirit.

I don't consider the creation account as a myth as you do. I consider it a fact! Therefore, I have no such dilemma.

Ok. If it's a fact, then you're going to have to back up that "fact" with some viable proof. I think this position is both untenable, and a fine example of irresponsible scholarship.

I disagree. I think the Holy Spirit is the only way we can better understand what the theological message is.

The Holy Spirit isn't a magical portal to understanding ancient writings.

Are YOU a "biblical scholar"?

Yes.

Chapter 25: What about Satan and the Origin of Evil? - Answers in Genesis

That's it?! That's the best you've got? A Web Site?!
I'll counter with this:
"Genesis 3:1 introduces a common ancient Near Eastern wisdom figure, the serpent, to lead humans to the knowledge of right and wrong. (Because sakes shed their skins and appear to rejuvenate themselves, they were associated with healing longevity, and wisdom.) To presere a distinction between human and divine, God expels humans from Eden, reiterating their original mandate to work the earth (cf. 2:15). Though traditionally described as a 'fall,' the garden of Eden story portrays a fall upward. Humans trade paradise for wisdom and, in the process, cause the universal desert to bloom. They forfeit blissful innocence for the godly power of moral discernment, the ability to know right and wrong and to choose. The world prospers as a result. The 'fall' in this story is the painful process of growing up, maturing into moral beings, becoming fully human and thus 'like God'."

Richard H. Lowery, Chalice Introduction to the Old Testament (ed. Steussy, Chalice Press, St. Louis, 2003) p. 34,35

I do treat them as separate texts. As I pointed out, Genesis 1-3 is not about Satan, but about Adam and Eve. But as long as their are other creation texts out there apart from Genesis, we cannot just ignore them because they are not included in Genesis. That doesn't make any sense.

No , you don't -- not so long as you insist on placing Satan into the Genesis myth. "Other creation texts" are just that: Other creation texts. In other words, other stories with other characters. This is one of the many problems you run into when you treat the creation myths as factual accounts. You end up running several stories into one big mess, completely losing the theological gems unique to each.

 

[sojourner]

He punished them because they disobeyed. In the same manner that when a child touches something dangerous, you spank him (to teach him not to do that again).

I disagree. Read the excerpt from the article above by Rick Lowery. They grew up and made a choice, entering into the painful process of maturity.

The fact that these different creation texts were written by different people at different times is irrelevant. And I don't know how to make that point any clearer.

You can't make it clear, because it just ain't so. The fact that different texts were written by different people at different times is eminently relevant. In what way could you take the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk," glom it together with "Rumplestiltskin," and come up with anything resembling the unique point of each story?

When you say "both" creation myths, to what are you referring?

<sigh> Genesis 2 contains an early creation myth from one source. Genesis 1 contains a later creation myth from another source. Redactors included both myths in order to preserve a wider cross section of traditions. That's something brought to light through scholarship. We're dealing with two different stories here.

I would submit to you that for someone who believes that the creation texts are merely "myth", I would question your believe in ANY biblical text at all.

"Believe" in what sense? That the texts are factually correct? Or that they're the written and codified tradition of the Hebraic and Christian communities?

 

[captainbryce]

I see. It's not relevant to you because you eschew scholarship.

Uh no, that would be a straw man argument. So apparently, you DON'T see. I don't eschew scholarship. I eschew your interpretation of the various texts as well as your attempt to hold your interpretations as more correct than anyone else's.

By the way, for future reference, if you want me to respond to you please include my handle in the quotation when you are quoting me. I just scan these pages sometimes looking for someone who wants me to respond and if I don't see my name I might roll past you.

Fine. Let's see you take ancient fragments of Hebrew and Greek text (bearing in mind that ancient Hebrew contains no vowels and a different alphabet, as well as a different set of grammatical rules -- and ancient Greek is written in all-caps with no spaces between words and no punctuation) and make sense of it -- even with the "help" of the Holy Spirit.

That's exactly what each Christian is charged to do. And frankly if you feel that you CAN'T do that for some reason, then I don't see how you honestly call yourself a Christian. This is something that Christ taught! If you doubt his word, well then how much of a "believer" could you really be?

Ok. If it's a fact, then you're going to have to back up that "fact" with some viable proof.

Says who? Why do I have to prove my belief? To satisfy you? I'm not in the business of satisfying a skeptic's curiosity and criticisms. I'm simply here to answer questions from the perspective of my belief. My belief does not have to be "proven".

I think this position is both untenable, and a fine example of irresponsible scholarship.

That's your prerogative. But, I (unlike you) am not claiming to be a scholar. I contend that "scholarship" (ie: a degree) holds no special authority for one to interpret scripture. Is it important to consider the position of scholars? Sure! Are they always correct by virtue of the fact that they are scholars? No. Do all scholars agree? No. Do scholars change their opinions over time? Yes. Are scholars human beings who can make interpret incorrectly? Yes. Can false prophets be represented by self proclaimed scholars? Yes. Hopefully, you see where I'm going with this.

The Holy Spirit isn't a magical portal to understanding ancient writings.

Agree to disagree! When it comes to the relevant parts associated with salvation, I feel that it absolutely is! :yes:

To presere a distinction between human and divine, God expels humans from Eden, reiterating their original mandate to work the earth (cf. 2:15).

And WHY was this necessary again? Oh yeah, because THEY SINNED. (ie: they became corrupt, were punished and fell as a result)

Though traditionally described as a 'fall,' the garden of Eden story portrays a fall upward. Humans trade paradise for wisdom and, in the process, cause the universal desert to bloom. They forfeit blissful innocence for the godly power of moral discernment, the ability to know right and wrong and to choose.

Hey, I guess there's always a bright side to everything in life. Kudos for being a glass half-full guy!

The world prospers as a result.

Or it succumbs to pain, suffering, disease, war, evil, chaos and DEATH. Either or!

No , you don't -- not so long as you insist on placing Satan into the Genesis myth.

Again, you're opinion. I respectfully disagree. And it seems that we have come to an impass on this particular topic.

"Other creation texts" are just that: Other creation texts. In other words, other stories with other characters. This is one of the many problems you run into when you treat the creation myths as factual accounts. You end up running several stories into one big mess, completely losing the theological gems unique to each.

"Other creation texts" are just that: Other creation texts. In other words, other stories with other characters. This is one of the many problems you run into when you treat the creation myths as factual accounts. You end up running several stories into one big mess, completely losing the theological gems unique to each.

Frankly I just don't agree with that. I don't think the creation account was a myth, and I don't think the different creation texts create problems. I think only skeptics who don't truly understand scripture (because they cannot reconcile what they view as contradictory information in the texts) think they create problems.

 

[captainbryce]

I disagree. Read the excerpt from the article above by Rick Lowery. They grew up and made a choice, entering into the painful process of maturity.

You chastised me for going outside of my own words and posting a link to a website that further broke down the position I was taking. ("is that the best you can do" ) So why would I waste my time by reading an opinion on some article that you cut and pasted? I am sensing some serious hypocrisy here!

The fact that different texts were written by different people at different times is eminently relevant.

It is perfectly within your power to continue to believe that, if that is your choice. But you haven't convinced me. As long as you consider the creation account a myth, then you have no credibility in my opinion. It's difficult for you to convince a true believer that they should accept your interpretation of something which you consider to be based on myth. It's unrealistic for you to think that you can convince someone else that just because YOU can't reconcile the different creation texts, that nobody else should be able to either.

<sigh> Genesis 2 contains an early creation myth from one source. Genesis 1 contains a later creation myth from another source.

(predictable, but okay). So let me just educate you for a moment "scholar". First of all, there is only ONE creation story in the entire bible. I understand that you view it as merely myth and not true, but regardless, the fact is there is only ONE. You know why? Because God only created ONCE, and there is only one creation. He didn't create, rest, then create AGAIN, and again, and again! There will be a new creation, but it hasn't happened yet. So IF there is more than one creation story, then the entire bible is erroneous, uninspired and ultimately worthless, because it contradicts itself.

Secondly, there ARE different accounts of creation, and different texts in scripture that refer to creation. But they all refer to the same act of creation. Genesis 2 is a different account that Genesis 1, however they do not contradict each other. They have a different focus and are recounting creation in a different way. But they both refer to the same events. And at this point, I'll wait for you to bring up the order of creation before I address that. (in anticipation of where you are going next)

"Believe" in what sense? That the texts are factually correct? Or that they're the written and codified tradition of the Hebraic and Christian communities?

Belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the prophesied messiah (savior of mankind) and belief in the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Crazyflight]

The way religion tells people what to do and what not to do astounds me.