Updating the Genesis Creation Story

[Subduction Zone]

Another way of expressing inspired is God-breathed. From my perspective, if God inspired or breathed out the scriptures and the message/information included then there is no possibility of error.

That is a risky approach. Since the Bible is filled with errors you in effect refute the Bible with that belief.

 

[InChrist]

Yes, that is story. Didn't they teach you that? And please, don't try to claim that others are not "true Christians" because by those standards you probably are not one either. The resurrection is mere window dressing. There was no need for that. It makes a good tale and helps to sell the belief.

Yes, I know the resurrection is included. I'm just trying to understand your view about all of this since you label yourself an atheist it is difficult unless I ask questions.

 

[InChrist]

That is a risky approach. Since the Bible is filled with errors you in effect refute the Bible with that belief.

Just because you or other humans, who are finite in our ability to know everything compared to God's infinite knowledge, think there are errors does not necessarily mean there actually are errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know the resurrection is included. I'm just trying to understand your view about all of this since you label yourself an atheist it is difficult unless I ask questions.

That is fine. I agree with many of the moral stories of Jesus, but the idea of some Christians of endless torture, and there are verses that support that claim, paints that version of God as an immoral beast. But then so does most of the Old Testament.

If God is moral then Hell can't be forever since an endless punishment for a limited wrong is always immoral. If God is moral then he can't be the God of the Old Testament that supported genocide and slavery among other ills.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because you or other humans, who are finite in our ability to know everything compared to God's infinite knowledge, think there are errors does not necessarily mean there actually are errors.

That is a very lame excuse. Self contradictions are errors. Explaining them away is only an attempt at dishonesty. Most of the errors of the Bible are rather minor. But they exist nonetheless. And writing a book that is subject to so many different interpretations is an error on its own. An "inspired" book should have only one interpretation. Not 40,000 different interpretations all claiming to be correct.

 

[InChrist]

That is fine. I agree with many of the moral stories of Jesus, but the idea of some Christians of endless torture, and there are verses that support that claim, paints that version of God as an immoral beast. But then so does most of the Old Testament.

If God is moral then Hell can't be forever since an endless punishment for a limited wrong is always immoral. If God is moral then he can't be the God of the Old Testament that supported genocide and slavery among other ills.

What if you are not understanding things correctly? The Bible doesn't portray God as immoral and actually repeatedly describes God as holy, good, compassionate, merciful, patient, and above all as love. You seem to isolate and focus on hell or what you believe is torture ( which is not the word used in the Bible), without considering maybe you have some misconceptions, or there's a way to reconcile all the scriptures say or God has valid reasons concerning various things expressed in the scriptures which you don't comprehend yet.

 

[InChrist]

That is a very lame excuse. Self contradictions are errors. Explaining them away is only an attempt at dishonesty. Most of the errors of the Bible are rather minor. But they exist nonetheless. And writing a book that is subject to so many different interpretations is an error on its own. An "inspired" book should have only one interpretation. Not 40,000 different interpretations all claiming to be correct.

Well, I believe the Bible does have only one interpretation - God's interpretation. It's finite people who come up with all the many others. Yet, when you think about it, the basic message about Jesus has been pretty consistent for over 2000 years. Nevertheless, that's why I think it's important for each person to constantly seek God to reveal His intended thoughts and be willing to receive correction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What if you are not understanding things correctly? The Bible doesn't portray God as immoral and actually repeatedly describes God as holy, good, compassionate, merciful, patient, and above all as love. You seem to isolate and focus on hell or what you believe is torture ( which is not the word used in the Bible), without considering maybe you have some misconceptions, or there's a way to reconcile all the scriptures say or God has valid reasons concerning various things expressed in the scriptures which you don't comprehend yet.

No, now you are merely making excuses. Screwing up one's creation and blaming one's creation is not moral. Supporting slavery when he could easily had made a rule against owning others is not moral. Genocide is not moral.

And the Bible describes hell as torture in some verses. Not all, but then all Christians do pick and choose which parts of the Bible that they believe and follow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I believe the Bible does have only one interpretation - God's interpretation. It's finite people who come up with all the many others. Yet, when you think about it, the basic message about Jesus has been pretty consistent for over 2000 years. Nevertheless, that's why I think it's important for each person to constantly seek God to reveal His intended thoughts and be willing to receive correction.

Yes, and there are roughly 40,000 other interpretations where they think that you are wrong. There is no "God's interpretation" and that is the problem with the Bible. I could just as easily claim that my interpretation is "God's interpretation". And I could support it if I cared to. As I said, I did not believe that God lies. Genesis being a morality tale gets God off of that hook. It would still qualify as "being inspired". Your personal interpretation calls God a liar since we know from the evidence that there was no flood. There was no Adam and Eve. And since Genesis portrays God as being particularly evil an allegory gets him off the hook for that as well.

 

[InChrist]

Yes, and there are roughly 40,000 other interpretations where they think that you are wrong. There is no "God's interpretation" and that is the problem with the Bible. I could just as easily claim that my interpretation is "God's interpretation". And I could support it if I cared to. As I said, I did not believe that God lies. Genesis being a morality tale gets God off of that hook. It would still qualify as "being inspired". Your personal interpretation calls God a liar since we know from the evidence that there was no flood. There was no Adam and Eve. And since Genesis portrays God as being particularly evil an allegory gets him off the hook for that as well.

Yet, though you say you did not believe God lies, you must have thought God a liar even when it comes to the clear, unambiguous points in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet, though you say you did not believe God lies, you must have thought God a liar even when it comes to the clear, unambiguous points in the Bible.

No, the Bible is a work of man. It claims to be inspired, but in the sense that you mean it clearly is not. One can believe in God and realize that the Bible is terribly flawed. The Bible does not even claim to be perfect. It only refers to "scripture" and that could only be earlier works than that verse at best. It is never well defined. What became our Bible was not made until 325 AD at the council of Nicea. There is nothing that guaranteed that they got it right. You seem to have a dim view of Catholics, but it was Catholics that put the Bible together.

 

[InChrist]

No, the Bible is a work of man. It claims to be inspired, but in the sense that you mean it clearly is not. One can believe in God and realize that the Bible is terribly flawed. The Bible does not even claim to be perfect. It only refers to "scripture" and that could only be earlier works than that verse at best. It is never well defined. What became our Bible was not made until 325 AD at the council of Nicea. There is nothing that guaranteed that they got it right. You seem to have a dim view of Catholics, but it was Catholics that put the Bible together.

I don't think that is accurate because the canon of scripture, Old and New was already commonly acknowledged, though not officially and regularly read by all the early churches. They already had the OT writings preserved through the scribes and synagogues and already had the writings of the apostles and gospel writers which were circulated among churches before the council of Nicea. Certainly, if God is God and sovereign, then God guaranteed they got it right.

"It was not until the Third Council of Carthage in A.D.397 that the canonical books of the New Testament (the same 27 we have today) were listed as such. This was only after these books had been referred to as Scripture for more than 300 years both by individual Christians and as the final authority in previous council arguments against heresy. For example, the Council of Nicaea (325) argued from the New Testament books but did not list them. The Council of Laodicea (363) decreed in its 59th Canon that only canonized books of both Old and New Testament were to be read in the churches. Yet it didn’t even list them, showing that the canon had already been so well established by common consent that everyone knew the books it contained."
Question: Is it not true that the Roman Catholic Church gave us the Bible? This is what Catholic friends tell me and they substantiate that claim…. Why don't you admit this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think that is accurate because the canon of scripture, Old and New was already commonly acknowledged, though not officially and regularly read by all the early churches. They already had the OT writings preserved through the scribes and synagogues and already had the writings of the apostles and gospel writers which were circulated among churches before the council of Nicea. Certainly, if God is God and sovereign, then God guaranteed they got it right.

"It was not until the Third Council of Carthage in A.D.397 that the canonical books of the New Testament (the same 27 we have today) were listed as such. This was only after these books had been referred to as Scripture for more than 300 years both by individual Christians and as the final authority in previous council arguments against heresy. For example, the Council of Nicaea (325) argued from the New Testament books but did not list them. The Council of Laodicea (363) decreed in its 59th Canon that only canonized books of both Old and New Testament were to be read in the churches. Yet it didn’t even list them, showing that the canon had already been so well established by common consent that everyone knew the books it contained."
Question: Is it not true that the Roman Catholic Church gave us the Bible? This is what Catholic friends tell me and they substantiate that claim…. Why don't you admit this?

<sigh> The Bible came from Catholic sources, they were the ones that picked and chose which books to keep and which ones to throw away. The council was necessary because there was disagreement about which books were of value and which were not. Sadly the Catholics did go about and destroyed many of the books that they rejected. But now you are denying the obvious. And you still have no answer to the fact that whenever the Bible refers to "scripture" it could only be dealing with writings older than that. Not more recent. How do you decide which parts of the Bible are God inspired and those parts that are not?

 

[InChrist]

<sigh> The Bible came from Catholic sources, they were the ones that picked and chose which books to keep and which ones to throw away. The council was necessary because there was disagreement about which books were of value and which were not. Sadly the Catholics did go about and destroyed many of the books that they rejected. But now you are denying the obvious. And you still have no answer to the fact that whenever the Bible refers to "scripture" it could only be dealing with writings older than that. Not more recent. How do you decide which parts of the Bible are God inspired and those parts that are not?

I don't see how you can say the Bible came from Catholic sources. There were Christians around before the Catholic Church. The first Christians and early churches were not Catholic. These Christians had the letters of Paul and other apostles and circulated them around the churches. There were criteria which writings had to meet to be considered inspired scriptures, which included the NT writings ...

"(1) In the Apostolic Era. Since the books were inspired when they were written, they were already canonical and possessed authority as being a part of God’s Word. The responsibility of the church was simply to attest to the fact of their inspiration. This process began immediately with the writers recognizing that their own writings were the Word of God (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 4:15). But they also recognized that other writings of the New Testament were Scripture and on a par with the Old Testament. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul quoted Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 and referred to both passages as Scripture. Peter likewise attested to Paul’s writings as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Furthermore, the New Testament epistles were being read and circulated among the churches as authoritative revelation from God (cf. Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27)."
7. The Bible: The Holy Canon of Scripture




...but ultimately I believe God directed the process of the canon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see how you can say the Bible came from Catholic sources. There were Christians around before the Catholic Church. The first Christians and early churches were not Catholic. These Christians had the letters of Paul and other apostles and circulated them around the churches. There were criteria which writings had to meet to be considered inspired scriptures, which included the NT writings ...

"(1) In the Apostolic Era. Since the books were inspired when they were written, they were already canonical and possessed authority as being a part of God’s Word. The responsibility of the church was simply to attest to the fact of their inspiration. This process began immediately with the writers recognizing that their own writings were the Word of God (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 4:15). But they also recognized that other writings of the New Testament were Scripture and on a par with the Old Testament. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul quoted Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 and referred to both passages as Scripture. Peter likewise attested to Paul’s writings as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Furthermore, the New Testament epistles were being read and circulated among the churches as authoritative revelation from God (cf. Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27)."
7. The Bible: The Holy Canon of Scripture




...but ultimately I believe God directed the process of the canon.

the earliest of Gospels was not until after Paul's time. And though the Bible refers to scripture it is never clear what that is. But obviously that cannot include the writings of the New Testament.

 

[sealchan]

Sealchan said:
" Yahweh had a wife at one point..." ? I didn't know that !
Who created `Her` ?

The same people that created him

 

[The Anointed]

the earliest of Gospels was not until after Paul's time. And though the Bible refers to scripture it is never clear what that is. But obviously that cannot include the writings of the New Testament.

As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

Berea was a Greek city in Macedonia, the scriptures that the Jews in that city used would have been the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible by Jews in Alexandria some 200 years before Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

Berea was a Greek city in Macedonia, the scriptures that the Jews in that city used would have been the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible by Jews in Alexandria some 200 years before Jesus.

what "scripture" do you think they were looking at?

 

[ecco]

Oh dear

Stay Dry

 

[ecco]

Oh dear

Stay Dry