(April 25, 2012 at 12:22 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: You are the one saying that is how Jesus meant it to be taken. Jesus did not come to inform us of historical facts. He retold a story to teach us how to live.

Actually not true for He points back to the history and the law of the torah several times to build on the purpose of being here. In otherwords He used the History of the Jews in many cases to establish the ultimate direction of the Church.

Quote:Why? God did not command anyone to confirm specific scientific theories.

Because in our Greatest Command we are told to Love our Lord God with all of our Being (Heart, Mind Spirit, and Strength.) In order to Love God with all of my mind I must reconcile what the fossil record, or rather the atheist community's interpretation of the fossil record would have us believe.

Quote:Look at how together we parsed out the significance of ‘chayah’. Can’t you see that everyone is already engaged in the process of interpreting the text, regardless of their take on it. When we engage with the Word it challenges our ability to understand it and make it part of our life.

seeking the definition of a Hebrew word is not the same as taken a story like Adam and eve and assigning it a fictional status when the bible does not give it one.

One has to reinterpret the story given in order to call it an allegory, for it is referred to and recorded as literal truth by the central figure in this religion.

Quote:You’re suggesting that I have deviated from the ‘historic’ Christian faith. The various denominations reflect the ideas of those we look to for guidance. Some look to Origen, some to Luther, and others to Calvin? I find Swedenborg’s exegesis more compelling, even if it is a minority opinion.

Yes I am, however that does not necessarily make it a sin as with Luther Calvin and the others who brought legitimate reformation to the church. The Goal here is not conformity but the freedom to express our abilities to their potential limits in order that we can worship God with all of our being.
There are few prerequisites for a Jesus Christ centered faith, the rest can be filled in by the limits of our abilities to comprehend and manage. That said of the few prerequisites they are non negotiable.

I don't know of nor ever hear of your brand of christianity, and I am not here to challenge it. I am just point out a way for the literal interpretation of Genesis to work along side with the evolutionary account of origins.

Quote:From my perspective evangelicals are stuck on the surface of the text and not engaging it on its deepest levels.

Perhaps for them that is all they can manage. Do you really think God can find attonement for sin and not find santification for those worshiping Him to the limits of their ablity to do so? Or do you contend that God will be holding all of us to the standard you have found for yourself?

Isn't that the same swallow thinking you just accused the evangelicals of?

Except that you haven't been able to provide a way to reconcile the narrative of Genesis with "the evolutionary account" of things. If this is important to you, or you need to do so to be able to love christ with every part of yourself, then maybe you should put some actual work into it? Or does it not matter whether or not the excuses you offer are factual, as long as they allow you to love completely? It seems to be a case of the latter, but I'm always ready to be wrong.

(April 25, 2012 at 12:49 pm)Drich Wrote: One has to reinterpret the story given in order to call it an allegory...

What does this imply about the Apocolypse? Do you really expect a woman riding a seven headed dragon to rise up out of the sea? Are real stars from all across the galaxy going to shrink and rain down from the sky? Why should Genesis be any different?

(April 25, 2012 at 12:49 pm)Drich Wrote: here are few prerequisites for a Jesus Christ centered faith..the few prerequisites they are non negotiable.

With respect to Calvin and Luther, I do not believe Roman Catholics or Coptics feel their faith to be any less historic. One non-negotiable is that God is one. The traditional trinitarian formula of three persons is in no way historic. Is creationism a prerequisite? I get the sense that you think it is.

(April 25, 2012 at 12:49 pm)Drich Wrote: Or do you contend that God will be holding all of us to the standard you have found for yourself?

Not at all. I didn't mean to suggest anything of the sort. What I meant was why stop short if you have the ability to explore the depth of the riches. As for myself, the significance buried in the Word are greater than my ability to understand.

Any story can be interpreted to mean anything. Any arbitrary collection of stories can be interpreted to be consistent with any contrived, but consistent theme. None of this adds to either the credibility of the story, nor notion that the story was contrived by some one with foreknowledged of how the story will be used.

In the end, interpretation mostly reflects on the interpreter. The stories themselves still exhibit zero evidence that they had been contrived by anyone with a greater knowledge of the world than would be expected from any ad hoc committee of bronze age liars who were rather provincial and uneducated even for their primitive and ignorant age.

For the record, the fossil record is not the atheist interpretation, it is THE interpretation. There is little evidence to refute how fossils are interpreted save the religious who assert a young earth, and God remains silent on the topic.

Perhaps you could answer me something else though, why put so much emphasis on a series of books written as hearsay? The bible itself covers several centuries, which could not have been written by one person, it would have to be a collection of people. Much of it reeks of after the fact writing, like the gospels which were written some 60+ years after the supposed death of Jesus. which means none of the writers actually experienced or saw any of what they wrote about. And since they are both human and writers, what makes us so certain that they did not embellish their stories. We are quite aware of kings and lords doing so in their own histories.

He would argue otherwise. He isn't aware that arguing and demonstrating are not the same thing.

I really wish a couple non-creationist believers would contribute to this thread.

I'm a non-creationist "believer" that human beings are capable of writing excellent fiction. That doesn't count?

(April 25, 2012 at 1:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: What does this imply about the Apocolypse? Do you really expect a woman riding a seven headed dragon to rise up out of the sea? Are real stars from all across the galaxy going to shrink and rain down from the sky? Why should Genesis be any different?

Because God dictated Genesis, and Revelations is John's personal description of what he saw.
John did his best to describe what he did not understand. God when He dictated Genesis did not have that problem.

Quote:Is creationism a prerequisite?

No it is not. It is ok not to know what is beyond your scope of knowledge. Even with my best explanation, I am probably no closer to understanding what happened in the beginning than any one else is. I am only illuminating the gaps n the traditional understanding of Genesis and what the bible actually says.

Quote:Not at all. I didn't mean to suggest anything of the sort. What I meant was why stop short if you have the ability to explore the depth of the riches.

Because not everyone is built the same way and not all have that ability.

Quote: As for myself, the significance buried in the Word are greater than my ability to understand.

I do not think this is any less true for any man alive.

---

(April 25, 2012 at 4:34 pm)infamouscheater Wrote: For the record, the fossil record is not the atheist interpretation, it is THE interpretation. There is little evidence to refute how fossils are interpreted save the religious who assert a young earth, and God remains silent on the topic.

Perhaps you could answer me something else though, why put so much emphasis on a series of books written as hearsay? The bible itself covers several centuries, which could not have been written by one person, it would have to be a collection of people. Much of it reeks of after the fact writing, like the gospels which were written some 60+ years after the supposed death of Jesus. which means none of the writers actually experienced or saw any of what they wrote about. And since they are both human and writers, what makes us so certain that they did not embellish their stories. We are quite aware of kings and lords doing so in their own histories.

All of you questions have been already asked and answered here:http://atheistforums.org/thread-12410.html

(April 25, 2012 at 4:54 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm a non-creationist "believer" that human beings are capable of writing excellent fiction. That doesn't count?

A capability not revealed in the doggerel that is the bible, which is distinguished mainly as the most successful disseminator of bronze age low brow tattle yet contrived.