Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Cafe - Open Discussion
>
Huge issue: are there 2 contradictory creation accounts in the Bible?
Mattia wrote: "Robert, you are on offender of the Truth, with no honesty..."Thanks for describing yourself.
No need to respond... if you REJECT God and His Word... responses are a waste of time.
Mattia wrote: "I think it is quite evident that there are two creation's narrations in Genesis 1,1-2,4a and Gn 2,4ss. The passage between them is so evident! I also think they are NOT contradictory, simply they have their own function for teaching the truth on human being and on the evil. Clearly they are not chronicles..."My response: You CONTRADICT yourself!
You say there are TWO NARRATIONS...
You say these TWO are NOT contradictory...
You say these TWO are NOT chronicles...
So which is it. TWO variations of ONE creation account? Or TWO different accounts?
Mattia why do you assume the creation account is a different Genre than The immediately following verses? Where did you learn that? Is there a class? How can you prove that early Hebrews understood it that way?
Mattia wrote: "Every one can read the evidences of your dishonesty...."My response: So TRUE! Unless you DELETE your posts, your assault against God's integrity and His Word is CLEAR.
Thanks mattia. It is fun to explore this topic.
Genesis is the factual trustworthy Word of the living God to His people. Just read all of Revelation again. This verse is fun:
Revelation 22
6 And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place."
Similar to Genesis - how many churchgoers do not believe 22:6 is either TRUE or Trustworthy? Metaphors, allegories, symbols, and narratives should never be called true and trustworthy. Or should they?
Rod (msg.58) - your slippery slope argument goes the other way, too. If you take the Bible literally, then you start counting generations and come up with the earth only being 6000 years old. That discards ALL of science except the looney tune Fundamental pseudoscientists you seem to prefer. There goes modern medicine and cults don't get their children vaccinated or taken to the doctor when applicable and they suffer needlessly along with innocents they come in contact with. Males abuse women mercilessly do to the "obey" clause. Admonishments become mortal sins. The unstable believe they are the earthly sword of God and act it out on the population. Trying to achieve a balance between belief and fanaticism is a constant high-wire act. You might discard your terrestrial safe beliefs you've held for 35 years, and join me up here!
Robert wrote: "Rod (msg.58) - your slippery slope argument goes the other way, too. If you take the Bible literally, then you start counting generations and come up with the earth only being 6000 years old. That ..."Taking the Bible LITERALLY is exactly what JESUS DID... no wonder you serve a FALSE and wishy washy christ...
I'm talking to Rod, Robert. He shows at least a soupcon of rationality, not just the legalistic bombast you employ. Butt out of direct conversations between board participants - you're abusing your role as moderator.
Once again Robert: There's good and bad science. If humans are about 6,000 years old. Then we should seriously be working on the Earth and Universe being researched as such.
But then again, if your ancestors scratched themselves while swinging from trees with bananas... maybe science is too big a word for your thoughts?
Robert, it's amusing that your Christian brothers are busy doing REAL science ----- and you're Against them. You're siding with humanistic secular materialism and you're too lazy to look seriously into it. What else do you have to do with your time?
Please answer honestly: Have you spent a Day exploring Answers In Genesis? Or Creation.Com? OR did you give it your biased 3 minutes of Biblical discernment?
Robert wrote: "I'm talking to Rod, Robert. He shows at least a soupcon of rationality, not just the legalistic bombast you employ. Butt out of direct conversations between board participants - you're abusing your..."Nope! My role as a Christian is to CONTEND for the TRUE FAITH and EXPOSE the UNGODLY and UNBELIEVING... like you.
________________________________
Jude 1:3 - "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
1 Timothy 4:16 - "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."
Mattias, I'm still trying to figure out your argument. Interpretation is not easy. I don't think Ironizing is a real word. Do you me patronizing? Either way - I'm enjoying our honest discussion.
Many would easily argue that the book of Revelation is NOT trustworthy and true - in the normal sense of the words.Trustworthy: mostly.
True: only in a very abstract way.
Yet God says it is.
If you want a complete picture of ancient times; you must also read what non-sectarian historians have to say. The Bible is also important, but if you depend solely on the Bible, you will become narrow-minded. Two different ideas of God are presented in the Bible that are totally different. One of them is the real God; one of them is the devil. Thus, you should consult your guru: Jesus, the Christ.
G. wrote: "If you want a complete picture of ancient times; you must also read what non-sectarian historians have to say. The Bible is also important, but if you depend solely on the Bible, you will become na..."God says...
Acts 17:11
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so .
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof , for correction , for instruction in righteousness :
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Rod - I don't suppose it seems hypocritical to you to claim one day you've taken the Bible literally for 30 years and then the next term Revelation "mostly true in an abstract way".
God says...Acts 17:11
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so .
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof , for correction , for instruction in righteousness :
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Robert - I guess we're both rebuking Rod. Nothing like a good old fashioned double team to bring the errant to their senses!
Robert wrote: "Robert - I guess we're both rebuking Rod. Nothing like a good old fashioned double team to bring the errant to their senses!"Nope. YOU say the Word of God is NOT trustworthy... God says...
Acts 17:11
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so .
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof , for correction , for instruction in righteousness :
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Robert - do you have trouble following nuance? READ the post and at least reply somewhat in context. Just firing off your pet Biblical verses for every occasion is tiresome, unprofitable for the Kingdom, and injurious to any claim you might have to intelligence.
Robert wrote: "Just firing off your pet Biblical verses for every occasion is tiresome, unprofitable for the Ki..."My response: Sorry that you find the Bible "tiresome"... Jesus did NOT... and neither do I.
Acts 17:11
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so .
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof , for correction , for instruction in righteousness :
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Wow. I just joined goodreads and this is one of the first exposures I've had to a discussion among members. I'm disappointed. This string seems to have violated all of the three rules I thought I was subjecting myself to. I don't see hatred, but charity is wanting. You guys have gotten off point if the issue is the two separate creation accounts that open Genesis. And, humility would dictate two (or more) people can hold a genuine belief without one having to be discredited for the others preservation.I have a background in science and many alleged scientists stray from a scientific disposition by becoming emotional or closed to new truth. Science is a rational objective pursuit.
I don't know if you are students of Hebrew language and culture, but Genesis 1:1-2:3 may well be a preface for Genesis 2:4-Revelation 22:21. It doesn't matter how long the six days were, but at a point 5779 years ago, by the Bible's genealogical reckoning, God breathed his Spirit into Man and "the story of man's fall from intimacy and restoration to intimacy" is recorded. The more we learn, the better we understand how to read and interpret the Word of God.
Eric wrote: "Wow. I just joined goodreads and this is one of the first exposures I've had to a discussion among members. I'm disappointed. This string seems to have violated all of the three rules I thought I w..."Eric - I agree wholeheartedly with you post regarding the group rules violations.
To your point about genealogy, I believe some commentaries have the position that those records have gaps in them. Your calculation seems like James Ussher's timeline that placed creation at 4004 B.C. which does not hold to that "gap" theory. I'd love to hear more on your view of Young v. Old Age creationism.
Robert wrote: "Robert wrote: "I'm talking to Rod, Robert. He shows at least a soupcon of rationality, not just the legalistic bombast you employ. Butt out of direct conversations between board participants - you'..."yes but,
A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love
Eric wrote: "And, humility would dictate two (or more) people can hold a genuine belief without one having to be discredited for the others preservation..."Jesus said quote: John 16:13 - "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth , is come, he will guide you into all truth... "
My question: How are both "beliefs" equally valid, if they are in opposition? If they Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL truth, is it not mandatory that there must be an absolute TRUTH ?
Eclaghorn wrote: "I'd love to hear more on your view of Young v. Old Age creationism..."My response: I'd love to hear more on your view of the Bible.
If the Bible contradicts alleged science, which do you presume to be correct?
Eric wrote: "I don't know if you are students of Hebrew language and culture, but Genesis 1:1-2:3 may well be a preface for Genesis 2:4-Revelation 22:21...."My response: I am not a Hebrew scholar, but I have a friend who is a PhD in Hebrew. He has told me that an old earth view of creation is unbiblical and must be arrived at via eisegesis.
___________________________________
Eric wrote: "It doesn't matter how long the six days were...."
My response: It matters to me. Apparently it matters to God as well, since He saw fit to include the six days in the Bible.
"Yom" (Hebrew for day) can be used for eons of time ; however, this is NEVER the case in the Bible when these scenarios exist...
* "Yom" is used in connection with evening and/or morning or both . 100% of the time, in these scenarios, "yom" is a literal 24 hour day.
* "Yom" is used in connection with an ordinal number (i.e. first, second, third, etc.) . 100% of the time, in these scenarios, "yom" is a literal 24 hour day.
Eric, all Christians are in different stages of their eternal growth... and some may not be Christians at all. Please lower your expectations of chat groups. Or apply a great deal of humour and worst case scenarios.
So interesting that Robert is the moderator of this group. I just sent out a friend request and look forward to developing a friendship. Robert, you seem to be the hardliner in the group, and clearly you quickly established your orientation toward institutional science, and orthodox Judaism. I have a background in both and look forward to an expanded discourse.Back in the day, l worked alongside PhD's in research facilities who happened to be Jewish, a small part of my own heritage. Space limits a full discussion, but suffice to say, not all Jews, particularly accomplished Jews, some very devout, carry your friend's limited view.
The man whose name is on the patent for CR39 polymer lenses that turn dark in sunlight was the first to tell me he didn't know how long it took to turn energy (the manifestation of light) to Bosoms in a Higgs Field (bright plasma expanding in a dark void) that yielded atoms (dyadic mass with firmaments separating ions) that combined into molecules (structures in varying stages of gas to liquid to solid), that coagulated in suspension in stellar space, while objects made of the same elemental mass took in a higher level of radiant solar energy on a planet perfectly formed and suited for animated intelligence.
Then something beyond the physical energy contained in the universe injected a higher level of it's (or His) essence into a particular creature for reasons of it's (or His) own design. That eternal essence still easily straddles whatever is and isn't contained in the universe.
The first stages probably took a long time to see the light of day, (no one can know), but it's been 5779 years since our Holy Book of Instruction culminated in ha'adam. He didn't care what came before, or how long it took, but God's interaction with humans, is the central story and gives meaning to all creation.
I'll stick with that because God is the source of order and illumination and my friend Chuck was able to address and refute every law of thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum mechanics from a theological perspective.
One day we'll know. (If I can use the term day.)
Eric wrote: "Robert, you seem to be the hardliner in the group, and clearly you quickly established your orientation toward institutional science, and orthodox Judaism. I have a background in both and look forward to an expanded discourse..."My response: If you mean by "hardliner"... a person who does NOT compromise the Word of God... YES! I am.
Eric wrote: "Back in the day, l worked alongside PhD's in research facilities who happened to be Jewish, a small part of my own heritage..."My response: I attended Bible school and have born again friends who went on to obtain doctorate degrees (Hebrew, Greek, OT, NT, etc.)
As for working alongside Jews, or anyone who does NOT receive Jesus as their Messiah... God says...
1 Corinthians 2:14 - "But the natural [unbelieving] man does not accept the things [the teachings and revelations] of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness [absurd and illogical] to him; and he is incapable of understanding them , because they are spiritually discerned and appreciated, [and he is unqualified to judge spiritual matters]."
______________________________
I have never understood the boasting about obtaining spiritual truth from those who rejected the Messiah. Especially when God says that they CANNOT understand spiritual truth... which must be spiritually discerned.
Eric wrote: "He didn't care what came before, or how long it took..."My response: NOPE! If God didn't care...
...why would He tell us what happened in the BEGINNING?
...why did He tell us how many DAYS He chose to take in Creation?
Why does Moses TWICE use the Creation week in support of the Sabbath day of rest? Moses understood the seven DAYS to be seven DAYS.
As for me, I will AGREE WITH GOD! NOT alleged science.
Yes. And I admire that. I also liked what Ben Shapiro recently said after Oprah Winfrey encouraged accusers to "speak their truth".Shapiro responded, "There is no such thing as 'your truth'. Their is 'the truth' and everyone is entitled to express their perception of it. You say it's cold. I say it's comfortable. The fact is it's 68 degrees."
Now we see through a glass, darkly...
We need to be careful, because I might misunderstand the word you use for Word. Is that oros, scriptos, logos or grapheos? You see, I too have a difficulty with being an uncompromising overzealous stickler.
Robert wrote: "Eric wrote: "He didn't care what came before, or how long it took..."My response: NOPE! If God didn't care...
...why would He tell us what happened in the BEGINNING?
...why did He tell us how man..."
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. I believe you, of all people, would love to examine the source. Science, by the way, is a quest for truth. Your issue is institutional academia. Just as there is no flaw in Christ's church, but man's church is problematic. We could spend years on the first verse of the Bible. Many have.
This is gonna be fun. Glad you're here Eric.
Eric wrote: "Now we see through a glass, darkly...."My response: Where does the Bible say that what we see darkly is INACCURATE?
Incomplete? Yes!
Inaccurate? NO!
Do you believe Jesus was in error when He told us that the Holy
Spirit would lead us INTO all truth.
Eric wrote: "The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. I believe you, of all people, would love to examine the source. Science, by the way, is a quest for truth..."My response: The first THREE verses of Genesis is ONE Hebrew sentence. Therefore, the GAP theory is nonsense, as that would place a GAP in the middle of ONE sentence.
Science may be a quest for truth>. My problem is when science proclaims itself to BE TRUTH... especially when it stands in opposition to what God SAYS is truth.
John 17:17 - "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
To be clear:Robert doesn't compromise HIS understanding of the Word of God.
We're all guilty of this at times.
For instance; I just learned an interesting thing about the SEA as mentioning in Revelation.
Rod wrote: "To be clear:Robert doesn't compromise HIS understanding of the Word of God. We're all guilty of this at times..."
My response: Thanks for your OPINION Rod.
I happen to believe Jesus, do you?
John 16:13 - "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth ..."
The Holy Spirit will LEAD us INTO all truth...
...He will correct us by the Scriptures .
I will stand upon the TRUTH of God's Word... NO MATTER how many scientist teach CONTRARY.
Why is it that Rod almost NEVER quotes the Scripture?
Robert wrote: "Eric wrote: "The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. I believe you, of all people, would love to examine the source. Science, by the way, is a quest for truth..."My response: The first THREE ver..."
I see now where the antagonism I first mentioned comes from. Robert, you were made to be a forum moderator. I agree with Rod, if one can resist taking all this too seriously this can be invigorating and enlightening. I suppose when iron sharpens iron, sparks and shards might fly. Fun, indeed.
Bless you, Robert, I love you, Brother. Hold your perspective and generate discussion. But please realize others who believe the Holy Bible to be inerrant, infallible, and accurate might not always agree with your perspective on God's truth. Barasheet bara Elohim et hashamayim v'et ha'aritz. Can we agree on that up front?
Oh, and ancient written Hebrew doesn't have sentences, per se.
Eric wrote: "Oh, and ancient written Hebrew doesn't have sentences, per se."My response: Not according to the legitimate Bible scholars that I know.
Eric wrote: "Bless you, Robert, I love you, Brother. Hold your perspective and generate discussion..."My response: I love you too... but I love God more. I see how satan twists and distorts God's Word so as to invalidate it.
It is inconceivable to me to embrace what alleged science proclaims over that which God CLEARLY says.
Robert wrote: "Eric wrote: "Bless you, Robert, I love you, Brother. Hold your perspective and generate discussion..."My response: I love you too... but I love God more. I see how satan twists and distorts God's..."
Sorry about the typo in prior comment. I meant verses, not sentences. My bad.
We show our love for God by our love for each other. Again, only because you're being willful, there's a big difference between those words we interpret, and you might use, as "love". You don't have to phileo me, you can't storge me, I don't want you to eros me. Just agope me. Your posts lead me to wonder if you know what I'm saying or will automatically take umbrage.
I fear you don't fully understand what you allege alleged science is. I don't think we need to grab a well rooted tree for fear of flying of a spinning globe. Wait, look around, the world isn't spinning. That's just alleged science, isn't it?
Eric wrote: "Sorry about the typo in prior comment. I meant verses, not sentences. My bad..."My response: No problem... on that we are agreed.
Eric wrote: "We show our love for God by our love for each other...."My response: What does "LOVE" look like?
The end of the WHIP that Jesus used to drive people out of the Temple?
Paul getting in Peter's face for his heretical actions?
Calling people a brood of vipers?
If we define "LOVE" by modern standards, Jesus, Paul, John the Baptist, Peter and others were very "UNLOVING" at times.
Eric wrote: "Your posts lead me to wonder if you know what I'm saying or will automatically take umbrage..."My response: I understand what you are saying... to the point that I see you don't even know the proper English spelling of those Greek words.
You spelled "agope" which should be "agape".
Eric wrote: "Wait, look around, the world isn't spinning. That's just alleged science, isn't it? ..."My response: Where science does NOT contradict the Bible... no problem...
Where science DOES contradict the Word of God... BIG problem.
_______________________
For me, the Bible is ALWAYS right and does NOT NEED to be redefined because science says it is WRONG.
The Bible is RIGHT...
...contradictory science is WRONG!
My response: Jesus took the Word of God LITERALLY IN CONTEXT...
...so you are saying that JESUS WAS WRONG?????
Romans 3:4 - "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar..."