Why not deep time?

[klaus54]

ok, that was a reasonable answer. They weren't there , so they have to take somebody's (Scripture) word for it, the same as me.
That part, the Genesis account, is BELIEF.


this is the thread where you said those who wrote the gospels and other texts of the NT believed them to be true, and while you are only concerned with the Creation and Genesis flood accounts, there is one witness in the NT ,
....OR someone who claims to be the "I AM" (before Abraham)

SO,
while those who wrote the NT didn't EYEWITNESS Creation or the Genesis flood, they were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ and the miracles He performed before the crucifixion.

So as far as the resurrection event is concerned, it is not a matter of "believed" but a matter of "know"

They either know or they made this up.

AND it matters, because if Jesus rose from the dead after three days and three nights in the tomb, it lends credibility to His God-claims.

And His God claims include corroboration of Moses' in John's Gospel

John 5:45-46
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

so , it matters if the writer claims to be an eyewitness of the resurrection.

That writer does not merely "believe", that writers KNOWS , that writer knows if he saw the resurrected Christ
or that writer knows if he is just making it all up.

So the question remains, do you believe the writer who claims Jesus was buried dead for 3 days and 3 nights and later rose from the dead

or is that writer making it up.





IOW, you simply reject The Bible.


.....if you reject The Bible, why bother debating what it says or how it is interpreted?

Darlin',

I'd much rather "reject (your interpretation of) The Bible" than the gobs and gobs of consilient evidence from Creation itself that obviate your Bible interpretation.

K54

[shunyadragon]

Darlin',

I'd much rather "reject (your interpretation of) The Bible" than the gobs and gobs of consilient evidence from Creation itself that obviate your Bible interpretation.

K54

Good answer!!!!!

[shunyadragon]

IOW, you simply reject The Bible.


.....if you reject The Bible, why bother debating what it says or how it is interpreted?

Klaus gave a good answer. I reject your interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible. Your problem is that you egocentrically assert that anyone that does not agree with your interpretation of the Bible, rejects the Bible.

[jordanriver]

I reject your interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible. Your problem is that you egocentrically assert that anyone that does not agree with your interpretation of the Bible, rejects the Bible.

I believe you believe that.

[jordanriver]

ok, anybody else?


when Jesus in the Bible is quoted as saying that if you don't believe Moses' writings ...
(Moses is the one who wrote Genesis)
then neither will you believe Jesus' words.

I think it says what it says, ....Jesus verifies the Genesis accounts.

but some believe that is a misinterpretation.

SO, when Jesus said that if you don't believe what Moses wrote (Genesis), then you don't believe Jesus,

WHAT did Jesus really mean?

Can that be interpreted as Jesus really saying, you don't have to believe anything Moses wrote?

OR

did somebody who never met Jesus just make up that quote?
(in which case it wouldn't be a matter of interpretation, if the quote didn't happen then there is nothing to interpret there)

OR

does it mean Moses didn't really write Genesis , so therefore, Jesus wasn't referring to Genesis?


~for example~

I don't know how to interpret the account of the creation of EVE (the woman in Genesis 2 who was later called Eve by Adam)
When it says God took a rib from Adam and created EVE, (again, the woman in Genesis 2 who was later called Eve by Adam), I think it says God took a rib from Adam and created EVE, (the woman in Genesis 2 who was later called Eve by Adam),
....it looks pretty plain, its not written as a parable, it doesn't look like 'poem',

but if I am misinterpreting that, what does it really mean. Should I interpret it as saying "and God did not take any rib from Adam to create EVE, (the woman in Genesis 2 who was later called Eve by Adam),

OR

is that to be interpreted as:

it was added later by someone who was never inspired by God ,

.....and Paul (who wrote to Timothy to say "All scripture is given by inspiration of God....." ) wasn't really referring to Genesis ?

so when Bible history records the Noachian flood, what it is actually saying is that there was no Noachian flood,

???

[jordanriver]

I confess I don't see the endless fascination with finding ways to interpret this or any other creation myth to try to square it with modern understandings. There are at least thousands of creation myths,................

I had to go all the way back to page 1 to find this honest response.

of course phank does not see "...the endless fascination with finding ways to interpret this..."

phank simply does not believe the Bible is anything but myth, and therefore does not have to reinterpret anything about it.

....all it took for phank was one post. and that was his Q.E.D.

[Truthseeker]

The plague of off-topic posts continues to this day.

[jordanriver]

The plague of off-topic posts continues to this day.

when you asked, "Why not deep time"...who were you addressing, and what were you expecting?

[phank]

I had to go all the way back to page 1 to find this honest response.

of course phank does not see "...the endless fascination with finding ways to interpret this..."

phank simply does not believe the Bible is anything but myth, and therefore does not have to reinterpret anything about it.

....all it took for phank was one post. and that was his Q.E.D.

I spent a while reading about Native American creation tales. And those tribes tend to take the position that of course these tales are myths, but that's not the point. The point is that studying these tales tells them something important about their own culture and informs their view of the world. It simply never occurred to them to try to pretend their creation tales were actual natural history, and to try to MAKE them fit modern understandings. They recognize their gods as symbolic. And that general approach seems to apply to most non-Abrahamic religions. The level of cognitive dissonance is MUCH lower.

[Truthseeker]

The level of cognitive dissonance is MUCH lower.

May I ask you to show that you do understand what "cognitive dissonance" means? Later I may ask you to show how you manage to measure the c. d. level from just reading posts and books.

[klaus54]

The plague of off-topic posts continues to this day.

The plague of facts continues to this day.

[klaus54]

May I ask you to show that you do understand what "cognitive dissonance" means? Later I may ask you to show how you manage to measure the c. d. level from just reading posts and books.

There's this nifty thingy called "Google".

Try it sometime.

It's pretty cool!

K54

[klaus54]

when you asked, "Why not deep time"...who were you addressing, and what were you expecting?

Facts?

Truth?

Reality?

Or whatever passes for those in Baptist Fundy World.

K54

[jordanriver]

I spent a while reading about Native American creation tales. And those tribes tend to take the position that of course these tales are myths, but that's not the point. The point is that studying these tales tells them something important about their own culture and informs their view of the world. It simply never occurred to them to try to pretend their creation tales were actual natural history, and to try to MAKE them fit modern understandings. They recognize their gods as symbolic. And that general approach seems to apply to most non-Abrahamic religions. The level of cognitive dissonance is MUCH lower.

just Native American myths and it was understood?

I guess the Pawnee human sacrifices to the Morning Star's last pleas were, "hey guys ...whoa ...whoa ...I thought we were just kidding"

[Mr. Black]

"Mr. Black" needs to consider historical criticism and alternatives...

I need only "consider" the testimony of the one Who knows all things, doesn't make mistakes, cannot lie, and was there. Ignorant men and women who don't know all things, do make mistakes, often lie, and were not there, will not suffice.

Because the physical evidence ain't on his side.

What one makes of the "evidence" (or even what counts as evidence) is determined by the assumptions they bring to the table.