Story of creation: Genesis.

[JimL]

There are various theories of inspiration, but discussion of them here would take this thread off-topic. I suggest that you consult a theology textbook if you really want to study them. My point was simply that in your a priori exclusion of all of these theories, you are setting up a false dichotomy between human and divine authorship, and your arguments do not speak to orthodox Christianity.

I am not asking that Kbertsche. I am trying to discuss this with you, not with the various theories of inspiration. I asked if you could please explain to me what you think it means because you brought it up and so you must have an opinion as to what is meant by it. So what do you think revelation means with regard to the scriptures. How exactly does revelation work in this regard? Are the human authors inspired by God to write what they believe about the the creation or are they inspired by God to write what they, through God, now know about the creation?

[Kbertsche]

I am not asking that Kbertsche. I am trying to discuss this with you, not with the various theories of inspiration. I asked if you could please explain to me what you think it means because you brought it up and so you must have an opinion as to what is meant by it. So what do you think revelation means with regard to the scriptures. How exactly does revelation work in this regard? Are the human authors inspired by God to write what they believe about the the creation or are they inspired by God to write what they, through God, now know about the creation?

I hold to what is generally called "verbal, plenary inspiration". But to unpack what this means, how it is distinct from the other theories such as "partial inspiration" and "dictation", and how it works out in Genesis would take many pages and would derail this thread. This is why I recommend that you look at a good theology text. Specifically, I recommend the texts by Millard Erickson and by Alister McGrath.

[shunyadragon]

The Biblical view of Stars

[Paprika]

Biblical

1 Enoch is biblical?

[shunyadragon]

1 Enoch is biblical?

1 Enoch deserves study for its cosmology, but there is much more of interest. It profoundly influenced Christian eschatology, and it is necessary reading for anyone trying to understand Hebrew religious thought at the dawn of the Christian era.

[Shadow Templar]

This is not a response to any one comment in particular, but rather a lot in general that all have a common flaw. A lot of the Bible's descriptions of things are not meant in the literal sense. Written words in essence are symbols meant to communicate something. If you're trying to say that the literal translation of the bible word for word doesn't make scientific sense, then congratulations, you missed the entire point of each of those texts. The Bible is not a collection of scientific facts. All you're communicating is that you don't understand what the point of the text actually is.

It's similar to seeing a single typo in a sentence, and claiming that the entire sentence is therefore worthless and no longer trustworthy, when in reality the spelling of the "misspelled" word was very much correct at the time it was written. If the POINT of the sentence is still translated effectively, and the meaning is still interpreted, than the sentence has done its job. If you use imperfect scientific facts to get your point across, THE POINT STILL GOT ACROSS and the sentence still worked. That doesn't make the sentence wrong, that means your wrong interpretation of the sentence is wrong.

Get yer perspective in place. Very very few Christians believe that every sentence is meant to be taken as a literal scientific fact. None of that was even the point when it was written, nor was it understood that way right after it was written. Only you are trying to understand it that way, and you are right that it doesn't make sense to do so. So stop trying.

[shunyadragon]

This is not a response to any one comment in particular, but rather a lot in general that all have a common flaw. A lot of the Bible's descriptions of things are not meant in the literal sense. Written words in essence are symbols meant to communicate something. If you're trying to say that the literal translation of the bible word for word doesn't make scientific sense, then congratulations, you missed the entire point of each of those texts. The Bible is not a collection of scientific facts. All you're communicating is that you don't understand what the point of the text actually is.

It's similar to seeing a single typo in a sentence, and claiming that the entire sentence is therefore worthless and no longer trustworthy, when in reality the spelling of the "misspelled" word was very much correct at the time it was written. If the POINT of the sentence is still translated effectively, and the meaning is still interpreted, than the sentence has done its job. If you use imperfect scientific facts to get your point across, THE POINT STILL GOT ACROSS and the sentence still worked. That doesn't make the sentence wrong, that means your wrong interpretation of the sentence is wrong.

Get yer perspective in place. Very very few Christians believe that every sentence is meant to be taken as a literal scientific fact. None of that was even the point when it was written, nor was it understood that way right after it was written. Only you are trying to understand it that way, and you are right that it doesn't make sense to do so. So stop trying.

You're conflating the reality of the history of Christianity and today with ridiculous extremes. First, between 40 and 55 percent of the Christians of the USA today believe the Bible is literal enough to reject the scientific geologic history of the earth, and evolution. The history of Christianity is predominantly centered around a God authored or directly inspired text until the past couple hundred years. Spelling and grammatical errors have never been a serious issue.

[JimL]

This is not a response to any one comment in particular, but rather a lot in general that all have a common flaw. A lot of the Bible's descriptions of things are not meant in the literal sense. Written words in essence are symbols meant to communicate something. If you're trying to say that the literal translation of the bible word for word doesn't make scientific sense, then congratulations, you missed the entire point of each of those texts. The Bible is not a collection of scientific facts. All you're communicating is that you don't understand what the point of the text actually is.

It's similar to seeing a single typo in a sentence, and claiming that the entire sentence is therefore worthless and no longer trustworthy, when in reality the spelling of the "misspelled" word was very much correct at the time it was written. If the POINT of the sentence is still translated effectively, and the meaning is still interpreted, than the sentence has done its job. If you use imperfect scientific facts to get your point across, THE POINT STILL GOT ACROSS and the sentence still worked. That doesn't make the sentence wrong, that means your wrong interpretation of the sentence is wrong.

Get yer perspective in place. Very very few Christians believe that every sentence is meant to be taken as a literal scientific fact. None of that was even the point when it was written, nor was it understood that way right after it was written. Only you are trying to understand it that way, and you are right that it doesn't make sense to do so. So stop trying.

The problem with this kind of explanation is that it is not consistent. You can't argue on the one hand that inspiration or revelation is not meant to be literal, such as in the case of Gods creating of the heavens and the earth, and then turn around and argue on the other hand that the same is meant to be literal such as in the case of the creation of Adam and Eve. If the creation of the heavens and the earth is just an inspired story, not a literal rendering of exactly what happened, then neither can you argue that Adam and Eve is anything more than an inspired story, and not a literal rendering of what happened. That is why I asked Kbertsche to define what he means by God inspired or revealed which, though it would seem an easy thing to explain, he apparently is unable to do so.

[Paprika]

"It is necessary reading for anyone trying to understand Hebrew religious thought at the dawn of the Christian era."

It's good to see you finally taking in my point in the other thread: that the OT or the Torah is not sufficient to understand Second-Temple Judaism.

That said, I'm rather unconvinced by the assertion that it "profoundly influenced Christian eschatology". Could you lay out the case more fully for us?

[Kbertsche]

This is not a response to any one comment in particular, but rather a lot in general that all have a common flaw. A lot of the Bible's descriptions of things are not meant in the literal sense. Written words in essence are symbols meant to communicate something. If you're trying to say that the literal translation of the bible word for word doesn't make scientific sense, then congratulations, you missed the entire point of each of those texts. The Bible is not a collection of scientific facts. All you're communicating is that you don't understand what the point of the text actually is.

It's similar to seeing a single typo in a sentence, and claiming that the entire sentence is therefore worthless and no longer trustworthy, when in reality the spelling of the "misspelled" word was very much correct at the time it was written. If the POINT of the sentence is still translated effectively, and the meaning is still interpreted, than the sentence has done its job. If you use imperfect scientific facts to get your point across, THE POINT STILL GOT ACROSS and the sentence still worked. That doesn't make the sentence wrong, that means your wrong interpretation of the sentence is wrong.

Get yer perspective in place. Very very few Christians believe that every sentence is meant to be taken as a literal scientific fact. None of that was even the point when it was written, nor was it understood that way right after it was written. Only you are trying to understand it that way, and you are right that it doesn't make sense to do so. So stop trying.

Good points, clearly expressed. Some things in Scripture clearly seem intended to be interpreted literally (e.g. miracles, such as the Resurrection of Christ). Other things are clearly metaphor or simile (e.g. in the poetic books, especially Psalms and Proverbs). Still other things are debated as to how literally the biblical authors intended their words to be taken (e.g. the "days" of Genesis 1).

[Tassman]

Good points, clearly expressed. Some things in Scripture clearly seem intended to be interpreted literally (e.g. miracles, such as the Resurrection of Christ). Other things are clearly metaphor or simile (e.g. in the poetic books, especially Psalms and Proverbs). Still other things are debated as to how literally the biblical authors intended their words to be taken (e.g. the "days" of Genesis 1).

[Shadow Templar]

The people who actually read the Bible. As Kbertsche said, some things are very obvious. Arguing that somewhere in some Psalm there is a verse that says a star fell to Earth, and that that's impossible because a huge flaming ball of gas would have destroyed the Earth so the entire Bible is worthless... That's a Straw Man fallacy. No one was arguing that except you.

That by no means that everything in the Bible is obviously either literal or not... That's where different interpretations come from, in fact. I'm in no way saying that there is only one interpretation and that I know exactly what the right one is. I'm simply saying: argue against what people claim, not against whatever you can make up on a whim. That just leaves you arguing with yourself and quite frankly looks kinda silly.

[Shadow Templar]

The problem with this kind of explanation is that it is not consistent. You can't argue on the one hand that inspiration or revelation is not meant to be literal, such as in the case of Gods creating of the heavens and the earth, and then turn around and argue on the other hand that the same[U] is meant to be literal[/U] such as in the case of the creation of Adam and Eve. If the creation of the heavens and the earth is just an inspired story, not a literal rendering of exactly what happened, then neither can you argue that Adam and Eve is anything more than an inspired story, and not a literal rendering of what happened. That is why I asked Kbertsche to define what he means by God inspired or revealed which, though it would seem an easy thing to explain, he apparently is unable to do so.

Some things are meant to be literal, and others aren't, so yes, it's completely ok and consistent to argue that some things are meant to be literal, and others are not. Simply stating so without giving reasons behind why one thing is treated differently than another is lame, but holding different parts to different standards is normal and legit. Like I said before, not the WHOLE Bible is meant to be strictly literal. There are parts that are (God creating the universe being one of the parts that's held as literal, as is Christ's divinity). There are other parts that are not meant to be literal in every word for word basis. Recognizing which parts are which isn't easy, but doing so is by no means inconsistent.

[Shadow Templar]

You're conflating the reality of the history of Christianity and today with ridiculous extremes. First, between 40 and 55 percent of the Christians of the USA today believe the Bible is literal enough to reject the scientific geologic history of the earth, and evolution.

Cool. That means people think that part is literal. If that's wrong, argue it's wrong. I'm not saying people don't interpret things wrongly. What I'm saying is that taking things literally where people aren't arguing they're literal does no one any good. The arguing style I see a lot of goes something like this:

1: Someone takes one part of the Bible literally
2: Therefore they must take the whole Bible literal
3: There are parts of the Bible that are obviously wrong when taken literally
4: Therefore taking any part of the Bible literally is obviously wrong
5: The entire Bible is a sham

That's dumb and lame and used way too much. This thread alone contains a little too much of it and it stinks a bit. I'm simply warning against this arguing technique. If this isn't what you're using, then it's not relevant to your argument.

The history of Christianity is predominantly centered around a God authored or directly inspired text until the past couple hundred years. Spelling and grammatical errors have never been a serious issue.

The history of Christianity centered around a God authored or directly inspired text does not mean that every part need be completely literal. That means that the words that are there were put there by God. As I was saying, they were put there to convey something, not necessarily to all be interpreted literally. Even throughout the history of Christianity, people have not looked at all parts as literal.

Spelling and grammatical errors have never been a serious issue. I wasn't arguing that it was. I was simply using that as an example of how the reasoning that "because one part isn't understood to be exactly fitting with the current day knowledge, therefore the whole thing is a sham regardless of the fact that the meaning behind the words still stands" is a flawed way of reasoning through the Bible. If the point still stands, the point still stands regardless of the complete scientific exactness of each and every literally interpreted word.

[Tassman]

The people who actually read the Bible. As Kbertsche said, some things are very obvious. Arguing that somewhere in some Psalm there is a verse that says a star fell to Earth, and that that's impossible because a huge flaming ball of gas would have destroyed the Earth so the entire Bible is worthless... That's a Straw Man fallacy. No one was arguing that except you.

That by no means that everything in the Bible is obviously either literal or not... That's where different interpretations come from, in fact. I'm in no way saying that there is only one interpretation and that I know exactly what the right one is. I'm simply saying: argue against what people claim, not against whatever you can make up on a whim. That just leaves you arguing with yourself and quite frankly looks kinda silly.