[_ Old Earth _] Isn't it funny.....

[aiki]

reznwerks:

Why can't the bible ever say what it means? The only way the bible ever makes sense is to impart the readers imagination and somehow claim "THEY" know the mind of God himself.

In many instances the Bible does say exactly what it means. You come to the Bible with a prejudice against it that warps every verse of it you read. This is your problem, however, not the Bible's. You also want to characterize the Bible and Christians using extremely broad generalities. The fact is, there are many Christian denominations which fundamentally believe the very same things from scripture. Their differences exist primarily in cultural and geographic heritage, not doctrine. But, of course, such specifics don't help your case, do they, reznwerks. Better to paint with a broad brush, eh?

No it's not. A statement is a statement is a statement. Either it means what it says or it means nothing.

Hardly. You've shown on this thread several times how one can misconstrue and warp the meaning of a statement by removing it from its context, or ignoring the original meaning of words, or refusing to acknowledge the difference between figurative and literal language. You want the Bible to read like a simple mathematical equation, but its subject is much more complex than that.

Been there done that. 98% of all scientists schooled in the science of archeology conclude that a world wide flood did not happen. The evidenced is not there.

There being no evidence of a worldwide flood and there being many people who don't believe in such a flood are two different things. As AIG indicates, "There is no evidence for the flood" is not an accurate statement.

You tried to point out Gods guidance in some biblical science and I just pointed out other societies had their own remarkable discoveries without God which proves that man can be just as powerful as God when it comes to science.

How so? Again, making a scientific discovery is not the same as creating that which is discovered. A scientist may discover a new star, but God made the star. It seems self-evident to me that the finder of the star and the Maker of the star are not in the same league at all.

Quote:
All the other time theists are constantly thumbing their nose at science


Which theists, exactly, are you talking about?

To make it simple any Christian that takes the bible literally.

Well, I take the Bible, in those places where it is appropriate, literally and I don't thumb my nose at science. I know of many other Christians like myself of whom I could say the same. I don't agree always with how atheists and such like interpret the facts of science, but with science itself I have no problem.

Instead of believing in stories without basis they will ask how, why, when, where, and most important whether the evidence can be counted on to be credible.

It's too bad you don't hold yourself to this standard, as well.

No you must prove conclusively that a God exists. So far no one has done that. My statement is more true than yours since I didn't include a God in the discovery you did. Remember you can't prove a negative.

You said, "So as you can see there is a load of significant scientific discoveries made by man outside and more importantly without the aid of God."

I'm asking you to prove this statement. You made it, you prove it. Show me conclusively that these discoveries were made "without the aid of God".

No delusion is the correct word.

And yet another opinion.

An all powerful God could do that. He could make us all understand it equally the same.

What would God have to do to us to accomplish this?

To consider less is an insult to the creator.

How so?

No its a testament to the creator to be unable to get him message across to those he is trying to reach. When a message is not understood it is seldom the recievers fault.

Not so. If the receiver rejects the message because it doesn't suit him that action is solely the responsibility of the receiver. God's message is simple and plain and it has been understood both by primitive tribespeople and by Phd.s in Astrophysics. God's message is perfectly available to any who wish to accept it.

To say not communicating with his crown creation was not a priority then why did he supposedly send his own son to die for us? I think you have some major contemplaition to consider.

I was speaking to the matter of simplicity, not communication. As you say, God sent His own Son to die for us. He has plainly taken great pains to communicate with us. That people reject that effort is fundamentally a matter of pride, not confusion about God's message. John 3:19-20 explains, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, neither come to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Of the two of us, I think you have far more to contemplate than I.

What loving creator would hide meaningful scientific knowledge from us that would do us good? What perfect being would create imperfect beings? He could have made us brilliant one and all. He could have made us morally perfect. Why didn't he if he could?

I don't know. Do you? I think not. You can only guess at an answer according to your prejudice.

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[reznwerks]

reznwerks:

Why can't the bible ever say what it means? The only way the bible ever makes sense is to impart the readers imagination and somehow claim "THEY" know the mind of God himself.

In many instances the Bible does say exactly what it means. You come to the Bible with a prejudice against it that warps every verse of it you read. This is your problem, however, not the Bible's.
It's seems that only where something is important is the bible in conflict with itself. I have no prejudice against it other than it has shown itself to be unreliable and contradictory. When something is supposed to impart a message that is consistant with everyones understanding and it can't do that then it is not the recievers problem but the sender and in this case it is the bible.

You also want to characterize the Bible and Christians using extremely broad generalities. The fact is, there are many Christian denominations which fundamentally believe the very same things from scripture. Their differences exist primarily in cultural and geographic heritage, not doctrine. But, of course, such specifics don't help your case, do they, reznwerks. Better to paint with a broad brush, eh?
Christianity runs the broad spectrum of very conservative to very liberal. The fact there is so many denominations means that can't agree on enough to join together.

[quote:65b34]No it's not. A statement is a statement is a statement. Either it means what it says or it means nothing.

Hardly. You've shown on this thread several times how one can misconstrue and warp the meaning of a statement by removing it from its context, or ignoring the original meaning of words, or refusing to acknowledge the difference between figurative and literal language. You want the Bible to read like a simple mathematical equation, but its subject is much more complex than that.
You say the bible is much more complex that reading it literally but its the literalists that have to make it much more complex because if you read what it says it makes no sense. So the only way it makes sense it to impart your own imagination to come to terms with what is said. Do you really think those people who were just copying these things down went to Harvard and studied all the possible ways of using the language of the time in ways that only well versed scholars would understand? I think not.

Been there done that. 98% of all scientists schooled in the science of archeology conclude that a world wide flood did not happen. The evidenced is not there.

There being no evidence of a worldwide flood and there being many people who don't believe in such a flood are two different things. As AIG indicates, "There is no evidence for the flood" is not an accurate statement.
It couldn't be more accurate. The geological strata does not show evidence of a flood plain and simple. Its not a matter of believing or not believing.

You tried to point out Gods guidance in some biblical science and I just pointed out other societies had their own remarkable discoveries without God which proves that man can be just as powerful as God when it comes to science.

How so? Again, making a scientific discovery is not the same as creating that which is discovered. A scientist may discover a new star, but God made the star. It seems self-evident to me that the finder of the star and the Maker of the star are not in the same league at all.
You can't prove a God exists let alone make the claim that God created it. First things first.

Quote:
All the other time theists are constantly thumbing their nose at science


Which theists, exactly, are you talking about?

To make it simple any Christian that takes the bible literally.

Well, I take the Bible, in those places where it is appropriate, literally and I don't thumb my nose at science.
"in those places" So you admit you pick and choose what you want to accept. I don't think I need to comment further.

Instead of believing in stories without basis they will ask how, why, when, where, and most important whether the evidence can be counted on to be credible.

It's too bad you don't hold yourself to this standard, as well.
How so?

No you must prove conclusively that a God exists. So far no one has done that. My statement is more true than yours since I didn't include a God in the discovery you did. Remember you can't prove a negative.

You said, "So as you can see there is a load of significant scientific discoveries made by man outside and more importantly without the aid of God."

I'm asking you to prove this statement. You made it, you prove it. Show me conclusively that these discoveries were made "without the aid of God".
The simple fact that those making the discovery did not claim God as a factor. Your discoveries did and God still has not been proven to exist. Again you are still trying to prove a negative. Since your discoveries made the claim of God it is up to you to prove it not me.

An all powerful God could do that. He could make us all understand it equally the same.

What would God have to do to us to accomplish this?
I don't know I am not God. If God is all powerfull , all knowing, then he would know how to get it done.

To consider less is an insult to the creator.

How so?
You admit that God cannot do all.

No its a testament to the creator to be unable to get him message across to those he is trying to reach. When a message is not understood it is seldom the recievers fault.

Not so. If the receiver rejects the message because it doesn't suit him that action is solely the responsibility of the receiver. God's message is simple and plain and it has been understood both by primitive tribespeople and by Phd.s in Astrophysics. God's message is perfectly available to any who wish to accept it.
Obviously the receivers are not rejecting the message but the receivers are all getting a differenet message and that is evidence by the many many denominations. No the message as understood by tribespeople only understand the version they are introduced to since most cannot even read or write let alone have the "gift' of interpreting. Having a phd in Astorphyics means squat about what they believe in. Believing doesn't make it true. If Phd's can't convince the scientific community of the "truth" they believe in then what do you think might be wrong?

To say not communicating with his crown creation was not a priority then why did he supposedly send his own son to die for us? I think you have some major contemplaition to consider.

I was speaking to the matter of simplicity, not communication. As you say, God sent His own Son to die for us. He has plainly taken great pains to communicate with us.
Then what seems to be the problem?

That people reject that effort is fundamentally a matter of pride, not confusion about God's message. John 3:19-20 explains, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, neither come to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
That statement is too broad and general to mean anything.

What loving creator would hide meaningful scientific knowledge from us that would do us good? What perfect being would create imperfect beings? He could have made us brilliant one and all. He could have made us morally perfect. Why didn't he if he could?

I don't know. Do you? I think not. You can only guess at an answer according to your prejudice.
Since I don't believe in a loving creator or at least one who involves himself in mans affairs I am perfectly content to accept the status quo as it is.

In Christ, Aiki.[/quote:65b34]

 

[aiki]

reznwerks:

Howdy! How's it goin? Well, I hope.

It's seems that only where something is important is the bible in conflict with itself.

Well, seems is the right word. Seems to you. I think the Bible is a wonderfully coherent, complex, and deeply insightful text.

I have no prejudice against it other than it has shown itself to be unreliable and contradictory.

You see, this is how you expose your prejudice. I have been reading this book for over thirty years and have never found it as you have described. Unlike you, though, I read the verses within their immediate and broader scriptural contexts. I also distinguish between figurative and literal language. And, I recognize the symbolic nature of many of God's acts. Makes a BIG difference to the message you get.

When something is supposed to impart a message that is consistant with everyones understanding and it can't do that then it is not the recievers problem but the sender and in this case it is the bible.

Well, there's your problem right there! God didn't write the Bible to be "consistent with everyone's understanding". He expects us to align ourselves with His perspective, not the other way 'round. God's message is morally absolute, centered around Him, and exclusivistic. He condemns in His Word modern-day moral relativism and post-modern "truth". He denies the "all streams lead to the ocean" philosophy, declaring instead that no man comes to Him except through a saving faith in Christ. He warns of an eternity and judgment. This is not the kind of stuff that goes down well in our modern North American culture. People read of these things and refuse them because they are inconsistent with their philosophical and moral understanding. But that is a problem with the receivers of the message, not the message itself. The message is clear; people just don't like it.

The fact there is so many denominations means that can't agree on enough to join together.

Wrong. I have lived in the evangelical Christian community all my life and have not seen the kind of disunity that you suggest exists in it. Baptists, Mennonites, Plymouth Brethren, Four Square, E-Free, Missionary Alliance, Pentecostals, Assembly of God, Christian Reform, and many others all believe fundamentally the same thing. On peripheral issues there is always discussion, but concerning the core truths of the Christian faith there is a majority of the Christian community in agreement. I work for a Christian ministry that has members from at least 5 different evangelical denominations. We get along famously! No squabbling or disunity -- at all. Often the denominational distinctions in the evangelical Christian community reflect geographic and cultural heritage, not doctrinal disagreement.

You say the bible is much more complex that reading it literally but its the literalists that have to make it much more complex because if you read what it says it makes no sense. So the only way it makes sense it to impart your own imagination to come to terms with what is said.

These remarks suggest strongly that you know very little about biblical literary criticism. "Imagination" has little to do with understanding scripture. Basic literary criticism, expert understanding of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, and a thorough knowledge of the anthropology of ancient Middle Eastern cultures -- these are the disciplines that scholars have brought to the study of the scriptures for centuries. Their careful work has removed the need for "imagination" when interpreting the scriptures.

More than this, though, is the enlightening work of God's Spirit upon the mind and heart of one who is His child. Over time, He brings each of His children into a full understanding of the truth. And until He does, the scriptures remain a mystery -- even with a mountain of scripture commentaries at hand.

Do you really think those people who were just copying these things down went to Harvard and studied all the possible ways of using the language of the time in ways that only well versed scholars would understand? I think not.

Do you know how many extant ancient manuscripts there are by which to examine and judge our modern translation? Thousands! Literary scholars hold the modern-day translations of the Odyssey and Iliad as highly accurate, but with only a handful of ancient copies by which to judge. No, the Bible is well-established in its accuracy.

The geological strata does not show evidence of a flood plain and simple. Its not a matter of believing or not believing.

Actually, belief is at the heart of the matter! Atheists and Creationists use the same facts to support different conclusions. Their interpretation of the facts reveals their underlying beliefs. Evolutionist believe the facts deny a world-wide flood; Creationists believe the facts support a world-wide flood. What they believe makes all the difference to their conclusions about the facts.

You can't prove a God exists let alone make the claim that God created it. First things first.

Hey, man, you made the comparison between human scientists and God, not me. I just pointed out the flaw in doing so. Your response just seems like an attempt to deflect my point.

"in those places" So you admit you pick and choose what you want to accept. I don't think I need to comment further.

Uh huh. :roll: Look, I accept the whole Bible. But I take the literal parts literally and the non-literal parts non-literally. I don't "pick and choose" what I want. :roll:

It's too bad you don't hold yourself to this standard, as well.

How so?

Pale Rider and I have answered this already in earlier posts. Y'know, where we show how your version of what a verse is saying is not actually what it is saying. :

What would God have to do to us to accomplish this?

I don't know I am not God. If God is all powerfull , all knowing, then he would know how to get it done.

I think it is ironic and inconsistent how on the one hand you say, "God should do better" and on the other hand admit, "I've no idea exactly how." In the former instance, you presume to know enough to criticize how He operates, but in the latter, demonstrate a clear lack of knowledge concerning how He operates. This is like me going to a construction site where a skyscraper is being built and telling the head engineer that he's doing things all wrong. I don't have clue how to build a skyscraper, but I don't like the noise, and the dirt, and the sparks from the welder's torch. The crane swinging girders about seems really dangerous to me, too. Of course, in response to my stupidity the head engineer will do (at least) one of two things: he'll either curse me out and tell me to get lost (if he's nice), or he'll ask me if I've got a better idea (if he wants me to see how stupid my behaviour is before he tells me to get lost). Not really knowing anything about what is required to build a skyscraper, any suggestion I give can only come from and demonstrate my ignorance. I might persist in my stupidity and make a few suggestions, but only the engineer with his superior knowledge of skyscraper building will understand how completely stupid my suggestions are. Ironically, I might go away thinking, "What a smart fellow I am to have given these good ideas to help the head engineer"! Yeah, right. :o :roll: :-D

Obviously the receivers are not rejecting the message but the receivers are all getting a differenet message and that is evidence by the many many denominations.

See earlier comments above.

No the message as understood by tribespeople only understand the version they are introduced to since most cannot even read or write let alone have the "gift' of interpreting.

"Gift of interpreting"? Huh? I have heard primitive pygmies from New Guinea state the gospel just as accurately as any Christian over here could. They get the same message from the Bible we do and just as well.

Having a phd in Astorphyics means squat about what they believe in. Believing doesn't make it true. If Phd's can't convince the scientific community of the "truth" they believe in then what do you think might be wrong?

My point was that the message of the Bible is received the same over a broad spectrum of cultures and conditions.

What do I think is wrong? Once again:

John 3:19-20 explains, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, neither come to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."

Referring to the above quotation you wrote:

That statement is too broad and general to mean anything.

It says simply that people don't like being told that their wicked behaviour is wicked. They resent God judging them, holding them up to the light of His holy scrutiny. People prefer to live wickedly under the cover of darkness. So, they reject the bright, purifying light of God's holy truth. This is why, at the root of things, people "get the message wrong". :

Since I don't believe in a loving creator or at least one who involves himself in mans affairs I am perfectly content to accept the status quo as it is.

Interesting. Sad, but interesting.

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[reznwerks]

reznwerks:

Howdy! How's it goin? Well, I hope.
Just dandy.

It's seems that only where something is important is the bible in conflict with itself.

Well, seems is the right word. Seems to you. I think the Bible is a wonderfully coherent, complex, and deeply insightful text.
You are entitled to your opinion.

[quote:b62d8]I have no prejudice against it other than it has shown itself to be unreliable and contradictory.

You see, this is how you expose your prejudice. I have been reading this book for over thirty years and have never found it as you have described. Unlike you, though, I read the verses within their immediate and broader scriptural contexts. I also distinguish between figurative and literal language. And, I recognize the symbolic nature of many of God's acts. Makes a BIG difference to the message you get.
That is not prejudice that is observation and testing what is written. Look at what you have to do for it to make sense. In short you have to read between the lines and assume you are correct and you readily admit to having to read both figurativly and literal language. You also readily include symbolic language to make seem reasonable. Do you think even the most scholarly of that time had these skills?

When something is supposed to impart a message that is consistant with everyones understanding and it can't do that then it is not the recievers problem but the sender and in this case it is the bible.

Well, there's your problem right there! God didn't write the Bible to be "consistent with everyone's understanding". He expects us to align ourselves with His perspective, not the other way 'round.
Did God tell you this? God wants to have a relationship with us or at least that is what is assumed. I would think a perfect loving God would want to reach everyone.

God's message is morally absolute, centered around Him, and exclusivistic. He condemns in His Word modern-day moral relativism and post-modern "truth". He denies the "all streams lead to the ocean" philosophy, declaring instead that no man comes to Him except through a saving faith in Christ.
Here you go again assuming you know what God thinks. Did God talk to you? Here we also see the importance of having faith without evidence. Gullibility can hardly be shown to be a virtue.

He warns of an eternity and judgment. This is not the kind of stuff that goes down well in our modern North American culture. People read of these things and refuse them because they are inconsistent with their philosophical and moral understanding. But that is a problem with the receivers of the message, not the message itself. The message is clear; people just don't like it.
It's not that they just don't like it they don't believe it either.

The fact there is so many denominations means that can't agree on enough to join together.

Wrong. I have lived in the evangelical Christian community all my life and have not seen the kind of disunity that you suggest exists in it. Baptists, Mennonites, Plymouth Brethren, Four Square, E-Free, Missionary Alliance, Pentecostals, Assembly of God, Christian Reform, and many others all believe fundamentally the same thing.
However they all say the other is wrong.

On peripheral issues there is always discussion, but concerning the core truths of the Christian faith there is a majority of the Christian community in agreement. I work for a Christian ministry that has members from at least 5 different evangelical denominations. We get along famously! No squabbling or disunity -- at all. Often the denominational distinctions in the evangelical Christian community reflect geographic and cultural heritage, not doctrinal disagreement.
Then why the separation? I think you need to look deeper.

You say the bible is much more complex that reading it literally but its the literalists that have to make it much more complex because if you read what it says it makes no sense. So the only way it makes sense it to impart your own imagination to come to terms with what is said.

These remarks suggest strongly that you know very little about biblical literary criticism. "Imagination" has little to do with understanding scripture.
When you have to read a book and as you say impart symbolisme and not read literally what is there it is imagination at work. There is no denying it.

Basic literary criticism, expert understanding of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, and a thorough knowledge of the anthropology of ancient Middle Eastern cultures -- these are the disciplines that scholars have brought to the study of the scriptures for centuries. Their careful work has removed the need for "imagination" when interpreting the scriptures.
I don't have a problem with interpreting the text. It's the text that plainly disagrees with what is taught that I have a problem with. Example : use the four gospels and tell me what happened at the crucifixion. Ask yourself can I go to court with this evidence.

More than this, though, is the enlightening work of God's Spirit upon the mind and heart of one who is His child. Over time, He brings each of His children into a full understanding of the truth. And until He does, the scriptures remain a mystery -- even with a mountain of scripture commentaries at hand.
God has never been proven to exist and as far as claiming Gods spirit acting on individuals that is even harder to prove. There are about a dozen possible causes for claims such as this including self delusion, self hypnosis, wishful thinking, wanting acceptance and just plain out delusion.

Do you really think those people who were just copying these things down went to Harvard and studied all the possible ways of using the language of the time in ways that only well versed scholars would understand? I think not.

Do you know how many extant ancient manuscripts there are by which to examine and judge our modern translation? Thousands! Literary scholars hold the modern-day translations of the Odyssey and Iliad as highly accurate, but with only a handful of ancient copies by which to judge. No, the Bible is well-established in its accuracy.
I don't have a problem with the translations. I looking at what is there right now. It is contradictory and full of errors and claims that have no outside verification or evidence.

The geological strata does not show evidence of a flood plain and simple. Its not a matter of believing or not believing.

Actually, belief is at the heart of the matter!
Belief does not make something true.

Atheists and Creationists use the same facts to support different conclusions.
Sorry but they don't.

Their interpretation of the facts reveals their underlying beliefs. Evolutionist believe the facts deny a world-wide flood; Creationists believe the facts support a world-wide flood.
Those that deny a world wide flood understand the physical evidence that would be left if a world wide flood happened. There is not any physical evidence for such an event. Why would God choose to hide the evidence? Creationists despite not having any evidence that such an event happened continue to believe in spite of it. These are hardly similar approaches to the discussion.

What they believe makes all the difference to their conclusions about the facts.
No , non believers accept the evidence and no longer believe the flood story and believers don't accept the lack of evidence and continue to believe in the improbable.

You can't prove a God exists let alone make the claim that God created it. First things first.

Hey, man, you made the comparison between human scientists and God, not me. I just pointed out the flaw in doing so. Your response just seems like an attempt to deflect my point.
Sorry but no I didn't .

"in those places" So you admit you pick and choose what you want to accept. I don't think I need to comment further.

Uh huh. :roll: Look, I accept the whole Bible. But I take the literal parts literally and the non-literal parts non-literally. I don't "pick and choose" what I want. :roll:
Then what was that you just wrote. ROFL

It's too bad you don't hold yourself to this standard, as well.

How so?

Pale Rider and I have answered this already in earlier posts. Y'know, where we show how your version of what a verse is saying is not actually what it is saying. :
Apparantly it didn't make sense to me.

What would God have to do to us to accomplish this?

I don't know I am not God. If God is all powerfull , all knowing, then he would know how to get it done.

I think it is ironic and inconsistent how on the one hand you say, "God should do better" and on the other hand admit, "I've no idea exactly how."
I don't think it is inconsitant. If I take my car to a mechanic and he doesn't fix it properly should I be able to go back and explain the procedure for how to fix my car. The answer is no. I expect the mechanic to be able to fix my car. If God is all powerful and all knowing then I would expect him to be able to solve the shortcomings. I should'nt be expected to insruct God then I would be more powerful than him.

In the former instance, you presume to know enough to criticize how He operates, but in the latter, demonstrate a clear lack of knowledge concerning how He operates.
I don't believe he exists so I don't believe he does anything. I am only using the claims of believers that impart all these power to this dieity.

This is like me going to a construction site where a skyscraper is being built and telling the head engineer that he's doing things all wrong. I don't have clue how to build a skyscraper, but I don't like the noise, and the dirt, and the sparks from the welder's torch. The crane swinging girders about seems really dangerous to me, too. Of course, in response to my stupidity the head engineer will do (at least) one of two things: he'll either curse me out and tell me to get lost (if he's nice), or he'll ask me if I've got a better idea (if he wants me to see how stupid my behaviour is before he tells me to get lost).
First of all you don't belong on a construction site unless you have a reason to be there. Secondly any head engineer that would give you the time of day shouldn't be there either. Thirdly any engineer that would seriously ask you if you had a better idea should find another job.

Not really knowing anything about what is required to build a skyscraper, any suggestion I give can only come from and demonstrate my ignorance.
Exactly so why do you think I should know how to instruct God on how to solve his problems? I already admitted I didn't know how to help him. God is all powerfull and knowing so there is no limit to what he can do at least that is what is told. Now either the impression of God is wrong or he has some shortcomings on his resume.

I might persist in my stupidity and make a few suggestions, but only the engineer with his superior knowledge of skyscraper building will understand how completely stupid my suggestions are. Ironically, I might go away thinking, "What a smart fellow I am to have given these good ideas to help the head engineer"! Yeah, right. :o :roll: :-D
However if you noticed that the building is going up crooked or lacks floors would you be wrong to critisize? No. It's the same with God.
God sends out messages that are not understood by all with the same meaning even though they see the same words. It shouldn't be that hard to accomplish for a being that knows everything.

Obviously the receivers are not rejecting the message but the receivers are all getting a differenet message and that is evidence by the many many denominations.

See earlier comments above.

No the message as understood by tribespeople only understand the version they are introduced to since most cannot even read or write let alone have the "gift' of interpreting.

"Gift of interpreting"? Huh? I have heard primitive pygmies from New Guinea state the gospel just as accurately as any Christian over here could. They get the same message from the Bible we do and just as well.
What they recite is what has been told. They don't understand it because they have not had access to all of it. They want to believe in what is told. Its a great deal. Just believe and live forever.These pygmies are not much different than little children in what they accept and especially when the promises made cannot be proven to not exist.

Having a phd in Astorphyics means squat about what they believe in. Believing doesn't make it true. If Phd's can't convince the scientific community of the "truth" they believe in then what do you think might be wrong?

My point was that the message of the Bible is received the same over a broad spectrum of cultures and conditions.
Christianity and t he bible are accepted because it is taught at a very early age for most. Christian countries produce more Christians and Muslim countries produce more Muslims and Buddhist countries produce more Buddhists. Its not rocket science.

What do I think is wrong? Once again:

John 3:19-20 explains, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, neither come to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."

Referring to the above quotation you wrote:

That statement is too broad and general to mean anything.

It says simply that people don't like being told that their wicked behaviour is wicked. They resent God judging them, holding them up to the light of His holy scrutiny. People prefer to live wickedly under the cover of darkness. So, they reject the bright, purifying light of God's holy truth. This is why, at the root of things, people "get the message wrong". :
Your statement is false. There have been many societies that got along very well without God and the bible. God doesn't come to court to impart justice nor does he come to court to correct the errors. Society does all this and if you want a moral society impart those practices and levy punishement to enforce them. You don't need a God to do the right thing. The Ten commandments were nothing new as Hammurbis Code was already in existance at the time and being practiced and addresses jsut about any social ill imagined.

Since I don't believe in a loving creator or at least one who involves himself in mans affairs I am perfectly content to accept the status quo as it is.

Interesting. Sad, but interesting.

In Christ, Aiki.[/quote:b62d8]

 

[aiki]

reznwerks:

Howdy!

You wrote:

In short you have to read between the lines...

Actually, better, read within context. Then reading between the lines isn't necessary.

...and assume you are correct...

NO assumptions necessary. Scripture is not as "pliable" as you like to suggest it is. There are a host of scholarly Bible commentaries, language dictionaries, and interlinear versions of the scriptures by which to ascertain the best possible reading of any particular verse. Godly, erudite men have spent their lives pondering, researching, and analyzing the scriptures. Their work has left us with a very clear, reliable picture of the meaning and message of the Bible and relieved me of the need to work from assumptions when defining the meaning of the scriptures.

...and you readily admit to having to read both figurativly and literal language. You also readily include symbolic language to make seem reasonable. Do you think even the most scholarly of that time had these skills?

Are you saying that figurative and symbolic language was unknown in the time the OT was written? I hope not. That would just be silly.

Well, there's your problem right there! God didn't write the Bible to be "consistent with everyone's understanding". He expects us to align ourselves with His perspective, not the other way 'round.

Did God tell you this? God wants to have a relationship with us or at least that is what is assumed. I would think a perfect loving God would want to reach everyone.

Yup, God told me this. YOu can read for yourself where He has said so in the Bible. Check out Isaiah 55:8, 9 and 1 Corinthians 1:18-21, 25, 27, 28

God does want to reach everyone. He has written the Bible and given it to humanity in order to accomplish this. But, people don't like the message in it. So, they say things like, "The Bible's confusing!" or, "The Bible's contradictory!" or, "There is no God!" and then reject the message.

God's message is morally absolute, centered around Him, and exclusivistic. He condemns in His Word modern-day moral relativism and post-modern "truth". He denies the "all streams lead to the ocean" philosophy, declaring instead that no man comes to Him except through a saving faith in Christ.

Here you go again assuming you know what God thinks. Did God talk to you? Here we also see the importance of having faith without evidence. Gullibility can hardly be shown to be a virtue.

Yup, God talked to me -- in His Word. All of the things I say above are found in the Bible. And it is because of the evidence of His Word that I have faith in Him. No gullibility required.

But that is a problem with the receivers of the message, not the message itself. The message is clear; people just don't like it.

It's not that they just don't like it they don't believe it either.

Well, it appears to me that dislike engenders disbelief.

Wrong. I have lived in the evangelical Christian community all my life and have not seen the kind of disunity that you suggest exists in it. Baptists, Mennonites, Plymouth Brethren, Four Square, E-Free, Missionary Alliance, Pentecostals, Assembly of God, Christian Reform, and many others all believe fundamentally the same thing.

However they all say the other is wrong.

No, not really. You really have no experience of what you're suggesting, do you?

On peripheral issues there is always discussion, but concerning the core truths of the Christian faith there is a majority of the Christian community in agreement. I work for a Christian ministry that has members from at least 5 different evangelical denominations. We get along famously! No squabbling or disunity -- at all. Often the denominational distinctions in the evangelical Christian community reflect geographic and cultural heritage, not doctrinal disagreement.

Then why the separation? I think you need to look deeper.

What kind of separation are you talking about?

I think that since I have lived in the evangelical Christian for a very long time, I have a better idea of what's going on in it than you. Given that this is so, I think, of the two of us, you are the one who needs to "look deeper".

These remarks suggest strongly that you know very little about biblical literary criticism. "Imagination" has little to do with understanding scripture.

When you have to read a book and as you say impart symbolisme and not read literally what is there it is imagination at work. There is no denying it.

The symbolism I spoke of earlier is not unique to my understanding. When I speak of such symbolism in scripture I am echoing the teaching of most evangelical Christian teachers and Bible scholars of the past several centuries.

It's the text that plainly disagrees with what is taught that I have a problem with. Example : use the four gospels and tell me what happened at the crucifixion. Ask yourself can I go to court with this evidence.

So, what exactly is your problem with the gospel accounts of the crucifixion?

God has never been proven to exist and as far as claiming Gods spirit acting on individuals that is even harder to prove. There are about a dozen possible causes for claims such as this including self delusion, self hypnosis, wishful thinking, wanting acceptance and just plain out delusion.

Yeah, well, I guess you have to see it to beleive it. I have seen God "acting on individuals". NOt in some frothing-at-the mouth ecstatic experience, but in more subtle, profound, fundamental, and lasting changes in people's attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviour. I have witnessed first-hand God acting on drug addicts, sex addicts, the chronically depressed, the bitter and selfish, and hardened criminals. I have seen them, under His power, become peaceful, stable, joyful, humble, selfless people. Not with medication, or therapy, or some material incentive. These things had failed to produce any useful, lasting, positive change for these folk. But, as these folk yielded to God's will and way in their lives, and as they trusted Him completely to change them, He did. I have witnessed it with my own eyes.

Those that deny a world wide flood understand the physical evidence that would be left if a world wide flood happened. There is not any physical evidence for such an event. Why would God choose to hide the evidence? Creationists despite not having any evidence that such an event happened continue to believe in spite of it. These are hardly similar approaches to the discussion.

The AIG site and many others like it completely disagree with you -- and provide evidence upon which to do so.

Hey, man, you made the comparison between human scientists and God, not me. I just pointed out the flaw in doing so. Your response just seems like an attempt to deflect my point.

Sorry but no I didn't .

Oh? Well, then, allow me to quote you:

...I just pointed out other societies had their own remarkable discoveries without God which proves that man can be just as powerful as God when it comes to science.

(italics mine)

If it looks like a comparison and sounds like a comparison...

Uh huh. Look, I accept the whole Bible. But I take the literal parts literally and the non-literal parts non-literally. I don't "pick and choose" what I want.

Then what was that you just wrote. ROFL

Sorry, you lost me...

I don't think it is inconsitant. If I take my car to a mechanic and he doesn't fix it properly should I be able to go back and explain the procedure for how to fix my car. The answer is no. I expect the mechanic to be able to fix my car. If God is all powerful and all knowing then I would expect him to be able to solve the shortcomings. I should'nt be expected to insruct God then I would be more powerful than him.

No analogy is perfect -- including this one.

First of all, a car is not something a mechanic created out of nothing as God has our Universe. It is, obviously, not nearly as complex or massive as the Universe, either. Nor is a mechanic "all knowing and all powerful" as you (hypothetically) describe God to be. A mechanic is your equal: given enough time and effort your understanding of cars and their repair could be as great as his. Not so with God. He is infinitely greater than you; you are infinitely inferior to Him. This will never change.

First of all you don't belong on a construction site unless you have a reason to be there. Secondly any head engineer that would give you the time of day shouldn't be there either. Thirdly any engineer that would seriously ask you if you had a better idea should find another job.

This is all rather beside the point of my analogy.

Exactly so why do you think I should know how to instruct God on how to solve his problems? I already admitted I didn't know how to help him. God is all powerfull and knowing so there is no limit to what he can do at least that is what is told. Now either the impression of God is wrong or he has some shortcomings on his resume.

But in suggesting a problem with God's doings you often imply a solution. for instance, you said, "If the bible was written or caused to be written by a creator he would have caused it to be written without errors or contradictions. It would be written so all would understand it to mean the same thing. Surly if an all powerful creator originated the universe this would have been the simplest of chores." See what I mean? This quotation is full of both criticism of God and advice to Him. You actually are, to use your analogy, trying to tell the Mechanic how to fix your "car".

However if you noticed that the building is going up crooked or lacks floors would you be wrong to critisize? No. It's the same with God.
God sends out messages that are not understood by all with the same meaning even though they see the same words. It shouldn't be that hard to accomplish for a being that knows everything.

Not being a skyscraper engineer how would I know that I am interpreting an observed lack of floors or crooked lines to the building correctly? I don't have enough information to be able to say confidently or knowledgeably that there is a problem. The lack of floors could be the result of a different order of construction than I'm familiar with. The crooked lines to the skyscraper may be an aesthetic thing, an artistic statement, on the part of the architect. Not being the engineer, however, I cannot tell. Likewise, The Divine Engineer is working on a scale and with a degree of complexity that is so far outside my understanding (and yours) that we can't possibly begin to criticize His work with any degree of intelligence or authority.

Christianity and t he bible are accepted because it is taught at a very early age for most.

Nope. Not true. At least half the people in my church came to a saving faith in Christ as adults. Most of my Christian friends I led to the Lord as adults. What's more, there are thousands of converts to evangelical Christianity in Muslim and Buddhist countries every year. These folk weren't indoctrinated as little children into the Christian faith. Not at all.

Your statement is false. There have been many societies that got along very well without God and the bible.

My comments on the verse from John 3 didn't say otherwise. The rest of your comments immediately following the above one are merely opinion and don't really warrant a response from me.

Oookay. Done.

Take it easy!

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[philbo]

Does anyone else notice that when Christianity and science agree, Christians tend to say something along the lines of "see, we've been right all along." But when Christianity and science are at odds with each other, Christians tend to insist that something is wrong with science.

 

[bibleberean]

True science and Christianity are perfectly compatible.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

It is the religion of atheism which is the enemy of truth and science.

It is the religion of fools...

Psalms 53:1 To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

 

[scitso]

True science and Christianity are perfectly compatible.

What is true science? Only the science that agrees with the bible? Many call that pseudo-science. The problem is that christian "scientists" start with a conclusion and work backwards, and then are amazed when they prove their conclusion right, like they weren't bias in their researcha and experimentation.
True science has no agenda, it is simply out to discover the undescovered in the universe. If it proves/disproves the bible, so be it.

 

[Asimov]

True science and Christianity are perfectly compatible.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

That word "science" is more correctly is translated as knowledge.

It is the religion of atheism which is the enemy of truth and science.

It is the religion of fools...

So prove it. I'm all ears. Oh, but wait. First you have to prove that atheism is in fact a religion, then you have to prove that it is foolish. Oh, and using your religious doctrine as evidence isn't proving it.