Can the Bible be understood apart from interpretation?

[francisdesales]

'
Why don't you think that it is literal? There is nothing in the context to lead one to beleive that it is anything other than literal. It only sounds bad to you, so you interpret it to mean something other than literal.

JamesG

some do that with genesis.

I think people have a solid case to support a more spritual reading of Genesis 1-3, based upon what human observation has told us. Not that the literal CANNOT be POSSIBLY true, but that with what we now know, it seems the earth is billions of years old - and the spiritual sense does not destroy the overall intent of the message given. Whether God created in six literal days or over a billion years makes no difference in the bigger scheme of the overall message that GOD created an orderly and good creation.

Regards

 

[elijah23]

'
Why don't you think that it is literal? There is nothing in the context to lead one to beleive that it is anything other than literal. It only sounds bad to you, so you interpret it to mean something other than literal.

JamesG

Jesus said we have all sinned. Therefore, we should all be running around without arms and legs, according to you, right?

 

[jasoncran]

'
Why don't you think that it is literal? There is nothing in the context to lead one to beleive that it is anything other than literal. It only sounds bad to you, so you interpret it to mean something other than literal.

JamesG

some do that with genesis.

I think people have a solid case to support a more spritual reading of Genesis 1-3, based upon what human observation has told us. Not that the literal CANNOT be POSSIBLY true, but that with what we now know, it seems the earth is billions of years old - and the spiritual sense does not destroy the overall intent of the message given. Whether God created in six literal days or over a billion years makes no difference in the bigger scheme of the overall message that GOD created an orderly and good creation.

Regards

you missed the toe reference. is that an orderly and good thing? toe? from a theological point.

hard to equate with the vs that says adam was created first then eve when the toe may say both exist at the time. it also hard to say that of a sudden men just became intellgent upon the next speciation. poor erectus, back luck bit him. :crazy

i'm not that dogmatic on an old earth though i lean to the yec side on the age.

 

[francisdesales]

I think people have a solid case to support a more spritual reading of Genesis 1-3, based upon what human observation has told us. Not that the literal CANNOT be POSSIBLY true, but that with what we now know, it seems the earth is billions of years old - and the spiritual sense does not destroy the overall intent of the message given. Whether God created in six literal days or over a billion years makes no difference in the bigger scheme of the overall message that GOD created an orderly and good creation.

Regards

you missed the toe reference. is that an orderly and good thing? toe? from a theological point.

hard to equate with the vs that says adam was created first then eve when the toe may say both exist at the time. it also hard to say that of a sudden men just became intellgent upon the next speciation. poor erectus, back luck bit him. :crazy

i'm not that dogmatic on an old earth though i lean to the yec side on the age.

If you place God, rather than "random mutations for the good", as the cause or driving force behind TOE, it appears creation came to be, theologically and scientifically.

As to Adam and Eve, I don't see why it would not be feasible for God to take a particular species and infuse a soul into one of them, calling this soul and body creation "Adam", Hebrew for man. I do not think the writer of Genesis was attempting to scientifically explain HOW God did it, but rather, that God is the explanation for our current existence...

Just my comments, I don't want to turn this into another creationism vs TOE thread. To be honest, we have to take into account that the earth is indeed older than 6000 years (which the Bible never contradicts, quite frankly).

Regards

 

[Ahuli]

'
Why don't you think that it is literal? There is nothing in the context to lead one to beleive that it is anything other than literal. It only sounds bad to you, so you interpret it to mean something other than literal.

JamesG

some do that with genesis.

I think people have a solid case to support a more spritual reading of Genesis 1-3, based upon what human observation has told us. Not that the literal CANNOT be POSSIBLY true, but that with what we now know, it seems the earth is billions of years old - and the spiritual sense does not destroy the overall intent of the message given. Whether God created in six literal days or over a billion years makes no difference in the bigger scheme of the overall message that GOD created an orderly and good creation.

Regards

Have you ever read the creation story? When you do, please note that it says "In the beginning, God created......"! However, it does NOT say who's beginning. Since God is without time, then it is only reasonable to reflect that His creation is also without time.

Then it gives you another clue ....

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

When He first created it, it was without form and empty and dark. Nowhere does it say how long this lasted.

3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

This is the last clue ... after all that, He turned on the light. Can we with certainty say when He did that or are we still bogged down with guesswork? ( Be honest here!)

And that's when things start to happen.

The earth was given to us so we should "discover" its mysteries. We have mostly destroyed it.

“Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth†(Gen. 1:28).

I keep being told here that God can do anything He wants. In the case of creation, He says six days, six days it is.

 

[chestertonrules]

I keep being told here that God can do anything He wants. In the case of creation, He says six days, six days it is.

Time is irrelevant to God. Genesis is written to tell us that God created the earth.

The bible is given to us so that we can know how to go to heaven, not so that we know how the heavens go.

 

[francisdesales]

I keep being told here that God can do anything He wants. In the case of creation, He says six days, six days it is.

Maybe so. But frankly, it doesn't matter to me whether God created over 10 billion years of a week. Genesis is not written as a scientific tract, nor does my faith as a Christian require either one or the other.

Thus, I don't see the point in speculating over it. Visible experience tells us either God is tricking us or that God did not INTEND to write Genesis in the way that some think and some are misinterpreting it.

Regards

 

[jasoncran]

I think people have a solid case to support a more spritual reading of Genesis 1-3, based upon what human observation has told us. Not that the literal CANNOT be POSSIBLY true, but that with what we now know, it seems the earth is billions of years old - and the spiritual sense does not destroy the overall intent of the message given. Whether God created in six literal days or over a billion years makes no difference in the bigger scheme of the overall message that GOD created an orderly and good creation.

Regards

you missed the toe reference. is that an orderly and good thing? toe? from a theological point.

hard to equate with the vs that says adam was created first then eve when the toe may say both exist at the time. it also hard to say that of a sudden men just became intellgent upon the next speciation. poor erectus, back luck bit him. :crazy

i'm not that dogmatic on an old earth though i lean to the yec side on the age.

If you place God, rather than "random mutations for the good", as the cause or driving force behind TOE, it appears creation came to be, theologically and scientifically.

As to Adam and Eve, I don't see why it would not be feasible for God to take a particular species and infuse a soul into one of them, calling this soul and body creation "Adam", Hebrew for man. I do not think the writer of Genesis was attempting to scientifically explain HOW God did it, but rather, that God is the explanation for our current existence...

Just my comments, I don't want to turn this into another creationism vs TOE thread. To be honest, we have to take into account that the earth is indeed older than 6000 years (which the Bible never contradicts, quite frankly).

Regards

i wil leave with this, there is not one so called benefical muttation unless you think that the sicke cell trait is beneficial, even thouggh that is just as likely to kill you from the other diseases that has been linked to that trait!

 

[happyjoy]

i wil leave with this, there is not one so called benefical muttation unless you think that the sicke cell trait is beneficial, even thouggh that is just as likely to kill you from the other diseases that has been linked to that trait!

There has been a mutation in the human species that is very recent and beneficial. Adult lactose tolerance is a very recent mutation, and helps. As those people who can digest milk are less likely to starve to death as those who are not able to digest milk.

 

[jasoncran]

really, hmm i will look at that one then just as i did with the sickle cell trait. which is said to be benefical too, hardly what i call beneficial, when one has 5 diseases that been linked to that, and only 25% of not getting malaria.

 

[happyjoy]

really, hmm i will look at that one then just as i did with the sickle cell trait. which is said to be benefical too, hardly what i call beneficial, when one has 5 diseases that been linked to that, and only 25% of not getting malaria.

What's the down side of being able to digest milk?

 

[jasoncran]

really, hmm i will look at that one then just as i did with the sickle cell trait. which is said to be benefical too, hardly what i call beneficial, when one has 5 diseases that been linked to that, and only 25% of not getting malaria.

What's the down side of being able to digest milk?

none yet, but that may not point to evolution and i will leave it at that. i was looking already at that a few minutes ago.