What??? Are you saying that God did not inspire what was written in His word, is that what you are saying?
We have different ideas of what being inspired by God means. I take being inspired by God to mean that your soul reaches upward from the eternal depths and speaks what your mind, heart, and body feels to express of that experience, such as the artist, the musician, the poet, or the prophet. But that does not translate into magical dications where you are simply channeling some disembodied spirit, and therefore everything you speak, or create is infallible and irrenent. No, all of those expressions are reflects of you as a fallible, finite being, inspired by the Infinite.
This notion of direct dictation equalling inspiration is a mythological device.
Your other comments are nothing more than pure speculation with no evidence whatsoever of what you claim.
This comment is exactly what you say of mine.
Again, I feel my understanding is far more plausible than the "magical" explanation you are proposing, since it holds water far better than yours does. Mine has logical consistency to it, corroborated in what you see in other mythologies and the studies of the humanities, all which constitute evidence.
Where, in scripture, is there any alluding to “scientific fact”?
There is none. Which is why you should quit trying to prove the age of the earth using the Bible!
God says it is His word or have you not read John?
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1, NASB95)
Do you notice it says, “in the beginning” was the Word and the Word was God, what does that mean to you?
Oh boy, that would take a good sized chapter of a book and then some to explain what that means to me!
Do you know what "Word" here actually means? You assume that means "Bible", or something? No, the actual word is Logos. In order to understand why John chose that word, and understood in context how he is using it, it goes vastly beyond language. It's a metaphysical statement of divine
agency. Logos is in simple terms God expressing, or manifesting.
The Bible is not a creation of God. It is a creation of man reflecting their beliefs and thoughts about God. So when you ask do you believe in God's words or mans, and then you cite the Bible as absolute truth, your answer is in actuality
man's.
For me, I believe in God's word, which is what you see expressed in all of nature. "
The heaven's declare the glory of God, the sky shows his handiwork, day unto day it utters speech, night unto night it shows knowledge, they use no speech, they speak no words, they make no sounds. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the end of the world."
So, if you want to read God's word, pick up a science book, or better still just sit silently and observe the world before you in every moment. This is God's word, not that cultural artifact you think should override reason, rather than complement your own mind.
Where in scripture does it say that God is OK with us making metaphors out of His word when it does not fit our narrative?
When you realize that that is what all theologians are doing already, it's kind of like asking where does it say explicitly in scripture that we should breathe air? It's doesn't that I'm aware of, we just all do it. Metaphors is how our minds create narratives, such as the one's you already tell yourself about what you see in the Bible. I have other narratives I tell myself. We're both doing the same thing.
Speaking of facts, I see absolutely nothing in your comment that can be proven as fact. Is there any part of Genesis that you accept just as it is written and if so, would you reference some of the passages?
What I find amusing here is how you are insistent upon evidence and proofs, but when science gives you those you toss them right out the window as irrelevant because your beliefs supersede the need for them, then hypocritically demand them of others when their views challenge yours! I do have evidence, BTW, not that that matters to you in your selective demands.
Is there any part of Genesis I accept just as written? Sure, as I understand it in the context of origin myths, I accept it just as it is written as an expression of those. The real question should be, what truth and value do I find it in. Isn't that what you want to ask me instead?
OK, can you quote those ECFs using metaphors for Genesis, I have never seen that?
Certainly....
Origen of Alexandria (185—254 C.E)
For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.
......
And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone), and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world.
Sounds to me an awful lot like what our conversation sounds like!
Let me add what should be a familiar name for you...
Augustine of Hippo, 354 - 430 CE.
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.
Well, there you go. There's at least two well known and respected early church fathers who align with my thinking, as well as a host of other modern Christian thinkers and scholars. This is good you asked to see this. I assume it will give you some food for thought?
Is this about other religions; or is it about the Christian scriptures.
Christian scriptures, and the religion as whole, cannot be understood properly ignoring its place in the greater whole of world religions. In fact, if you isolate Christianity that way, you end up with a very distorted, myopic view of it. God is a lot larger than Christianity. This I think is where you fail in this endeavor to understand the larger picture and the meanings to derive from that larger picture. I'm happy to be your guide here, should you wish to expand the depth of your understanding.
Can you provide some example of that, using Genesis 1 & 2?
Just reference that quote from Origen above, as starters.