• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you believe God’s word or man’s?

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
ZZzzzzzzzzzz
You just proved my point about your lack of maturity, and faith. You are irrelevant to any intelligent discussion. Your snipes and comments are worth nothing to anyone but yourself and your ego. So you consider your behavior to be an example of being a Christian? I'm curious.
 
Last edited:

Grumpuss

Active Member
Where did I say god wrote the bible?

It says in the other post that god blowed his spirit of inspiration onto the people who wrote the bible.

It's written by men inspired by god. Where did you get that from?



If you want to know about the creator, read the old testament
If you want to know about christ, read the new testament.

If you want to talk to the creator, go through Christ only.

How? Talk to christ himself not to the bible.

How is that wrong?

How is christ the bible?
Where is it prescribed that to be a Christian, one has to be a Biblical literalist and insert a step in the belief hierarchy?

I don't believe that, Mr. Firth doesn't seem to believe it, and the only Christians you can find that subscribe to it are the ones you have created out of whole cloth.
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
There is no such thing as God's word, all words come from humans. If you are looking for humans who have spoken messages from God read Old Testament prophets.
Then, the problem becomes which religious version do you trust. A real thorny issue, who speaks for God?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Really. How dare I question the great and all-knowing atheist Ph.D.'s? I must be an idiot not to believe these great men who change their theories and ideas around all the time.
It always amazes me when people try yo imply that a willingness to correct one's opinions in the face of new evidence as some sort of character flaw.
 

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
No, the modern science that does not teach the universe came from "nothing". I don't believe there is a modern scientist that teaches this? Do you know of one? Can you cite them?

Did you read my statement?

“It depends on your definition of "modern science" as it relates to the creation of the universe in the beginning. If that includes the universe being created from nothing and that "modern science" cannot answer where space, matter, energy and time came from, "in the beginning" then the answer is yes.”


Did you notice, creation of the universe in the beginning”? What do you infer from that phrase?

Also note the phrase, “If that includes the universe being created from nothing”

Answers to your questions – no, no.

I'm talking about the modern science that shows the universe is 14.5 billion years old, and does not engage in posturing speculations of what came before the big bang as science. That's the job of theologians and philosophers.

OK, since from my response, and the subject of the OP, your response has no relevancy, does it? Are you trying to divert to after the BB from, “in the beginning”? It seems that way to me.


Ted Evans said:

Can you tell me, using modern science, where space, matter, energy and time came from and from what?

Nope. Because that's not what science investigates. It only deals with what it can observe and measure.

Then when I have made it perfectly clear that the subject is creation of the universe in the beginning, why did you respond with assertions that have no relevancy to the subject? Is it a diversion attempt because you have no answers for the subject matter? It seems to me that you want to change from why those who say they are Christians, place more faith in man's word than they do God's and you have validated that be admitting that man, (science), has no answers for in the beginning, where did space, matter, energy and time came from but Scripture does, by the only One there.


Ted Evans said:

In case you overlook the intent, this has nothing to do with explaining the process after the BB, it is about "in the beginning", before the BB and I would like to see empirical evidence for your answers.

There is none. That of course does not mean YOUR interpretation of Genesis is the answer to this grand mystery. BTW, I do believe God is the source of all that is. I just don't buy your reading of Genesis as science. Honestly, you shouldn't either.


OK, my interpretation of Genesis 1:1-5 is, God claims He created the heavens and the earth, He said let there be light and there was and He separated the light from darkness. He called the light day and the darkness night and then He stated there was evening and morning, making one day.

That is my interpretation, can you give me yours? I have quoted the verses for your convenience.


1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

3. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

4. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

5. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

BTW, I would like to see some evidence, from scripture, that supports your interpretation, can you do that?
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
It always amazes me when people try yo imply that a willingness to correct one's opinions in the face of new evidence as some sort of character flaw.

That's not the problem. The problem is believing that these theorists know enough about everything to know exactly what their talking about in the first place.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
You just proved my point about your lack of maturity, and faith. You are irrelevant to any intelligent discussion. Your snipes and comments are worth nothing to anyone but yourself and your ego. So you consider your behavior to be an example of being a Christian? I'm curious.
lease identify my "snipes and comments" I have made NO comments relating to anyone's Christian faith.
Jesus was a Jew talking and preaching almost exclusively to other Jews. So of course he used Judaic religious references with them. But he was not talking to us, non-Jews, two thousand years in his future. He was not suggesting that we become Jews, or that we follow ancient Judaic religious ideology and traditions. And I can think of no logical reason to do so, except the false presumption of "divine authority" that modern Christians love to don and use against everyone else.

And Paul is an early religionist. His ideas are biased by his own religious perspective. Paul never met Jesus, never heard Jesus speak, and had no more idea what Jesus was thinking than you or I. And I'm not interested in Paul's religious pronouncements, or in anyone else's. I don't need other people's religion in my life.
Of course Paul met Jesus, right on the Damascus road, accept or deny, your right. The other Apostles considered Paul an Apostle, i.e., he met Christ, and was given divine authority to speak for him. Believe as you choose, it has utterly no influence with me, or other Christians who believe as I do.
 

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
Ted Evans said:

It matters because God claims that He created the universe in six days so either He did or He lied.


No, God did not claim this. The author(s) of Genesis wove this into their story about how they saw the role of God and the existence of the natural world came to be, in their imagination. It's a wonderful story! Full of truths and meaning! But not full of scientific facts about how the world actually came to be formed. It's metaphor.

What??? Are you saying that God did not inspire what was written in His word, is that what you are saying? Your other comments are nothing more than pure speculation with no evidence whatsoever of what you claim. Where, in scripture, is there any alluding to “scientific fact”? 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? 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?

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?

Windwalker said:

It's still a metaphor.


tevans9129;n45092 said:
Ted Evans said:

Says who and on what grounds?


Lot's of Christians, including some of the early church fathers from the 2nd century!

OK, can you quote those ECFs using metaphors for Genesis, I have never seen that?

Aside from that, read some comparative origin myths of other religions, and read the scholars that look at these.

Is this about other religions; or is it about the Christian scriptures.

If you insist in mashing the words into a literal interpretation you have to do unpalatable mental gymnastics to make it fit.

Can you provide some example of that, using Genesis 1 & 2?

If God wrote this himself, he didn't have a great deal of insight into the future where critical analysis would see obvious flaws and inconsistencies.

Really?? I wonder if God had you in mind when He had this written in His word.

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding,” (Job 38:4, NASB95)

Ted Evans said:

Remember, this is about Christians who profess to believe the Judeo-Christian scriptures, it has nothing to do with "modern science"

What does "believe in the scriptures" actually mean to you? You mean believing they were dictated by God and are a substitute for modern scholarship and science?

I am a Bible believing Christian, I believe Gen 1:1 through Rev 22:21 is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God and is to be interpreted just as it is written, when it makes perfectly good sense as it is. The only people that want to make everything a metaphor, an idiom or symbolism are those that are trying to prove their unprovable doctrines.

Well, I do not believe that modern doctrine of biblical infallibility. I do not believe the Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy, whatsoever.

Understood, so why even bother with God’s written word, you have your own bible and your own religion?

Nor do I, or any other Christian need to in order to say they find truth and value in scripture.

Ted Evans said:

“God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” (Genesis 1:5, NASB95)

What words in that verse are metaphors, what is their meaning and what do you base your answers on?


The whole thing. The whole chapter is. [/QUOTE]

Good enough WW, any discussion of scripture between you and I is not possible. If we can arbitrarily dismiss anything that we think is wrong then we get nowhere. You delete what you do not like and I will do the same and then there is nothing left of the Christian Bible. I will leave you with a few quotes, no doubt you will make them a metaphor for something.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;” (2 Timothy 3:16, NASB95)

For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” (Romans 15:4, NASB95)

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18–19, NASB95)

Good luck with your religion WW, hope modern science can explain to you how to spend eternity in heaven. Obviously, God cannot.

The Sadducees and Pharisees had the most reverent religion on earth but it did not seem to impress Jesus.
 

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
It's not a binary situation.
In addition to your suggestions...
Someone other than God lied.
Someone other than God was mistaken, but did not lie (wrote in good faith)
Someone other than God accurately recorded the literal truth
Someone other than God accurately recorded allegorical truth being interpreted literally.

OK, do you have any evidence of that which can be verified, or, are you only expressing your opinions?
 

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
Some skip the books and go to god directly,

So I have heard and my bet is, if you ask five people about a verse which they say they have gone directly to God about, you will get at least seven different answers.

OTOH, God's word was the same yesterday as it is today and will be tomorrow.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
So I have heard and my bet is, if you ask five people about a verse which they say they have gone directly to God about, you will get at least seven different answers.

OTOH, God's word was the same yesterday as it is today and will be tomorrow.

In other words, those that go directly to god don't use the bible as truth but commentary. I talked with someone in a chat room years ago who said she doesn't use the bible but just talks with christ. The chat moderator banned her.
 

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
If you want to discuss this in a respectful and logical manner using scriptures. I will be happy to oblige. If on the other hand, you just jump and try to intimidate those who do not agree with you, please do not answer. I go by the Bible.

That claim is made by numerous Christians, the problem that I have run into is that many want to make all scripture that does not fit their narrative out as a metaphor, and idiom, symbolism etc. I do not, I take it as it is literally written when it makes perfectly good sense as it is. I would be happy to discuss scripture with anyone but if every time I quote a scripture that goes against a narrative, all of sudden it is a metaphor. I am not trying to "intimidate" any one, I believe that God said what He meant and He means what He said and I do my best to defend His word, as it is written.

How often do we hear about how many different Christian denominations there is and use that for rebuttals? How many would there be if everyone took the scriptures as they literally read. Yes, there are hundreds of metaphors, idioms, and symbolism used in scripture, many of which are explained by Scripture itself and those that are not are more than likely due to our misunderstanding, IMO.

So it is up to you, I am all for a serious discussion but I have had enough of, "God didn't say that man did, that is not what God meant, that is only what you say He meant". If you notice, I very seldom quote commentary from others as there is always another commentator with a conflicting view. If it cannot be proven with scripture, as it is written, then IMO, that is all that it is, an opinion.
 

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
In other words, those that go directly to god don't use the bible as truth but commentary.

Then they do not believe the Scriptures are what they claim to be and there are many of them. I happen to believe God's word.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;” (2 Timothy 3:16, NASB95)

Reading some of the comments in this group, I get the impression that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are not to be trusted, they are basically nothing but a fairy tale. I expect that from those who do not claim to be Christians, but I do not understand it coming from those who say they are Christians.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Then they do not believe the Scriptures are what they claim to be and there are many of them. I happen to believe God's word.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;” (2 Timothy 3:16, NASB95)

Reading some of the comments in this group, I get the impression that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are not to be trusted, they are basically nothing but a fairy tale. I expect that from those who do not claim to be Christians, but I do not understand it coming from those who say they are Christians.

They are following the ways of the OT before they had Hebrew Scriptures to fall back on. They don't "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39)

It's saying you guys are choosing words over the Word.

Bible over Christ. If you had your bible and christ stood in front of you, would you open your bible or go to him instead?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Did you read my statement?

“It depends on your definition of "modern science" as it relates to the creation of the universe in the beginning. If that includes the universe being created from nothing and that "modern science" cannot answer where space, matter, energy and time came from, "in the beginning" then the answer is yes.”


Did you notice, creation of the universe in the beginning”? What do you infer from that phrase?
My, such self restraint with all the bold and colored fonts! I do commend you on resisting all-caps, however. ;) Anyway, I actually doubt you even understand what you are saying.

Do you accept that modern science dealing with everything after the big bang has a fair handle on how things came to be? Yes, or no? If yes, than we can have a different, and far more intelligent conversation.

BTW, by modern science, I assumed you understood any of the empirical sciences following the Western Enlightenment 300 years ago. That's what I'm referring to, not the pseudosciences, such as Creationism. Just because that happened in contemporary times, it has nothing to do with what I thinking of, which is anything part of modernity, not some premodernity mixed with modern artifacts calling itself rational, when it's not yet to modernity.

OK, since from my response, and the subject of the OP, your response has no relevancy, does it? Are you trying to divert to after the BB from, “in the beginning”? It seems that way to me.
But you are the one who brought up what happens after the big bang! Your whole argument is against those who try to say one day is a literal 24 hour period! Isn't that after the BB? There were 7 of them! What am I missing here? Or maybe, what are you missing here?

Let me make this clear. You are arguing the proper interpretation of time periods after the moment of the BB, or God saying "let there be light!" That's the BB, and all the days you say are 24 hours, not epocs, not anything but your narrow, literal interpretation of the words as absolute truth from your mouth to our ears, all are about what science can, and does look at today. Again, do accept or reject what they say about these "periods" you imagine life got planted onto this planet via some supernatural magic? Please be honest.

Then when I have made it perfectly clear that the subject is creation of the universe in the beginning, why did you respond with assertions that have no relevancy to the subject?
You're shifting the targets here from what I read in the OP, trying to say that Christians shouldn't try to, in your words, "explain away" creation by trying to reinterpret day.

If I am wrong, then try being an adult and clarify rather that shouting out juvenile bold and colored fonts assuming I'm an idiot or something, acting the fool in the process. That would help a tad on the respect front.

Is it a diversion attempt because you have no answers for the subject matter?
I have tons of very well considered and formed thoughts about this subject. I'm just trying to get you to actually engage, rather than this you're offering so far.

It seems to me that you want to change from why those who say they are Christians, place more faith in man's word than they do God's and you have validated that be admitting that man, (science), has no answers for in the beginning, where did space, matter, energy and time came from but Scripture does, by the only One there.
Well, you see, this is very flawed thinking on your part. Let me explain why it is. You make this completely erroneous dichotomy that because scripture has something to say about what came before the BB, that this makes it valid over science? That's nonsense!

Now come with me where I wanted to take you here. It seems to me you are suggesting that because science doesn't know something, and the bible has something to say about this, that therefore we shouldn't listen to science, and you are justified in rejecting the theory of evolution, the age of the earth, or any of science finding that doesn't agree with your religious beliefs. Yes, or no? Be honest.

I'm going to lay this out simply and clearly for you. I believe God is the Source of all that exists, that everything came forth from God, is not separate from God, nor can be. I also believe the story in Genesis is an expression of primitive man's imagination of this Union of the material and immaterial world, framed in with a magical garden, wondrous and miraculous happenings of whales and land mammals created out of whole cloth by this 'force' or energy that pulsates in all life. It deals with man's dilemma of existential angst, of being and nonbeing, of hopes and shortcomings, of community and societies, culture, morals, and all the things early man awakening into modern times emerging out of the forest primeval, that all this is a literary expression of deep human truths, NOT literal historical or scientific facts. That is as clear as I can possibly make it.

So all this BS about science can't answer what happened before the BB, so therefore Christianity is right, is as wrongheaded in thinking as you could possibly hope for. Have you never heard of the god of the gaps fallacy? You want to lose faith in God? That's a sure recipe for it. Once science can answer that, then where do God exist for you? Your faith with die, and you will be that neo-atheist you think doesn't get it! They're just one step ahead of you, on your current path.

OK, my interpretation of Genesis 1:1-5 is, God claims He created the heavens and the earth, He said let there be light and there was and He separated the light from darkness. He called the light day and the darkness night and then He stated there was evening and morning, making one day.
That's not and interpretation! :) That's just you restating the same thing it says. Now, please, use your own thoughts like I did above telling you how I understand the Genesis story. I won't accept the above as worthy of a passing grade here.

That is my interpretation, can you give me yours? I have quoted the verses for your convenience.
I hope what I offered above just now satisfies this request? If not, please ask again and I'll try another angle.

BTW, I would like to see some evidence, from scripture, that supports your interpretation, can you do that?
I believe that combined with my understanding of mythology, spirituality, psychology, etc, I think my interpretation is certainly plausible on far more reasonable levels, than magic.

I look forward to your more elevated response than this. Please try to avoid treating me like I'm stupid. It just makes you look foolish, and I don't want to see that for you.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
They are following the ways of the OT before they had Hebrew Scriptures to fall back on. They don't "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39)

It's saying you guys are choosing words over the Word.

Bible over Christ. If you had your bible and christ stood in front of you, would you open your bible or go to him instead?

The Bible is the word of God. Christ is the word:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Really?? I wonder if God had you in mind when He had this written in His word.

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding,” (Job 38:4, NASB95)
I don't think of God in literal anthropomorphic terms, such as 'thinking', as in cognitive thoughts like you and I have. But as a great metaphor the above passage does convey meaning to me. It says to me, to paraphrase, "Don't try to think you can figure out the mind of God resting in your reasonings and theologies, let alone try to tell others that those actually reflect the eternal. Simply rest in God with your heart, not the thoughts of your own mind, which includes your simple theologies which are at best reflections of yourself". Amen.

I am a Bible believing Christian
It's interesting that you put the Bible center stage in your faith like that. Are you are Christian, or Biblian, a believer in the book? I on the other hand have faith in, and rest in the Spirit of God, not in my doctrines and dogmas and beliefs of the day. I personally find the term "Bible believing Christian" to be a statement of idolatry.

I believe Gen 1:1 through Rev 22:21 is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God and is to be interpreted just as it is written, when it makes perfectly good sense as it is.
10 people reading the same words, will have 10 interpretations of them, no two 100% identical. There is no such thing as words on a page "interpreting themselves". Go read this subject I posted on this some time ago: The Impossibility of Scriptural Authority

The only people that want to make everything a metaphor, an idiom or symbolism are those that are trying to prove their unprovable doctrines.
This is completely false. The fact that I know all ways of talking about God are metaphors, means I understand my own expressions as metaphors too! :) How can I then turn around and try to prove them factual? I'm not. I'm simply saying, your way of thinking about things are no more ultimately provable than mine.

However, I think a good metaphor does need to have some reasonable grounding in what we know of the world to be effective metaphors. My understanding of world is in fact a much larger context, taking many more things into consideration in painting the pictures on the night sky that I do (which frankly, I haven't yet actually shared with you - so how can you think I'm trying to prove doctrines, or some such thing).

Understood, so why even bother with God’s written word, you have your own bible and your own religion?
I find there are great truths in the Bible, along with a fair amount of cultural cruft. The sayings of Jesus are meaningful to me, as are many of Paul's thoughts in his better moments. Ultimately, you have to find God in yourself, and not rely 100% on the words of others. What, you want to be a perpetual student, never walking out of school and becoming an adult and contribute to the world as your own person with your own mind? Are you that afraid to think on your own?
 
Last edited:
Top