Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

[Ouroboros]

When symbolism is used in Tanakh, it is used as if the events involved were real. And an example in your scriptures are the parables of Jesus, which are not ever labeled as being just symbolic or based on real events. If you know much about early church history, this was debated, and the consensus is that it really didn't make any difference one way or the other-- it's what morals and values are being taught. When reading scripture, it's always wise to keep this in mind, namely what is the author really teaching us that we can use today?

I gotta go.

Also, the modern "literalism" of interpreting the Bible is fairly new. I think it grew strong in the 19th century or so. Before that, no one seemed to have too much of a problem. Especially in the light of science showing piece after piece to be wrong in the holy books. Geology and paleontology came to a large extent from the interest of proving the Bible right... but failed proving it, and succeeded in creating new sciences.

 

[McBell]

Unfortunately, you cannot take the first half of a book, without taking into account the second half, and expect to get the full picture of what the Author (of the whole thing) is telling us. I'm referring to the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures as the first part, and the Greek Scriptures as the second part. (I figured you would get what I was referencing, but thought I'd better state it, for others reading.)

Ex.: the serpent, in Genesis 3. Without reading Revelation 12:9, one may not realize who was behind that serpent.

Now, I know Judaism only accepts the first part. But, to get clarification of many issues and statements, all of it needs to be accepted.

I gave another example earlier, showing how Hebrews 4, written by the Apostle Paul, gives a person the understanding that those creative days in Genesis were not to be taken literally, but rather were unspecified lengths of time, like with Jehovah's Rest Day continuing into Paul's lifetime.

Understanding both parts of the Bible, how they really harmonize, strengthens one's confidence (faith) in it, and the True God (Yahweh, not Jesus) behind it.

Take care, my cousin. Have a great day.

Ouch.
Far to many assumptions (assumptions that are not in evidence even) have to be made for this to work.
Then all the counting the hits, ignoring the misses...
then all the cherry picking....

 

[Hockeycowboy]

When symbolism is used in Tanakh, it is used as if the events involved were real. And an example in your scriptures are the parables of Jesus, which are not ever labeled as being just symbolic or based on real events. If you know much about early church history, this was debated, and the consensus is that it really didn't make any difference one way or the other-- it's what morals and values are being taught. When reading scripture, it's always wise to keep this in mind, namely what is the author really teaching us that we can use today?

I gotta go.

I don't agree with hardly anything the 2nd-century "early church fathers" came up with! After the death of the Apostles, Yahweh's arch enemy infiltrated Christianity with pagan doctrine almost immediately, by apostates. It was prophesied, "their word will spread like gangrene"(2 Timothy 2:17), which means fast! Not take hold a thousand years later.

What do you think? Religion is about worship of a God (or, Gods), right? So that's the major issue in any religion, who they worship, correct? Well, I'm a Christian, but unlike Christendom, I don't 'worship' Jesus; I "follow" him (1 Peter 2:21). And Jesus always directed attention to, and told people to worship, his Father (John 4:23-24; John 20:17), the God of the Jews/Israelites. So that is Who I try to worship.....Yahweh (Jehovah).

So we have something major in common! And your statement, "it's what morals and values are being taught", is so important! But what good is teaching it, if a religion's own members, especially the leaders, don't live by it?
This also is where Christendom fails. But, really, how can they expect to get God's spirit, when they're not even worshipping the right God, which is our God, your God and mine?!

Peace to you.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Also, the modern "literalism" of interpreting the Bible is fairly new. I think it grew strong in the 19th century or so. Before that, no one seemed to have too much of a problem. Especially in the light of science showing piece after piece to be wrong in the holy books. Geology and paleontology came to a large extent from the interest of proving the Bible right... but failed proving it, and succeeded in creating new sciences.

"Especially in the light of science showing piece after piece to be wrong in the holy books."

Where? Can you give me specific examples, please?

 

[Ouroboros]

"Especially in the light of science showing piece after piece to be wrong in the holy books."

Where? Can you give me specific examples, please?

For instance, one of the first things that didn't match the Biblical stories was the multiple catastrophes that could be seen in the strata. It wasn't just a flood 4,000 years ago, but many big eruptions of volcanoes, impacts from meteors, and much more, and they happened much, much longer ago than the Bible said, and there animals living at that time as well, so the story of 6,000 years old Earth with animals created at one point just didn't match that Bible story. This was one of the first discoveries. Then they found dinosaurs... and they existed during a time when humans didn't. Some of the first geologists were Christians that had to leave the literal interpretation.

 

[metis]

Also, the modern "literalism" of interpreting the Bible ss fairly new. I think it grew strong in the 19th century or so. Before that, no one seemed to have too much of a problem. Especially in the light of science showing piece after piece to be wrong in the holy books. Geology and paleontology came to a large extent from the interest of proving the Bible right... but failed proving it, and succeeded in creating new sciences.

Absolutely, and this is what so many simply do not understand. The early church never viewed the scriptures in either literalistic nor inerrant terms. Scholars like Origen and Papias, along with Aquinas later, well knew that these approaches simply are mistaken

 

[Ouroboros]

Absolutely, and this is what so many simply do not understand. The early church never viewed the scriptures in either literalistic nor inerrant terms. Scholars like Origen and Papias, along with Aquinas later, well knew that these approaches simply are mistaken

And Judaism has a long history of this. Philo of Alexandria is my favorite example. He suggested, at the time of Jesus, that the Genesis story was allegorical. He traveled to Palestine, and didn't mention Jesus at all, even though he was there during Jesus's ministries. And here's the real clincher. Philo's writings were saved through the destruction of Jerusalem, by no other than the early Christians... why were they interested in a Jewish scholar who claimed the OT stories to be allegorical and not literal? And why didn't this Philo make any mention of their Jesus, yet they saved his books? And how come Philo talked about Logos... similar to how John did? Too many questions. It must be a coincident.

 

[metis]

I don't agree with hardly anything the 2nd-century "early church fathers" came up with! After the death of the Apostles, Yahweh's arch enemy infiltrated Christianity with pagan doctrine almost immediately, by apostates. It was prophesied, "their word will spread like gangrene"(2 Timothy 2:17), which means fast! Not take hold a thousand years later.

What do you think? Religion is about worship of a God (or, Gods), right? So that's the major issue in any religion, who they worship, correct? Well, I'm a Christian, but unlike Christendom, I don't 'worship' Jesus; I "follow" him (1 Peter 2:21). And Jesus always directed attention to, and told people to worship, his Father (John 4:23-24; John 20:17), the God of the Jews/Israelites. So that is Who I try to worship.....Yahweh (Jehovah).

So we have something major in common! And your statement, "it's what morals and values are being taught", is so important! But what good is teaching it, if a religion's own members, especially the leaders, don't live by it?
This also is where Christendom fails. But, really, how can they expect to get God's spirit, when they're not even worshipping the right God, which is our God, your God and mine?!

Peace to you.

The above has nothing to do in response to what I posted, so there's no response from me that needs posting. What Christians may or may not do is for their discretion with one exception.

It is totally absurd, imo, to claim that other Christians are worshiping the wrong God simply because there are some issues of difference. That's condescending and simply arrogant because this makes you judge and jury.

One thing about religion you need to understand, and that is that beliefs in general are unfalsifiable. If I say that our universe was created by the Cosmic Godzilla, and what he spewed forth from his flaming mouth were stars, and those he spewed forth that he did not ignite were planets, prove me wrong. I guarantee you cannot do it.

The minute one confuses belief with objective facts is when one slips into delusional thinking. And, btw, read Micah 6:8 for some good advice from him on the issue of humbleness.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ouch.
Far to many assumptions (assumptions that are not in evidence even) have to be made for this to work.
Then all the counting the hits, ignoring the misses...
then all the cherry picking....

Not really. Only one assumption, that it's all from one Author, and that means harmony throughout its entirety. Examine one part in the light of another part. I can give you tons of examples!
Here's one, a seeming contradiction:
2 Peter 3:9, 'the earth destroyed by fire'
-vs-
Ecclesiastes 1:4, 'the earth will remain forever'

"Contradiction! Proof that the Bible is wrong," yell (hopeful) atheists.

Shoot, even many in Christendom teach the Earth will be destroyed by fire, getting the idea from 2 Peter 3. This view, does contradict.

So, what gives?

Notice Genesis 11:1....it says "the Earth was of one language, and one set of words." What has a language -- the planet, or PEOPLE? So, the Earth here has to be understood as referring to people --Society.

Further, consider the context of 2 Peter 3:9....if you take it literally, then the physical heavens are going to be destroyed, also. By (2 Peter 3:7-10) That's a lot of destruction! If not literal, what could these 'heavens and earth destroyed by fire' be?

Here is some more important context: Peter likens the destruction of the world of Noah's day with the destruction of "the heavens and the Earth THAT NOW EXIST." (The American Standard version says, "But the heavens THAT NOW ARE, and the Earth....; Byington's renders it, "But the PRESENT heavens and earth...") Obviously, Peter is not talking about the planet Earth, because he's saying the earth existing in Noah's day were DIFFERENT than "the heavens and earth that now are", "the present....earth." What was destroyed back then? It was the society of people that were ended, NOT the planet nor any physical heavens and earth.

(I would be glad to give an explanation as to what these symbolic heavens mean, also. If you would like.)

So, the Bible states in many places that the Earth will never be destroyed -- it is firmly established. Please read Psalm 78:69, and Psalm 104:5. Also, at Isaiah 45:18, God says the Earth is "firmly established", because He wants it inhabited, to fulfill His purpose with Adam's offspring. Revelation 11:18 promises God will destroy, not the Earth, but "those ruining the Earth." (And there are many more passages, but these should suffice.)

With all of this context, indeed, using all of the Scriptures --from Genesis to Revelation -- we can come to a reasonable understanding of what the Bible is telling us.

Have a great day!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

For instance, one of the first things that didn't match the Biblical stories was the multiple catastrophes that could be seen in the strata. It wasn't just a flood 4,000 years ago, but many big eruptions of volcanoes, impacts from meteors, and much more, and they happened much, much longer ago than the Bible said, and there animals living at that time as well, so the story of 6,000 years old Earth with animals created at one point just didn't match that Bible story. This was one of the first discoveries. Then they found dinosaurs... and they existed during a time when humans didn't. Some of the first geologists were Christians that had to leave the literal interpretation.

Greetings, Ouroboros!

You must not have been reading my posts in this thread....I've explained, a few times, that the Bible does not support a 6,000 year old Earth, only human history. YEC is not my theology.

So long.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Greetings, Ouroboros!

You must not have been reading my posts in this thread....I've explained, a few times, that the Bible does not support a 6,000 year old Earth, only human history. YEC is not my theology.

So long.

How old do you think the earth is?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How old do you think the earth is?

The Bible is silent. Billions of years, I guess.

 

[Ouroboros]

Greetings, Ouroboros!

You must not have been reading my posts in this thread....I've explained, a few times, that the Bible does not support a 6,000 year old Earth, only human history. YEC is not my theology.

So long.

Oh. Ok. That didn't register with me. I read one of your earlier posts and it gave me the wrong impression. Sorry.

Yes. Human history, society, basically started about 10,000 years ago, which fits well with the Biblical stories. I even think that the Genesis story is an allegory for how the early hunting-gathering humans transformed into the agricultural-societal humans. Our "sin" was that we wanted knowledge. The knowledge of good and evil, not the knowledge about good and evil, but the knowledge that can be used for good and evil. For instance, medicine v weapons. Food vs poison. And so on. Knowledge is power, but with great power comes great responsibility, and the danger of great evil. And that's what the story is about to me. Not that a literal Adam and Eve were created, but that Adam and Eve representing humanity in the story, going from a simple life in the jungle, to a "civilized" living in cities, where we have to struggle (sometimes maybe harder than in the jungle) to survive.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Oh. Ok. That didn't register with me. I read one of your earlier posts and it gave me the wrong impression. Sorry.

Yes. Human history, society, basically started about 10,000 years ago, which fits well with the Biblical stories. I even think that the Genesis story is an allegory for how the early hunting-gathering humans transformed into the agricultural-societal humans. Our "sin" was that we wanted knowledge. The knowledge of good and evil, not the knowledge about good and evil, but the knowledge that can be used for good and evil. For instance, medicine v weapons. Food vs poison. And so on. Knowledge is power, but with great power comes great responsibility, and the danger of great evil. And that's what the story is about to me. Not that a literal Adam and Eve were created, but that Adam and Eve representing humanity in the story, going from a simple life in the jungle, to a "civilized" living in cities, where we have to struggle (sometimes maybe harder than in the jungle) to survive.

I'm glad we can agree on a few things!

Take care.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The above has nothing to do in response to what I posted, so there's no response from me that needs posting. What Christians may or may not do is for their discretion with one exception.

It is totally absurd, imo, to claim that other Christians are worshiping the wrong God simply because there are some issues of difference. That's condescending and simply arrogant because this makes you judge and jury.

One thing about religion you need to understand, and that is that beliefs in general are unfalsifiable. If I say that our universe was created by the Cosmic Godzilla, and what he spewed forth from his flaming mouth were stars, and those he spewed forth that he did not ignite were planets, prove me wrong. I guarantee you cannot do it.

The minute one confuses belief with objective facts is when one slips into delusional thinking. And, btw, read Micah 6:8 for some good advice from him on the issue of humbleness.

I'm simply stating that I know, from the Scriptures, who I worship. How is that arrogant?
You are Jewish, right? You worship Yahweh, right? So do I.

(Do you not think He is God? I mean no disrespect.)

King David exalted Yahweh (Jehovah), spoke of Him to others, as he stated many times. I'm simply trying to do what David did!

 

[viole]

"Especially in the light of science showing piece after piece to be wrong in the holy books."

Where? Can you give me specific examples, please?

Well, humans come from a common ancestor with chimps and were roaming Europe 30,000 years ago. For instance.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

Not really. Only one assumption, that it's all from one Author, and that means harmony throughout its entirety. Examine one part in the light of another part. I can give you tons of examples!
Here's one, a seeming contradiction:
2 Peter 3:9, 'the earth destroyed by fire'
-vs-
Ecclesiastes 1:4, 'the earth will remain forever'

"Contradiction! Proof that the Bible is wrong," yell (hopeful) atheists.

Shoot, even many in Christendom teach the Earth will be destroyed by fire, getting the idea from 2 Peter 3. This view, does contradict.

So, what gives?

Notice Genesis 11:1....it says "the Earth was of one language, and one set of words." What has a language -- the planet, or PEOPLE? So, the Earth here has to be understood as referring to people --Society.

Further, consider the context of 2 Peter 3:9....if you take it literally, then the physical heavens are going to be destroyed, also. By (2 Peter 3:7-10) That's a lot of destruction! If not literal, what could these 'heavens and earth destroyed by fire' be?

Here is some more important context: Peter likens the destruction of the world of Noah's day with the destruction of "the heavens and the Earth THAT NOW EXIST." (The American Standard version says, "But the heavens THAT NOW ARE, and the Earth....; Byington's renders it, "But the PRESENT heavens and earth...") Obviously, Peter is not talking about the planet Earth, because he's saying the earth existing in Noah's day were DIFFERENT than "the heavens and earth that now are", "the present....earth." What was destroyed back then? It was the society of people that were ended, NOT the planet nor any physical heavens and earth.

(I would be glad to give an explanation as to what these symbolic heavens mean, also. If you would like.)

So, the Bible states in many places that the Earth will never be destroyed -- it is firmly established. Please read Psalm 78:69, and Psalm 104:5. Also, at Isaiah 45:18, God says the Earth is "firmly established", because He wants it inhabited, to fulfill His purpose with Adam's offspring. Revelation 11:18 promises God will destroy, not the Earth, but "those ruining the Earth." (And there are many more passages, but these should suffice.)

With all of this context, indeed, using all of the Scriptures --from Genesis to Revelation -- we can come to a reasonable understanding of what the Bible is telling us.

Have a great day!

There is no doubt in my mind you can cherry pick a ton of examples.
Especially using the count the hits, ignore the misses technique.

Oh wait......
I ALREADY said just that.

 

[leibowde84]

I did not mean to sound condescending! Grief! Isn't the Torah a big part of the Jewish religion? Or have I missed something? I mean, I said "interesting"....nothing derogatory was meant at all! Is that a sensitive subject, or something?

It just seems that you are in no position to judge anyone's Jewishness. That's all.

 

[leibowde84]

I did not mean to sound condescending! Grief! Isn't the Torah a big part of the Jewish religion? Or have I missed something? I mean, I said "interesting"....nothing derogatory was meant at all! Is that a sensitive subject, or something?

For example, I'm a Christian, but I don't buy into much of what is claimed in the Bible.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well, humans come from a common ancestor with chimps and were roaming Europe 30,000 years ago. For instance.

Ciao

- viole

This is what you've been told. It's the popular view. Have you seen the proof? No. The evidence -- which is not proof -- is interpreted to support what's popular.