Creationism, Evolution, taking the Bible literally - here are the root of these conflicts as best I can explain it

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
[relifreak]
But...but... You must only take the parts which conveniently suit my agenda literally, and literally is defined as "Interpret it like I want it to be interpreted"!
[/relifreak]
 

glen

Lifer
Apr 28, 2000
15,995
1
81
Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX
You have to realize Christianity is older than the Bible.
Explain that one again to a person that believes it is literal, hence Moses and David and etc. wrote parts of the Old Test. Certainly the Bible as a whole collection of books was assembled after Christianity was begun, but the works predated Jesus's time (Christianity)

Tons of works in fact. But it was years after Christ's death that a group of men decided which of these old text were cannon and which weren't. Now you hold that the men who cannonised it were foulable, but the work they did connonizing it is infoulable. I also listed example fo errors in the Bible. See the post I have them enumerated A, B, C, etc...


 

glen

Lifer
Apr 28, 2000
15,995
1
81
Originally posted by: Ornery
IMO, you have to take the Bible literally, or just blow off the whole thing. Who decides what's literally true, and what isn't? How can you wrap your life around one part of the Bible, and dismiss other parts as mere stories and fables? Where would you draw the line? Kind of explains why there are so many factions, eh?

You can fairly easily take the old testament as storys known to folks at the time of Christ. They are helpful in understanding the perspective of the people who heard Christ's message. it sets the tone and ideaology of the era. Because the Gospel is repeated by 4 differnt folks, and says basically the same thing, it can be taken much more seriously, unless it is a parrable by Christ, but man even a kindergardner can figure that out.
 

glen

Lifer
Apr 28, 2000
15,995
1
81
Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX
You have to realize Christianity is older than the Bible.
Explain that one again to a person that believes it is literal, hence Moses and David and etc. wrote parts of the Old Test. Certainly the Bible as a whole collection of books was assembled after Christianity was begun, but the works predated Jesus's time (Christianity)

Explain to me how you take all this to be literal and inerrant:

Examples of errors in th Bible:

A:
Mark 16: 9 - 20
The most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.
Mark ends at 16:8 Mark 16 9-20 were added later
Not inerrant

B:
1 Kings 7:26
It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.
2 Chronicles 4
It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held three thousand baths.
two thousand != three thousand?

C:
Mathew 27:9Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."
Zechariah 11:12 I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.
Jeremiah != Zechariah

D:
Mark 15:26 The written notice of the charge against him read:
THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Matthew 27:37Above his head they placed the written charge against him:
THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Luke 23:38 There was a written notice above him, which read
THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
John 19:19 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read:
JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

These give great credence to the truth of the matter, but they are certainly not inerrant - at least 3 of them contain the wrong writing.

 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
For what it's worth, here's what I believe about the Bible.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
 

glen

Lifer
Apr 28, 2000
15,995
1
81
Originally posted by: Ornery
Are you saying the flood was just 'a story'?

Not only that, I am saying God's existance and meaning in the world is not lessened whether the flood is true or not. Certainly God can do that if he so chooses. Whether he did it is not so important. It is a story widely believed all over the world, especially be people around the time of Christ. These stories are important because Christ references them, take Isaiah for example in Luke 4 :17:

The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[5]
20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

We need to know that the people hearing this were familiar with the prophecy. That effects how we understand what Christ is saying and how we understand what it ment to the people hearing it.

Getting hung up on Creation myths etc? miss the whole point.
What do I think is the point?


Q. What are we by nature?
A. We are part of God's creation, made in the image of God.

Q. What does it mean to be created in the image of God?
A. It means that we are free to make choices: to love, to create, to reason, and to live in harmony with creation and with God.

Q. Why then do we live apart from God and out of harmony with creation?
A. From the beginning, human beings have misused their freedom and made wrong choices.

Q. Why do we not use our freedom as we should?
A. Because we rebel against God, and we put ourselves in the place of God.

Q. What help is there for us?
A. Our help is in God.

Q. How did God first help us?
A. God first helped us by revealing himself and his will, through nature and history, through many seers and saints, and especially the prophets of Israel.
God the Father

Q. What do we learn about God as creator from the revelation to Israel?
A. We learn that there is one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.


Q. What does this mean?
A. This means that the universe is good, that it is the work of a single loving God who creates, sustains, and directs it.

Q. What does this mean about our place in the universe?
A. It means that the world belongs to its creator; and that we a recalled to enjoy it and to care for it in accordance with God's purposes.

Q. What does this mean about human life?
A. It means that all people are worthy of respect and honor, because all are created in the image of God, and all can respond to the love of God.

 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
If you can dismiss the first half of the Bible, and parts of the New Testament, then how do you take ANY lessons at all from it? What you hold to be true, I dismiss as a silly fable, so save your breath, pal.

Conversely, the flood has been pretty well documented, so I wouldn't write that off as 'Creation myth' either.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Ornery
If you can dismiss the first half of the Bible, and parts of the New Testament, then how do you take ANY lessons at all from it? What you hold to be true, I dismiss as a silly fable, so save your breath, pal.
Because you don't see the big picture. There is meaning in the stories. That meaning being to keep God first in heart and mind.

[Conversely, the flood has been pretty well documented, so I wouldn't write that off as 'Creation myth' either.
I never said the flood didn't occur, or more accurately, a flood. However, the flood 'story' is symbolic. In fact, the flood of the time of Noah was predated by the story of Gilgamesh. That's where the story of Noah originated, most likely.

For example, it did NOT rain for 40 days and 40 nights. All of a sudden the ancient Hebrews were expert meteorologists and accurately kept records after all of mankind was destroyed? :confused:

The number '40' is symbolic for a 'period of time'. Hence, the '40' years lost in the desert. It is not meant to be literal.
 

BigToque

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,700
0
76
Originally posted by: Ornery
If you can dismiss the first half of the Bible, and parts of the New Testament, then how do you take ANY lessons at all from it? What you hold to be true, I dismiss as a silly fable, so save your breath, pal.

Conversely, the flood has been pretty well documented, so I wouldn't write that off as 'Creation myth' either.

The point isn't to dismiss any part of it. What you have to take from everything, bible, church, traditions, etc is the underlying messages. The messages there to guide you through life and be the best person you can be. The whole point to everything goes out the window when you start analyzing everything line by line. You will come up with one interpretation and someone will come up with something else and because of that, there is all this division.
 

glen

Lifer
Apr 28, 2000
15,995
1
81
Originally posted by: Ornery
If you can dismiss the first half of the Bible, and parts of the New Testament, then how do you take ANY lessons at all from it? What you hold to be true, I dismiss as a silly fable, so save your breath, pal.

Conversely, the flood has been pretty well documented, so I wouldn't write that off as 'Creation myth' either.

The essence of Christianity is the shift of God for the Jews to the God for all people, the death and resurection of Christ, and forgiveness of sins for all who accept it.

I am not arguing that this is true or not true, but it certainly is the essance of the belief.

You can get hung up on boats, floods, cubits, 7 days of creation, etc... but dang you are missing the point. heck, do you wear leather and Linen on the same day?

What about Leviticus 15.. more power to you if you follow this:
1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any man has a bodily discharge, the discharge is unclean. 3 Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean. This is how his discharge will bring about uncleanness:
4 " 'Any bed the man with a discharge lies on will be unclean, and anything he sits on will be unclean. 5 Anyone who touches his bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 6 Whoever sits on anything that the man with a discharge sat on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.
7 " 'Whoever touches the man who has a discharge must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.
8 " 'If the man with the discharge spits on someone who is clean, that person must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.
9 " 'Everything the man sits on when riding will be unclean, 10 and whoever touches any of the things that were under him will be unclean till evening; whoever picks up those things must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.
11 " 'Anyone the man with a discharge touches without rinsing his hands with water must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.
12 " 'A clay pot that the man touches must be broken, and any wooden article is to be rinsed with water.
13 " 'When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off seven days for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. 14 On the eighth day he must take two doves or two young pigeons and come before the LORD to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and give them to the priest. 15 The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement before the LORD for the man because of his discharge.
16 " 'When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 17 Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. 18 When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
20 " 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.
24 " 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.
25 " 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.
28 " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.
31 " 'You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, [1] which is among them.' "
32 These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, 33 for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who lies with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.

 

glen

Lifer
Apr 28, 2000
15,995
1
81
You really think I am going to hell if I can't find two frigging doves everytime my Girlfriend gets her period?
 

glen

Lifer
Apr 28, 2000
15,995
1
81
You know what is funny?
NO ONE TOOK THIS STUFF literally untill the last 100 to 150 years or so.
In taking it literally, you miss the entire message, run around with rules, and sacrifices, doves, floods, boats, all sorts fo crap. It is completely nutty. Just get a good translation of the Gospelhttp://www.gospelcom.net/ and read some of the Gospel.
Forget all that stuff in Leviticus, it will confuse you and worse, make Christians look like fools.
You will make fewer peole go to church.
God made us intelligent...use it.
Take some reason, and you cann bring people to Christ.
Act like a nut, and it is an uphill battle for the rest of us.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
The trouble is, people from different religions have slaughtered each other throughout history in the name of their religions. Either chuck the whole damn thing out the window, or find a way to get everybody on the same page!
 

azazyel

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2000
5,872
1
81
As far as the flood goes, you should see the reason it was done according to the book of enoch which was contained in the dead sea scrolls. If you do you will also see where I got my name.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
I don't have anything against God, but organized religion can bite my ass!


The Book of Enoch the Prophet with Commentary
  • This is the second reference to the flood. Apparently God sent an angel to the son of Lamech, which was Noah.
    6 Again the Lord said to Raphael, "Bind Azazyel hand and foot; cast him into darkness; and opening the desert which is in Dudael, cast him in there.
    7 Throw upon him hurled and pointed stones, covering him with darkness;
    8 There shall he remain for ever; cover his face, that he may not see the light.
    9 And in the great day of judgment let him be cast into the fire.

    10 Restore the earth, which the angels have corrupted; and announce life to it, that I may revive it.

    11 All the sons of men shall not perish in consequence of every secret, by which the Watchers have destroyed, and which they have taught, their offspring.

    12 All the earth has been corrupted by the effects of the teaching of Azazyel. To him therefore ascribe the whole crime."
    Here is the first mention of a great day of judgment that will result in living beings being cast into fire. It is still in the future. Azazyel is not another name for Satan. Azazyel is not the one who caused the fall of Adam and Eve, but he apparently lead a band of angels down to earth. Either he and his band were among the fallen angels that followed Lucifer, or they fell separately; after Lucifer.
 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0
Glen:

You've summed up something very profound here, thank-you. I agree with your description... Bible literalism does not make sense, yet without it or a single 'church' authority there is no way to know what is definitive or not.

Really, I think this is the primary reason I'm still Catholic. That if the Bible is to be interpreted, it must have a single, finite interpretation (or else it it useless).

So while I've begun to disagree with some things in the Church (no married priests, birth control, etc), I still think it is the best guide available, and closest to the true interpretation. My questions remain centered on the boundaries of that authority.

Good thread too - mostly respectful discussion without the insults. At least until one member logs in and starts in on "fairy tales" and "psychopaths" again. *sigh*
 

azazyel

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2000
5,872
1
81
kind of crazy huh? Kind of funny thought that in that text that they say that Azazyel was not Satan who tempted Adam and Eve since "Satan" is never mentioned in the book of Genesis.

Side note: The greatest trick the church ever pulled was convincing the world the devil existed.
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Mark 15:26 The written notice of the charge against him read:
THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Matthew 27:37Above his head they placed the written charge against him:
THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Luke 23:38 There was a written notice above him, which read
THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
John 19:19 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read:
JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
If one person says your name is Jon, and the other says your name is Jon Smith, and an other your name is Jon 'computer wiz' Smith, are any of the in error?

Each focuses on what part of it is important for the letter as written.

The most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.
Mark ends at 16:8 Mark 16 9-20 were added later
mark was added to later, this does not mean that there is error in the scripture; Their are other examples of some older coppies not having something, but in the end God's given us what he wants us to learn from.

1 Kings 7:26
It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.
2 Chronicles 4
It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held three thousand baths.
two thousand != three thousand?
a 'bath' is a unit of measure, scripture say that they where approximating the amount just read around the quote.


Mathew 27:9Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."
Zechariah 11:12 I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.
Jeremiah != Zechariah
here's what your looking for in Jeremiah:
Jer. 19:1-13; 32:6-9 look at the shekel conversion from the meaning in Greek and Hebrew.


As for evolution: That the bible is without error doesn't mean that evolution couldn't have occurred; the point of gen. was to explain that God created all the universe;

The word 'day' in Hebrew is a time period someone spends working; morning being when you start work, evening when you stop work.

The bible is without error, but it's not a science book, nor is it intended to be Chaucer.


Historical and literary context is key when looking at the bible.


As for the OT: Jesus came to tell us that a new-covenant that now we are to follow the SPIRIT of the law not the LETTER of the law as important.
 

glen

Lifer
Apr 28, 2000
15,995
1
81
Originally posted by: Optimus
Glen:

You've summed up something very profound here, thank-you. I agree with your description... Bible literalism does not make sense, yet without it or a single 'church' authority there is no way to know what is definitive or not.

Really, I think this is the primary reason I'm still Catholic. That if the Bible is to be interpreted, it must have a single, finite interpretation (or else it it useless).

So while I've begun to disagree with some things in the Church (no married priests, birth control, etc), I still think it is the best guide available, and closest to the true interpretation. My questions remain centered on the boundaries of that authority.

Good thread too - mostly respectful discussion without the insults. At least until one member logs in and starts in on "fairy tales" and "psychopaths" again. *sigh*
Thanks, just go Anglican. All the goodness of Catholisism, plus married priests, etc...

 

azazyel

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2000
5,872
1
81
If one person says your name is Jon, and the other says your name is Jon Smith, and an other your name is Jon 'computer wiz' Smith, are any of the in error?

Each focuses on what part of it is important for the letter as written.

When people are relying on the gospels to be the words Jesus then yes it is a huge error. Mainly because it points to the fact that there are many discrepancy in the gospels and that the authors have added bias to the writing. Then because of this people quote the gospels as being the word of god when really it is an interpretation of something that Jesus might have said.

The bible is without error, but it's not a science book, nor is it intended to be Chaucer.

Speaking of contradictions...
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
don't even need erancy... most fundies pick and choose what to take literally anyways.