Debate Classics : Religion

[Grandor]

@Grandor: How do you explain God coming down as a human logically? How can you explain logically that God loves people enough to die for them? How can God logically die?

Here's an idea! What if God doesn't work with logic? What if God's ways are so high above ours we would never understand them even if we tried! What if... Human's are so pathetically finite minded that God didn't even explain how he created the world because he knows we wouldn't understand? What if he only says he did it because 1. He did, and that should be enough and 2. If he told us exactly how he did it it would fill hundreds of books (and blow our minds!)

What if calling God illogical is a bit arrogant?

God can do anything right? He could give us the knowledge to understand if we couldn't comprehend it like you say. It's not crazy that somebody would die for somebody they love. People used to do it all the time and still do. Some of the ideas of the bible, are to out there for logical explanation. And without a good explanation to describe the event, then all your left with is God did it, or it's to supernatural beyond are comprehension. So, if it is, put it into terms that we can understand. If that's what your trying to get at, then, you just proved my point. The Genesis story isn't literal, but it's a way to show us what God meant in are own terms. And also if you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, then humanity couldn't exist. In fact the world couldn't exist. All of this stuff couldn't develop in such a short span of time. It's just impossible. It's not really that hard of a concept to grasp.

 

[arcthemonkey]

Grandor, you're sounding like a broken record and have absolutely nothing compelling to offer.

Hear this - God can do anything he wants. If he wants to make a woman out of a rib, he can. If he wants to make her from a tickle me elmo, he can.

Yes, we as christians honestly believe God can do anything he damn well pleases, so stop asking.

The fact that a serpant (for the last time, there were no snakes in the garden) spoke does not automatically invalidate all of Genesis. Most of Genesis, I'm sure you would agree was intended to be a literal history story of sorts. The stories of Joseph, Noah, and the rest are intended to be taken as literal historical fact. Potifer was not symbolic. Judah was not an allegory. Esau was meant to be taken literally. This much is clear.

Where then do we draw the line? What seperates the fact and history from symbolism and parable? Are you saying that any book in the Bible where something supernatural happens is only symbolic? Or is it just the supernatural parts we must discard?

If this is is, we must discard every prophecy that was fulfilled (Conspiracy? Coincidence?), the ressurection and miracles of Christ (Was he a liar? An illusionist?), every act of God in the old testament (Hysteria? Drugs?), and every part of the Bible is worthless, having been written by conspiring, lying, drug addicted crazy people.

The entire foundation of the Christian faith regarding God is that nothing is impossible. That even the very concept of reality and possibility that you seem insistant to spread over everything here was established by God, and he is not bound to that.

Some of us have the capacity to understand how these things happen, I don't know how you missed it.

But if you're looking for the actual scientific mechanism - the precise molecule manipulated - you'll just have to try and ask God, but since you are probably above asking questions to impossible beings.

As for the serpant talking, does that really shut the whole thing down for you? I could say, "The serpant was a talking dragon," and you would say, "Talking dragons don't exist." No explanation I could offer you could possibly satisfy your close minded antisupernatural presupposition.

The basis of the Christian faith in the supernatural abilities of God, angels, Satan and demons is based on faith on the very supernatural miracles and ressurection of Christ. Based on historical and contemporary testimony, the ressurection would be provable in court if not for said antisupernatural attitudes.

In the end, it does indeed come down to faith.

If you can't get past your cold (and awkwardly flawed) logic in processing the Bible, then the Bible has nothing for you.

(@sixty, the whole Enoch/Metatron thing, indeed the entire existance of an angel or "lesser God" is pseudepigraphal, meaning essentially it's from scriptures that are forgeries. Metatron is never mentioned in the christian Bible, and there is therefore no problem seperating man and angel. Note that Judaism believes Elijah was made an angel as well, via pseudepigraphal writings. Both Elijah and Enoch are mentioned in the bible, and while Elijah was in no uncertain terms taken into "heaven" by a whirlwind and never died, the assumption of Enoch is a valid inferance. My point is this - Neither Elijah nor Enoch died, but there is no valid reason to believe they were made into angels. There is some debate as to whether or not Elijah actually went to the real heaven or if he was swept up into the sky to go to the king of Judah or assumed in Abraham's Busom. The wikipedia entry has a pretty good bit on it.)

 

[Jonathan]

@grandor: Since i believe the genesis account of creation literaly, i don't believe in evolution, so long time spans aren't needed.

Check this page though for a seriously interesting theory about how God created the universe, stars and stuff. It also solves the problem of how did light from distant stars get to our planet in only 6000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_problem read the section about Russel Humphrey's work. The book is apparently incredibly interesting. I have looked at a summary of the theory at the back of another book, and it is really interesting to see possibly a 'scientific' method that God could have used in creation. It is only a theory though.

 

[Roman Candle]

@RomanCandle: If Genesis is a symbol, Adam is a symbol. There is a CLEAR Geneaology in the Bible from Adam to Jesus.

Don't be silly :p As you say, there's a clear geneology from Adam to Jesus. So I think it's safe to say that's not a symbolic reference at all.

Unless there's more to that line you mentioned about Satan and the snake, it doesn't mean that satan is that particular serpent. The role of the serpent was very varried in ancient mindsets. In many different, the snake is a symbol of wisdom, etc, and fundementally the cuiroisity which makes us human. At the same time, snake/worm etc is also something offencive. It's an animal which crawls on the ground. Admitedly I don't know much about Hebrew, but I do spend most of my time going through translations of ancient languages these days, and unless there is more to that reference, I don't see that that's a definite implication of their being the same.

 

[Lene]

In many different, the snake is a symbol of wisdom, etc, and fundementally the cuiroisity which makes us human.

Well, if you think about it, the snake/serpent in Genesis isn't exactly a contradiction of what you just described.

 

[Jonathan]

@Roman Candle: How then can genesis be symbolic? Adam lived ina symbolic garden with a symbolic snake, yet he was a real person? I don't get what you are saying.

Check out this article about satan being a snake. It should answer your questions.

Spoiler

Who was the serpent?
by Russell M. Grigg

In the account of the temptation of Eve and the Fall of mankind, in Genesis chapter 3, we are introduced to a creature called 'the serpent'. Who or what is this creature? Was it a real serpent? Some people try to make out that the story is just symbolic or an allegory, because animals do not speak human language. So who or what is the person who uses the body of this 'beast of the field', not only to speak to Eve, but also to persuade her to disobey almighty God?

The cardinal rule in understanding Scripture, and especially those verses which may be something of a puzzle, is to interpret Scripture by Scripture, that is, to see what other verses have to say on the same subject.

So what is there in the rest of the Bible that may help us to identify this serpent?

What Jesus said
On one occasion Jesus said to some Pharisees who were trying to kill him,

'Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning . . . he is a liar, and the father of it' (John 8:44).


To what event, involving lying and murder, from the beginning, could Jesus have been referring?

The temptation of Eve certainly qualifies as being in the beginning, as it is the first recorded event involving Eve after her creation. The serpent lied to Eve when he said, 'Ye shall not surely die', and as this is the first lie recorded in Scripture, the title 'father of it' [it = lies or lying] would seem to be a very apt description of the person doing the lying on this occasion.

Eighteenth century Bible commentator Matthew Henry comments on the passage,

'He [Satan] is the great promoter of falsehood of every kind. He is a liar, all his temptations are carried on by his calling evil good, and good evil, and promising freedom in sin'.1


Finally, the serpent's efforts resulted in the penalty of death falling not only on Adam and Eve, but on the whole human race. Jesus' term of 'murderer' therefore certainly applies to whoever tempted Eve.

The work of the serpent is thus the enactment of everything that Jesus ascribed to 'the devil' in John 8:44. Furthermore, there is no other event in recorded history that better fulfils this description of the devil than does the account of the temptation by the serpent in Genesis 3.

A further tie-up between the serpent of Genesis 3 and Satan, or the devil, is given in Revelation 12:9 and 20:2:

'And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world.'


The word "Satan" means "adversary" — primarily to God, secondarily to men; the term "devil" signifies "slanderer" of God to men, and of men to God'. 2

The serpent identified
Was the serpent then Satan? Although the Bible tells us that 'Satan himself is transformed into an angel of Light', or 'masquerades as an angel of light' (2 Corinthians 11:14), there are difficulties in assuming that something like this happened in the Garden of Eden. Theologian Henry C. Thiessen comments:

'. . . the serpent is neither a figurative description of Satan, nor is it Satan in the form of a serpent. The real serpent was the agent in Satan's hand. This is evident from the description of the reptile in Genesis 3:1 and the curse pronounced upon it in 3:14 [. . . upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy Life].3

The Bible tells us that, just before Judas left the Upper Room to go and betray Jesus, 'Satan entered into him' (John 13:26–27). Likewise demons can, under certain conditions, indwell either human bodies or animal bodies — for example, the time when Jesus cast out a legion of devils from a man, and they then entered a herd of pigs which ran down a steep place into the sea (Mark 5:1–13). It is therefore proper for us to conclude that Satan appropriated and used the body of a specific serpent on this occasion to carry out his subtle purpose of tempting Eve to sin.

It is also clear that the use of euphemisms about the serpent, such as calling him 'the personification of evil', or labelling the whole incident 'myth' or 'theological poetry', will not do. The Bible presents this episode as a personal encounter between Eve and Satan, as real as that between Christ and Satan in the wilderness.

The identification of the serpent as the one whose body Satan used raises further questions, such as does Satan speak audibly?

Satan speaking?
When Satan tempted Jesus, he did so with words. Jesus replied and their conversation is recorded for us in both Matthew's and Luke's Gospels (Matthew 4:1–11; Luke 4:1–13), although we are not told anything about the way Satan appeared on this occasion.

In John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, the description of Christian's conversation and fight with Apollyon is no surprise to many Christians, who have had similar spiritual experiences. It is said that Martin Luther found conflict with the devil so real that on one occasion Luther threw an inkwell at him.

Concerning the temptation of Eve, Christian writer and expositor J. Oswald Sanders writes:

'It has been suggested that just as the speaking of Balaam's ass was a divine miracle, so the speaking of the serpent was a diabolic miracle.' 4

Where did Satan come from?
God has chosen not to tell us very much about the origin and apostasy of Satan.5 From the Bible we learn that he is the chief of the fallen angels (called demons or devils), and is the great adversary of God and man (Job 1:6–12; 2:1–6; 1 Peter 5:8).

He fell through pride (1 Timothy 3:6), and we deduce that this event must have been after the sixth day of creation, when God 'saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good' (Genesis 1:31), and before the Fall of man, recorded in Genesis 3.

Concerning his present abode, it is incorrect to think of Satan as the 'ruler of Hell', as the Bible makes no such reference. Rather, Jesus called him 'the prince of this world' (John 12:31: 14:30; 16:11), and the Bible also calls him 'the god of this world' [or 'age'] (2 Corinthians 4:4), and 'the prince of the power of the air' (Ephesians 2:2). It speaks of Satan 'going to and fro in the earth, and . . . walking up and down in it' (Job 2:2;1 Peter 5:8), and of his activity 'in the heavenly places' [or 'realms'] (Ephesians 6:11–12).

Why did God create the being we now call Satan?6
Question: If God knew that the being we now call Satan and some of the other angels and finally Adam and Eve would rebel against Himself, why then did He 'interrupt' eternity and proceed with creation in the first place?

Answer: The short answer is that we do not know. However, some observations can be made.

God determined to permit sin, and He did so although He knew what would be the nature of sin, what it would do to His creation, and what He would have to do to save us from it.


God determined to overrule sin for good. This does not mean that God permitted sin in order to bring about good, but rather that God permitted sin to occur for other reasons, and He decreed to overrule it for good.


God determined to make salvation from sin available. This He does on the grounds of the shed blood of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:14; 1 Peter 1:18–19; 1 John 1:7).


God determined to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), and to display His own righteousness by the judgment and punishment of the wicked (Acts 17:31; Revelation 20: 10–15).


God determined to form that body of believing people known as the Church. This body of individuals, from both Jews and Gentiles, is called 'the bride of Christ' (2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 19:7); they will share in God's glory as God's children, they are called heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, and they will reign with Him for ever and ever (Romans 8:16–17; Revelation 22:5).


Concerning this, God in the Bible issues an invitation. It reads,

'And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will let him take the water of Life Freely' (Revelation 22:11).

References and Notes
Matthew Henry, Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible, Moody Press. Chicago. 1983. p. 786.


A H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Judson Press. USA. 1907. p. 454.


Henry C, Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, Revised edition, Eerdmans. Grand Rapids. 1979, p. 180.


J. Oswald Sanders, Satan is No Myth, Moody Press. Chicago, 1975, p. 42.


The two Bible passages that are usually invoked on this subject are Isaiah 14:12–15 and Ezekiel 28:13–17. Although both of these passages are in the context of prophecies about earthly kings (of Babylon and Tyrus), and no explicit reference is made to Satan in either passage, they both contain references of mystical significance to behaviour that transcends human abilities and conduct, such as, 'thou hast said in thine heart I will ascend into heaven ... I will be like the most High' (Isaiah 14:13,14): and 'Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou was created, till iniquity was found in thee' (Ezekiel 28–15). For this reason some theologians say that the verses refer to Satan's original state (wherein he was named Lucifer) and the sin which led to his downfall (a view propounded by some of the church Fathers as early as the third century). The alternative view, that these passages refer only to earthly kings, is held by some other theologians, as well as by those who reject the concept of the existence of a personal devil.


The name Satan means 'adversary' or 'enemy'. It is inappropriate to suggest that God created Satan in a state of enmity against Himself, as God could then be considered as the author of evil. For this reason some theologians say that Satan's name originally was Lucifer (meaning 'light-bearer') and that after he was created he rebelled and dragged a portion of the angels with him into apostasy. The word 'Lucifer' occurs only once in Scripture, in Isaiah 14:12. See further discussion under footnote 5.

Sorry about the Plainness of the text, here is the link if you want something more colourful.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i4/serpent.asp

 

[Roman Candle]

Adam lived somewhere, maybe. The point is that it is possible to live in bliss with God, but we have lost this because we choose sin. I think the message is pretty clear. I don't for a second, (to rephrase that, even if I was a Christian, I wouldn't neccessarily), believe that the garden of Eden is an actual place. Or that there was a tree which had apples on it which were sinful to eat.

I don't see any of that as imply that Satan is the snake. In fact, I don't see the snake as inherantly evil. Rather, to me, it represents our humanity. The voice that tells us to explore, to discover, and to test our own limits. Without the snake, we were without sin, but we barely had humanity. Satan is not the creator is sin; we are created with sin in us. Lucifer sinned, Lucifer was proud. But he was made with the ability to be proud, and like us he was made able to sin.

I find the the garden very like a child's mind. In fact, before they sin, Adam and Eve are essentially innocent children. Growing up, death is known to them; sin is known to them. Eve gives birth. Adam toils away.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

I've always felt that Adam and Eve was more symbolic of free will.

We had the ability to eat the apple, and deny God, or the ability to remove temptation from our lives. The apple isn't important, in my thought. It was just something not to do - it could have been "Don't eat the yellow snow" and the story, for me, wouldn't change.

The serpent/snake isn't, as I've ever seen, called Satan in the bible. And the snake is, in most religions, not a bad thing, it's often revered. Usually as a symbol of individuality and control, as well as in creation (in many pre Jewish, as is, faiths a snake was used in the creation myths of many African and Middle Eastern faiths, as well as Eastern Europe).

So, in my view, the apple was subject forbidden. The snake was the temptation, wether as an embodiment of our inner desires or otherwise, and Adam and Eve purposely chose temptation over God.

Did Adam and Eve accept that they were wrong? No. Adam blamed Eve, and Eve the serpent. In my thoughts I always figured that was the truly bad thing, that no responsibility was made. They blamed the temptation, instead of themselves.

I'm not religious, but I spent a lot of time in religious schools. This has always been a theological possibility in all of them. I'm not saying it's right, but just my thoughts on it. A symbolic story about our own justifications we make in contrast to our own faiths and morals, to break them when we see fit and somehow feel better about our own doings. Saying "The devil made me do it" seems to eliviate some of the guilt.

That, we have the ability to turn away from God, hell we can spit in his face and say he's wrong. But what will we do - to me is the moral of the tale. And I don't think it really applies just to God. Temptation in any field, and I think that the innocence lost is a fine example of the temptations of childhood vs. the temptations of adult hood - but that's another way-too-long rant that I won't go into now.

 

[Jonathan]

IT WASN'T AN APPLE! Yeah. the tree was there so that there could be free will, because else we would be essentially like robots, with no choice but to love God, because we haven't known anything else.

Yeah adam and eve blamed the devil, yeah the devil does tempt people, but the Devil is only (in some cases) the whisper suggesting you do it. It is us that do wrong, it is us that act on the whisper, and go against God.

If you are to interpret this part of the Bible as a metaphor, as symbolic, even though it isn't written in symbolic language, then how much of the rest of the Bible are you going to reinterpret it.

It is the first book in the bible, and from the first verse, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", i believe it is talking about a real historical factual event. Is it too much to ask to take the bible as it is Written? to take the historical bits as history, and the poetic bits as poetry? the songs as songs and the message as truth?

Why are you determined that genesis isn't true? i see no problem why it couldn't be what it says it is, a documented account of from the creation to the exodus. Is it rather that if you admitted the Bible was literal (and this is not just to you, but to everybody, and me) from the first book, you wouldn't be able to reinterpret the fact that we are sinners and sin breaks the relationship with God? Does that make you uncomfortable, that on our own we are destined to hell?

Yeah this may be all a bit forward, but I don't get why people are so obsessed with making the Bible not literal! With demeaning the Word of GOD! AAAGGH. lol. It doesn't make sense. I'm all for opinions etc, but everybody seems to be determined to belittle the message that saved me!

 

[arcthemonkey]

I would like to point out before anyone mentions is that the book of Revelation was a prophetic dream filled with signs and symbols, and is not intended to be taken literally.

 

[Roman Candle]

Whether or not the message saves you has nothing to do with it, for a start. You're accusing me of being determined to make it symbolic. At the same time, when you read something, it's interprettation, and when I do, it's 'reinterprettation'. Who's determined to take their own view as law here?

You take "God created ..." as taking place in an instant. But you're the one influenced my modern convention, not me: Linguistic convention. In Hebrew, verbs don't have tenses as such in the way that we do. There are perfect and imperfect forms, which imply a sense of an action being finished or unfinished. For instance, 'I am making the table', 'I will make the table' and 'he was making the tables' are imperfect, where as 'I make the table' and 'I made the table' are perfect. (Note that in most modern and classical languages, the terms perfect and imperfect generally are used only in the sense of the past; this is not true in Biblical Hebrew). The actual 'tense' of the word in decided by something called 'aspect'. Aspect essentially means assuming the exact tense in English by what makes sense. In this case, the word is translated best into the English perfect tense - 'he created'. However, in English this has an extra implication, not only of being finished, but somewhat instantanious. But this sense is not in the Hebrew. All that can really be taken from the Hebrew is "God caused there to be time when there was a world, and at some point before that there was not world".

NB There is a lot of speculation over which tense is 'actually' meant and what the best translation is for those words. However, it's irrelevent: The best way is not to try and fit it into a single English tense. There is no word which can give an appropriate degree of accuracy in this debate in our own language. Take this into consideration when you think about what the interprettation and what the reinterprettation is here. Remember that what you're reading is already heavily interpretted.

You should have a look at this as well. And if anyone says, "It's not impossible that God caused the earth to bear fruit in extra-fast time", I'd remind you that each of the meanings of the world has equal weight, and if you came to translate that in a passage of text you would certainly choose the one which made the most sense and was the most likely. It is possible that a 24-hour period is implied, but it would be very odd. It's equally possible that a longer period is implied, and it also makes a lot more sense.

 

[Jonathan]

The fact that the hebrew word yom is used with evening and morning, and a number, is practically definately indicates that the word day here means a literal day, as opposed to ages. also, God says in exodus that we are two work for six days and rest on the seventh, like he did. If it is true that the days are actually long geological time periods, then we are to work for six indefinate periods of long time and rest on the seventh indefinately long age? It doesn't work.

I never said God created the world instantaneously anyway, i said in six days. Why would God need longer than six days? Actually why would he need as long as six days? the Jewish people at the time of Jesus (the pharisees who were fluent in hebrew, more than you or I) did not dispute that God created the world so long ago, they disputed that why would he need six days? He could create it instantly. The reason he chose six days is to set us an example. Interestingly, there is no cosmical reason (i.e Movement of earth or moon etc.) Why we would have a seven day week, except from the reason that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh.

Although science tells us that these events took much more than 24 hours

It doesn't at all. It is just another theory based on an interpretation of the evidence.

The Hebrew word dasha,6 (Strong's #H1876) indicates that the plants grew from either seeds or small seedlings in order to have "sprouted." In addition, these plants produced seeds.

This could, I suppose, have meant that they were trees that produced seeds, not on that day, but they had the potential to. About them growing, again, God can do anything. This may sound a whimsical excuse, but he can, can't he? if he had a reason for using a 24 hour day, he would stick to it!

Then God brought all the birds, cattle and wild animals to Adam to name. God put Adam to sleep, took a part of him and formed Eve (Genesis 2:21-22). Adam's response to Eve's creation was "at last," indicating that he thought the day was very long indeed.

As for the "at last" he had existed for at most 24 hours. that was his entire life, and, consequently, probably felt like quite a while.

God didn't bring all of the animals to Adam anyway, he brought "livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field." Not insects, or fish. (Insects are the biggest proportion of life on the planet). Even so, Adam would have been busy! However, being a perfect creation, he would have been much more energetic, creative and intelligent. He could (and did) Name all of the animals. God created Eve in the night (i.e He caused adam to fall into a sleep, hence probably night), and so it would have fitted in.

I have a very limited knowledge of hebrew, but the guys who translated the Bible have more knowledge of Hebrew than you or I, and so we can trust that they have translated it as accuratly as is humanly possible.

this Article says it better than me.

Spoiler: Six Days

Too Big, Click on the article below seriously, at least look at it.

Here it is in colour again. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/answersbook/sixdays2.asp

 

[Roman Candle]

Did you read what I said about the site? You're still insisting on taking the text and fitting it in with your own view, just because that's how you've learned it. I can't believe that that article acuses people of interpretting the Bible based on worldly evidence, when it's defending a social convention! It claims to be approaching the Bible free of any bias, but this can't possibly be true. The only people who could do so would be the first people who translated it. And in the end, you know what? In their position, I would have translated it exactly the same. Because that makes for the best English. It would never have occurred to me that in hundreds of years time, people would be arguing about it at this level. It probably would never have occured to them that people would be taking that word and using it to dispute a scientific theory. If they'd known, they might have taken a bit more care over it.

I made a mistake in saying that the perfect in English implies an instant, but it certainly does imply a short time. For instance, if I said "I made this joke up a while back", you'd certainly be suprised it I said "AND IT TOOK ME EIGHTY YEARS". That's because I'm easily capable to thinkig up a joke in significantly less time. In the same way, God is easily capable of making the universe in much fewer than millions of years. So when you read "God made the universe in a (yom)", you'd quite fairly assume that it wasn't millions of years. In fact, this is the best translation humanly possible. But oho. Human methods are flawed. Human methods cannot be used to inspect the divine. So how are you able to read the Bible in English at all?

I'll say it again: Clearly it is not impossible that the days are short days. But That doesn't help. It's not enough to say that means it must be a short day - the long day is equally possible. I also object to the idea that we can't use our knowledge of the world in reading the Bible. Let's not forget that the world is God's creation too.

I certainly reject the idea that the Bible, being God's word, is absolute and perfect. It's not possible for a language to do so. And before anyone starts saying, "They're God's words, not human words. Different rules apply", it doesn't matter what language they were written in. A word has no meaning until it is read. To a tennis player, "Fifteen love" means that the server has 1 point and the other player none. To a badminton player, it means that the server has fifteen point and the other player none. To a footballer, it doesn't mean anything at all. The words are the same, absolute, but they don't mean anything on their own. Every word read is different to every person. In fact, if the 'language of God' was perfect and absolute, this discussion wouldn't be possible. The meaning is vague. You seem to need to know a more exact meaning for the purposes of understanding the world. Well there isn't one in the Bible. So you have to look outside, at the world itself.

I have this little sticking point with the language of the Bible. If it was really 'God's tongue', then why is it that a reasonable person reading the Bible is not neccessarily converted to Christianity? If there's evidence there, why can't all reasonable people see it? I'm not talking about your rabid atheists here. Take me, for example. I would love to find religion. What a weight off my mind that would be. I've read lots of the Bible. If it really bears God's mark, why can't I see it? It seems to be either than I'm unable to see, through no fault of my own, which would seem a bit odd - why you and not me? There you are, all saved and self-assured, and I'm stuck here in a moderate position, being picked on by both sides - either that, or the Bible doesn't have the powers ascribed to it. If it really is so special, if you're really supposed to be able to predict the world from the Bible, what exactly is stopping me from doing so?

I still believe that if you examined the evidence in the world, and then came at this passage, you would be happy to translate it as 'aeon' or something similar. In fact, I think I've given far too much ground by arguing with you about the technicallities of this as if I were admitting that the story is definitely litteral even in the sense that the sequence of events in the Bible define a sequence of events in real life.

 

[lunarhiro2002]

If they'd known, they might have taken a bit more care over it.

Jewish and Biblical history mandates that the Levites were the ones in charge of the transcribing of the Hebrew Bible. I mean...if they were to leave something out they would be punished. They were also given different promises by God so that they would not have reason to manipulate the texts.

Human methods are flawed. Human methods cannot be used to inspect the divine. So how are you able to read the Bible in English at all?

Yes humans are flawed. And any method devised by men would not be capable of decerning the "divine". You make the mistake by assuming that the Bible is a device created by man...it wasn't...it was made by God...

I certainly reject the idea that the Bible, being God's word, is absolute and perfect. It's not possible for a language to do so. And before anyone starts saying, "They're God's words, not human words. Different rules apply", it doesn't matter what language they were written in. A word has no meaning until it is read. To a tennis player, "Fifteen love" means that the server has 1 point and the other player none. To a badminton player, it means that the server has fifteen point and the other player none. To a footballer, it doesn't mean anything at all. The words are the same, absolute, but they don't mean anything on their own. Every word read is different to every person. In fact, if the 'language of God' was perfect and absolute, this discussion wouldn't be possible. The meaning is vague. You seem to need to know a more exact meaning for the purposes of understanding the world. Well there isn't one in the Bible. So you have to look outside, at the world itself.

If your a Christian the answer to this question is simple, you believe God exists, you believe that He knows more then you, you believe that the bible is God's word therefore you believe when it is stated in the Bible that the bible comes from God...

If your not a Christian the answer evades you forever. The meanings in the Bible are clearly not vague...the reason we have so many different "interpritations" is simple because of the fact that there are interpretations. By interpreting what it says you are adding or in some cases subtracting from the text...if you read it as it is it makes a lot more sense...

I have this little sticking point with the language of the Bible. If it was really 'God's tongue', then why is it that a reasonable person reading the Bible is not neccessarily converted to Christianity? If there's evidence there, why can't all reasonable people see it? I'm not talking about your rabid atheists here. Take me, for example. I would love to find religion. What a weight off my mind that would be. I've read lots of the Bible. If it really bears God's mark, why can't I see it? It seems to be either than I'm unable to see, through no fault of my own, which would seem a bit odd - why you and not me? There you are, all saved and self-assured, and I'm stuck here in a moderate position, being picked on by both sides - either that, or the Bible doesn't have the powers ascribed to it. If it really is so special, if you're really supposed to be able to predict the world from the Bible, what exactly is stopping me from doing so?

People aren't converted like magic because of our free will. Pray about it, if you seek you will find, that is what is written in it. God says if you seek to save your life you will loose it...Take up your cross and follow Him is what he says...meaning give up EVERYTHING meaning your beliefs, possessions, family, your life...all to follow him...

about being able to see, we Christians believe in "spiritual warefare" it's quite possible that a demon prevents you from believeing. I'll pray for you.

I think that you shouldn't be forced to the Bible to see evidence for God...God is much bigger then that. Look around at the Earth, and you can see "signatures" in my opinion of God. like the fact that our planet is tilted to a certain degree which allows life on earth.

Look at all these sort of "coincidences" and you can see that Earth is a very special place...either that or we are the LUCKIEST place in the universe...

And...honestly when you have that many coincidences its not luck anymore something is in motion keeping things the way they are, and for me God is the one who put that into motion.

 

[Jonathan]

@Roman Candle: Actually i have looked at the evidence and i see no need to interpret it as aeons. in fact, i believe the evidence in the world fits to a young earth much better (decay of earths magnetic field, polystrate fossils, amount of salt in sea (i think that last one is valid, not sure though)). But i (try to) interpret the world from the Creators word, not the other way round.

...if you read it as it is it makes a lot more sense...

Reading anything requires interpretation, but I know what you mean. If in doubt, analyse a passage against what the rest of the bible says, Scripture against Scripture. Then you will find what the correct interpretation is.

it's quite possible that a demon prevents you from believeing

Before anyone says "aaagh exorcist!!" christians do believe that there are fallen angels, otherwise known as demons.
Lunahiro doesn't mean demon possesion, he just means that spiritual beings, like angels can 'interfere' in life, swinging circumstances etc.

In the Bible it describes people of the world as Blind. yes, the bible is God's revelation to humans, but humankinds natural cynicism and 'blindness' can come in the way. Jesus can 'heal' this blindness. whilst the healing of blind people in the gospels were real historical events, they do carry an important meaning, I.e. Jesus is the way, the truth and the light. He can shine light into peoples hearts (obviously spiritual heart, centre of being rather than muscular pump) and heal people of cynicism.

@Roman candle, Again: Yeah and come on. the people translating the first Bible were employed by the king to do it! The king of england! they would have taken there Job incredibly seriously.

And anyway, your argument is flawed. you imply (by saying that the first people to translate it got it wrong) that each new modern translation is translated from an older english version. This couldn't be further from the truth. apart from paraphrases (not real translations) like the message version, each translation is translated directly from hebrew and greek. they employ experts to do it, and because our knowledge of hebrew is growing, as you said, the translations are getting More accurate, not less.

 

[FoxDemonSoavi]

People aren't converted like magic because of our free will. Pray about it, if you seek you will find

Excatly. IF you properly seeked out the goddess Freya you would fidn her. ANn in her you would understant the world and be saved.

IF you properly seeked out Bhudha (sp?) you would be on your path to nirvana.

If you see out any religion hard enough you will believe in it. Simple as that.

 

[arcthemonkey]

Freya never asked you to look for her. Buddha doesn't care to have a relationship with you.

There is a huge difference. God wants a relationship with you, and He wants you to come looking for Him. Of course, sometimes He comes looking for you - but religious experiances fall flatly into the supernatural which science throws out regardless of the evidence. Whoops!

And people, please don't imply that all christians simply take what's thrown to them and run with it. Being a christian does not automatically make us naive morons. I'm very well apprised of the study of evolution, being a Biology major myself, I've studied most aspects of it, and my straight A's seem to imply I understand it well. The truth is I SEEK OUT evidence for evolution. I seek it out because nothing I have found is sufficient to counteract my personal religious experiances and my very real relationship with a living God. It seems so obvious on the "other side."

The fact is that the evidence for evolution is not satisfactory to me. People take archaopteryx ans swear it proves evolution. They take horse fossils and swear it proves evolution. But when you really look at the evidence there is no proof there at all, but the data can be spun that way. There is no such thing as an objective scientist. They do not exist. Science is as much political as it is actual research. Scientists have agendas and they have beliefs of their own - we all have presuppositions. Who knows how much more evidence for young earth creationism there would be if such evidence wasn't labelled false outright because it disagreed with scientific "fact." Why can't things like polystrate fossils, mitochondria eve, and dozens of other examples be taken for what they are? Politics, agendas, presupposition.

Christians choose to believe the Bible because it contains the words of God. Because it contains fulfilled prophecy. Because it was written by the people who were there - moses, the apostles. If all science has to offer against the bibles corroborated testimony is that it's "impossible" then it is supporting the most critically naive mindset available.

The impossible happens every day people. Science is in denial.

 

[Lene]

And people, please don't imply that all christians simply take what's thrown to them and run with it. Being a christian does not automatically make us naive morons.

Thank you for this. If more people could run with this, debates would be a lot more constructive.

I have this little sticking point with the language of the Bible. If it was really 'God's tongue', then why is it that a reasonable person reading the Bible is not neccessarily converted to Christianity?

Two words for this and the majority of your post: Free will...This is almost the same as asking the question "If God exists why didn't he just make everyone believe in him?"

Anyways, no I don't think any Bible you pick up off the street is completely perfect because things do get Lost in Translation. But I think, for the most part, you're not going to find a HUGE difference between various versions and languages. If it really bothers people there are plenty of material that helps explain various interpretations of concepts/places/people/words/etc. I have one (Harvard Companion to the Bible) and it does its job, imo.

 

[Rhazdel]

Anyways, no I don't think any Bible you pick up off the street is completely perfect because things do get Lost in Translation. But I think, for the most part, you're not going to find a HUGE difference between various versions and languages. If it really bothers people there are plenty of material that helps explain various interpretations of concepts/places/people/words/etc. I have one (Harvard Companion to the Bible) and it does its job, imo.

That is very true. The Bible (depending on the version) is actually a compilation of various texts, written over several hundred years and in numerous different languages, several of which are now almost dead languages. Interpreting these texts into modern tongues loses a lot in translation. Some of the original texts will probably never be fully able to translate correctly.

Look at this own forum, for example. These boards containg numerous slang words (ie: lol, imo...even RPG) along with numerous references to well-know (for this time) pieces of literature and games (ie: how many Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Legend of Zelda, etc. references are on this site?). These, in our context, make perfect sense, but, several hundred years from now, if English were to die out and leave little trace of it's meanings, these phrases and references would be impossible to decipher.

This argument can actually be used for both sides of this debate, both for the modern interpretation of the Bible's obscuring of the "Word of God" and can also be used as a counter-point to the argument of "Why doesn't everyone who reads the Bible believe automatically in God?".

I, myself, am agnostic, so I offered this merely as a point of interest, rather than an actual argument for one side of this debate.

Edit: Another interesting thing to consider:
The Bible says that God created the Universe in 7 days (well, 6 and a day of rest). To us, on Earth, a day is the rise and set of the sun, but this is merely a relative point of view. All a "Day" is on Earth is the length of time it takes a planet of our size, spinning at our speed to make one, full rotation.

Larger planets (or planets spinning at slower speeds) actually have longer "Days" than the Earth.

Who is to say that any "Time" referenced in the Bible isn't relative?

Speaking from a scientific perspective, we, on Earth, have an extremely geocentric view of the Universe. What applies on Earth should also apply throughout the Universe, when that is simply not the case.

Even "Standing Still" is a respective term. While we "stand still" at our computers, typing on this forum, our chair is being hurdled several thousands of miles an hour around the axis of the world, which is being hurdled millions of miles an hour around the axis of our solar system, which is being hurdled several hundreds of billions of miles per hour around the axis of our galaxy, which, is of course, being hurdled around the axis of the Universe.

Everything is relative.

 

[FoxDemonSoavi]

The problem I ahve with the bible is the same I have with all religious texts. Its full of the social laws of the time it was written. People sort of put it together. It was about as divinely inspried as any religious text. Or, indeed, any religion at all.

I feel that spirituality is personal. No two people, even in the same religion, agree 100%. People don't even agree 100% with the texts of their religion either. We all pick and choose what feels right to us.