The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

as a PSA, would you be willing to cite an example or 3?

you did not comment on this above -- were you merely extrapolating or making a generalized stmt? -- to claim a Christian &/or a pastor is lying about scientific principles is different than saying the same about a scientist -- of course, it's human to latch on to a conjecture & present it as fact if it jives with our own biases

the principle of Acts 17:11 apples to secular teaching as well -- test everything

IIRC, Benelchi has personally tried to alert AIG (and perhaps others, I forget) to errors in their publications, which they've failed to acknowledged.

Regardless, it's not hard to find rebuttals of many of the claims made by these groups, sometimes from the scientists whose work they're misconstruing. If a simple google search can turn up serious flaws with their thinking (that extend far beyond matters of opinion), it's obvious they're not striving for accuracy.

-Dan.

Yeah, that's part of it.
Part of it is me just being tired of having to explain to others, "No, we're not all like that."
Part of it is me expecting more of people I associate with.
Part of it is me expecting more of people who claim to be seeking Truth.
Part of it is me having a deep, deep hatred for the eschewing of knowledge in favor of ideology.
I'm sure I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Literature is full of fictional stories that teach moral truths. Adam & Eve didn't have to be actual people living in actual garden 6000 years ago in order for the more basic truths of the creation story (e.g. God created us, humans are special, humans are sinful, etc) to be conveyed.

It's pretty easy to interpret the Genesis story as being morally true (i.e. we're fallen & need salvation) w/o believing that Adam & Eve actually existed.

IME, that's only true when you get way out into Unitarianism or some of the other far left congregations. There's plenty of room in the middle.

-Dan.

Maybe this has already been covered. If God didn't create Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden like Genesis says, then where did all the people come from? Did God create many humans at once? Did humans come about through the evolution of lesser species? If so (about the evolution part), at what point did we begin to be humans? I have several other questions that come up if God didn't literally create Adam and Eve, but I will save them for later.

Again, I imagine these questions have already been addressed here, but I didn't have time to read this whole thread. I will go back and do that now. Jesus bless you all.

_________________
Until He Returns (Rev. 2:17),
Travis

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~George Orwell

That is my belief.

Whenever it was that God decided to imbue us with a soul and the ability to distinguish "right" from "wrong."

-Dan.

Okay, Dan. Thanks for the answer.

_________________
Until He Returns (Rev. 2:17),
Travis

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~George Orwell

If God didn't create Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, that raises two other important questions.

Is the Bible inerrant?

Is humanity fallen?

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

Those are a couple of the questions I had next, Strider. But I was wanting some othera to chime in first.

_________________
Until He Returns (Rev. 2:17),
Travis

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~George Orwell

The bible is a unique instance of literature that claims to be the very word of God, and it claims that Adam and Eve were real people living in history. Much of what is taught in the bible is dependent on the fact that this is a real historical story and not a fictional account i.e. if it is fiction then there is no reason for the cross.

On a different note: There are many ways to reconcile the account given in Genesis with the geological history of our world. From the very earliest history of the church, questions have been raised about the duration of the creation account i.e. there is no legitimate reason to exclude the possibility of a much longer duration for the account of creation. And in Scripture there are many examples of genealogies that skip generations; this was considered a normal practice in the period of history in which these genealogies were given. In other words, there are very good ways to reconcile the text of Genesis with geological and human history without resorting to a belief in a fictional account given in Genesis. And a belief in specialized creation appears to me to be far less of a leap than belief in punctuated equilibrium.

If we were to assume that the times given in Genesis are meaningless, then why are they there? Why would God give all of the detail of what he did on each day? What would be the point of the genealogies and the ages of the various fathers if they have no resemblance to history? Why didn't God just say "a long time ago I made everything"?

The point is that God did leave a lot more ambiguity about the time frame of creation in both the text and the geneologies. It is only our modern society that has tried to limit the semantec range of the words used in Genesis to something far more narrow than these words were originally understood. It is clear when one looks at the most ancient commentaries we have on the creation account that those who first read these passages understood a far broader semantic range of understanding then some in our modern age will allow.

Ex. 20:8-11 seems to present a problem for your assertion

This only presents a problem when interpreted through the eyes of groups like AIG. But then even the author of the book of Hebrews would have problems with their methodology; remember it is he who states that the Sabbeth rest has not ended for God. Again this verse and the many others like it did not coerse the earliest readers of these passages into believing that a literally seven day creation was a required understanding, why do so many believe their modern understanding is so superiour to that of the earliest believers that they can reject even the possibility that these other interpretations might be correct.

you mean Paul? please share the reference as it escapes me

i have no idea what AIG says about this as i don't read their site -- to me, a straight reading of the Text states 6 days for Creation -- personally, i don't get wrapped around the axle over this topic -- of course, you did not supply what you think the proper interpretation is for myself & others to consider

& just who are theses "earliest readers" -- ya gotta cite some support -- no 1 is simply going to take your word for it -- it's merely 1 opinion against another...

Sure. But to follow along with Benelchi's logic, if you're applying a standard of interpretation that is not correct (or at the very least, not fully justified), you could wind up with some contradictions and invalid conclusions where there need not be any.

Sure. All of the parables were fictional, yet served to teach a variety of truths. Adam & Eve don't have to be literal for this point of the story to still be true. If they were allegorical (and I'm not necessarily arguing that they were), they can still be vehicles for delivering the point that man is fallen.

Does it? Or rather, does all of it? I realize that this is an aside (how's that for an understatement?), but I don't recall Genesis making that claim. Note: this is partly me challenging you and partly me asking you to refresh my memory; I am in no way equipped to mount a sufficient argument on this subject.

That, I disagree with. I know what your basis for that is, but IMO, A&E need not to be historical for the references to be valid. They need only need be commonly known & understood by the speaker and the audience. An analogy would be a speaker today referring to lessons learned from, say, Icarus, or the tortoise in his race against the hare.

For the record, I'm not arguing that A&E didn't exist. Personally, I don't care a whole lot if they did or didn't. I think the soul & moral awareness (for lack of a better term) had to come about at some point and if it was in two distinct people, great. If not, so what?

-Dan.