Bible written by different writers at different times for different people

me ^ | 12/6/01 | me

[nightdriver]

There is valid answers to refute your theses, but there in't really enough time and space to adequately address them on this forum. If you aren't a believer, I can't make you one.

[Weatherman123]

Thank YOU for the recommended reading. I'll add it to my list.

[RnMomof7]

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

But you consider the account of that creation a myth. I guess I wonder what your faith rests on..if not on the word of God

[Weatherman123]

thanks for the links, I'll check them out.

[Nyralthotep]

but it wouldn't it be nice if we could all stretch our minds and move from the literal translation of every single passage of every single book and understand that the important points are not exactly what happened, down to the smallest detail.

When I read this kind of statement it reminds me of something the liberals always call for when they want something done their way: 'Bi-partisanship'. What it really means is that you want us to open our minds to accomodate your belief but you will not do likewise.

[OrioleFan]

The Koran was written by a Highwayman.

[TX Bluebonnet]

I was required to take 6 hours of Religion in college. One of my classes was genesis, a verse by verse dissection of Genesis. We used the Anchor Bible series book on Genesis and another book about Genesis.

The easiest part of the test was picking out the author. (P) for Priestly used "Lord" (or El--- ?) , was stricter, a little anal, and always gave the long X begat Y genealogies. (J) for Yahwehist (SP?) always used "God" (or Yahweh), and gave a more artful account of events. Then there was the occaisional (R) Redactor. He was a little harder to pick out, as his job was to blend the two stories together.

I was fascinated, but many of the Christian Ed majors dropped out.

[monkeyshine]

Sorry, meant to say the world could NOT survive on Justice alone.

It is a common mistake to think that the order listed is the order of Creation. This is not true, because "In the beginning God Created the heavens and the earth" and "The spirit of God hovered over the waters" implies, obviously, that the waters were already being created.

The phrase "in the beginning" is used often in scripture... it does not mean "At first". It means in the beginning of creating -- not necessarily chronological. You need the context of the remaining text to figure out the order.

[kjam22]

I agree with you. The important thing is not whether it happened or not but what it means. And what it means to me, all of it, is that there is a God, who is beyond my comprehension, who loves me and the rest of the world, who sent his only son to die for my sins and walks with me always.

I agree with this statement.... but I would add.... and that this same God created the universe, and me. That I didn't just climb up out of the pond on my own accord... because the Genesis message is among other things that I was created by design.

[unsnatchable]

I did not miss your point...read my post again. I merely said your argument was strong until you attempted to prove the existence of sin through the confession of it by Catholics. Sin exists and Christ atoned for it. Did you miss that line in my post? I was trying to support your premise and the progression of your argument. It seemed that the last phrase did nothing to prove the existence of sin because many aren't Catholic and either confess to the LORD directly or do not confess their sin at all. IN short...I AGREED WITH YOU AND got flamed lol

[Weatherman123]

Good to see you Tribefan! Took you long enough!

Isn't it a sign of a deeper, more closely-held faith, when we attempt to learn as much as possible about those who have gone before us? Isn't God's story of creation even more incredible when we realize that our mere words cannot describe it accurately?

Yes.

[calvin sun]

No flames from me, my friend (grin). But I would like to offer comments.

First, God needs no sun in order to have light. In fact, God Himself is light.

Second, one runs into problems in saying that Adam and Eve were mythical figures. Genesis (if I remember correctly) lists a genealogy from Adam to Abraham. Then, Matthew lists a genealogy from Abraham to Christ. So, if Adam really is a myth, where does the mythical person end and the real person begin. Also, a mythical Adam destroys Paul's arguments in Romans 5.

[exmarine]

Whether literal or symbolic... the message is the same. Whether his name was Adam or George makes no difference. What matters is that God has used Genesis to tell us of our state, our relationship with him. Did he use actual events to tell us.... or did he use a parable about Adam and Eve makes no difference. The reality is He has told us of our state and prepared a way of reconciliation

Your theology is seriously flawed friend. If original sin is not real, did God just make it up? Did God just one day say - I have decided that man has fallen and will be sinful from now on, and I will make up this fake story to support it? Did God just on a whim decide to make people with "innate sin natures" or as Paul the Apostle said, do we get them from Adam? (REad romans 5:12)

Why did Paul believe Adam was real and that original sin was real? I think you need to get on your knees and ask God to show you the Truth - then you should pick up your bible and allow the Holy Spirit to teach you.

[kjam22]

But you consider the account of that creation a myth. I guess I wonder what your faith rests on..if not on the word of God

You know.... I accept the literal 6 day creation. But I know Christians who believe each day represents 1000 years because of what Peter said.... etc. To a person who tells me they think that creation is a parable or is symbolic, and that they accept the fact that God created the universe and each of us. I tell them that I think they pretty much understand what the Bible is teaching us in Genesis 1. To those that say it is a myth and doesn't represent what really happened.... I pray earnestly for them.

[Cleburne]

I fail to see how this supposed second creation story is interpreted as such. It is not another creation acount: it is the forming of the Garden of Eden. It does not speak of some different version of creation of the world, nor does it add on details to said creation, it is a creation story only in that it details the creation if you will of the Garden of Eden. Whether you wish to see Eden as some kind of wavy story detailing some good moral (and thus disavow the entire Bible and salvation) is fine with me, but lets not pretend its another creation story, shall we?

[exmarine]

I think you and Kjam should look up the word "truth" in the dictionary. Truth is based on actual facts. The truth exists whether you believe it or not as it is independent of belief. What is being espoused on this thread is nothing more than relativistic heresy.

[kjam22]

You keep missing the part where I state that I believe in a literal interpretation.... I assume you are just missing that part.

But to the person who says that they read Genesis and decide that Mankind is fallen because of mankind's own choices (same as I stated earlier). I say they are exactly correct.

[exmarine]

To a person who tells me they think that creation is a parable or is symbolic, and that they accept the fact that God created the universe and each of us. I tell them that I think they pretty much understand what the Bible is teaching us in Genesis

I think your understanding is seriously lacking. Seek the truth and you shall find it. Do you want to know the truth or do you want to hang on to your flawed understanding?

[exmarine]

No, I am holding you to your own words:

Whether literal or symbolic... the message is the same.

This is a damnable lie. It's not the same as I have pointed out ad nauseum.

[Tribefan]

Give me an example of a bonafide contradiction. If you don't know why it is important that the bible not have contradictions, then this may be a waste of time. Do you really want to know why, or is it important that you cling to your opinion regardless of the facts?

Exodus 2:18 - "When they returned to their father Reuel"
Exodus 3:1 - "Meanwhile Moses was tending the flock of his father-in-law Jethro"
How did Moses' father-in-law's name change in three paragraphs?

You can point out numerous "contradictions", if they must be called that. However, instead of looking at these as making the Bible "less than perfect", they are simply differences that come from separate writers who are recording traditions that have been passed down for hundreds of years.

I hope that people can understand that these contradictions do not at all diminish the the beauty, importance and life-giving value of God's Word. It in fact makes it deeper in that it can change and be adaptable to different people depending upon their circumstances and background.