Bible written by different writers at different times for different people

me ^ | 12/6/01 | me

[kjam22]

You still ignore the fact that I accept and believe a literal interpretation. You should argue with someone that disagrees with you.

[RnMomof7]

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

Excellent post! And you are exactly correct as we read in the Revelation to John

22:1And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
22:2In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.
22:3And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
22:4And they shall see his face; and his name [shall be] in their foreheads.

22:5And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

[Weatherman123]

once again, "new" meaning to the discussion I was having the other day on this thread.

[VRWC_minion]

Pray for me. I think we are still in day 6 of the creation.

[kjam22]

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.

As a matter of fact... the message is the same. If a person reads it and believe Adam is a parable teaching us that mankind has fallen. And this person reads and believes that we are all fallen because of the state of mankind as described after the fall. The message is the same.

Myself... I believe it literally. But those that accept the same outcome that I accept... well there are a lot of more things more important to argue about. Those that accept man's fallen state whether through parable or literal Adam still accept man's fallen state.

[Cleburne]

Indeed. If there was no original sin (as Muslims, oddly enough, considering all their stringent rules, believe) salvation, and Jesus, are moot points, for not only was Jesus a blad faced liar, but his work on the cross and resurection were equally moot. And let us consider that there is sin, but it did not come from man's actions. Did God purposely create it? Or let us suppose someone, somewhere acted out the first sin (funny that God wouldn't care to reveal it to us, isn't it?), but it wasn't Adam and Eve, but instead perhaps (following a rather thiestic God controlled evolutionary view here) some primordal human that broke out of simian state. This would make Jesus a liar, again, for he plainly stated the fact of Adam's sin.

In sum, if you proffess to be a Christian, ie saved by Christ in the most literal sense of the meaning, it is my opinion, and I think Scripture and simple reasoning back me up here, that in order to accept salvation and Jesus, you must accept original sin coming ffrom the first humans. This game of lets play cut and paste with the Scriptures is absurb. How am I to discern what is truth and what is not? Is salvation truth? How can you prove it is and other portions are not? Do you merely discount supernatural accounts? Do you stick only to the parts you like?

[kjam22]

:)

[Tribefan]

I bet that class was fascinating. Wasn't it exciting to see how two different paths emerge from a critical study of the Bible?

One side includes those who see that the study allows people to make their faith greater, to see for instance the beauty and reality of the stories of the Israelites as they escaped from bondage in Egypt.

However, then there are the people who find it safer to retreat to the "safe" interpretations, who are scared (and I can certainly understand the fear) to "kick the tires" (as a best friend of mine likes to say) and see the whole story. I pray that all have the opportunity to "kick the tires" a bit - spoken from personal experience, it is so worthwhile!

[Weatherman123]

So I'm not the only one who's heard of this theory? I'm starting to regret spending my morning on this. I've still got Christmas deocorations to put up and laundry to do. I'm glad to hear there are at least one or two other people that have heard of J, P, Y, and D.

I have to confess that I'm surprised that by bringing up this theory I'm being told that I'm not a real Christian. That anyone who studies the Bible in one way can't really believe in God. I thought other Christians would be more tolerant. It saddens me.

[kjam22]

In sum, if you proffess to be a Christian, ie saved by Christ in the most literal sense of the meaning, it is my opinion, and I think Scripture and simple reasoning back me up here, that in order to accept salvation and Jesus, you must accept original sin coming ffrom the first humans.

Actually... in order to accept Christ Jesus salvation you must admit your own sin. I don't blame my sins on Adam. Paul tells us we are born with a sinful nature. But we are all guilty of our own sins. For all have Sined and fallen short of the glory of God. Because the truth is that if Adam hadn't sinned I would have. And so would each of us.

[WRhine]

I don't believe God created the universe as described. I believe the creation story is a myth that helped people understand the beginning of time, the world, and human kind. Of course you can't apply physical contraints to God. The one thing I DO KNOW about God is that he is beyond my comprehension and beyond the comprehension of any mortal.

I have a very similar view as you about the bible. It is amazing to me how the fundamentalists reduce God down to something of a fire breathing Zeus-like character that sits in a throne in heaven and is consumed by damning and praising people here on earth. My belief is that God is an infinite mind and of infinite existence that is, yes, well beyond our comprehension.

[Eternal_Bear]

Few if any Jews believe the OT is literally true. Why not follow their example? They wrote it; they would know.

[VRWC_minion]

Seriously.

I don't believe God will rest until his creation is complete and its not complete until day 7 where he says "its very good". Genesis one is described as the generations of the heavens and the earth. In my literal mind it describes ALL of those generations from beginning to end and the seven days are from God's view point.

[Cleburne]

Then you do not understand the anology Jesus made: just as there was the first Adam, the sinful one, that plunged mankind into sin (by the act of one man, that is important) there must be a second Adam, a perfect one, that will brinf mankind out of the curse the first Adam placed upon us. Again, do yuo think Jesus lied when he spoke of Adam and a literal creation? If you choose to interpret his words as soemthing else, where do you stop?

[mrb1960]

Ok,

I'll way in, but just briefly. I was told by an old acquaintenance of this, and he told that it was speculated, AND IT'S ONLY SPECULATION, there two different creations are being refered to.

One for a pre-existance Earth where Satan met his downfall, and the one for the current Earth as we know it. It is speculated, and please see the word "speculation", that the fall of satan as told in the Old Testament took place on a pre-existant Earth. It was destroyed and awaited to be made anew by the Lord God. It's called the "Gap Theory."

If anyone else has heard of this let me know through this discussion or private reply. I'd like to find out if anyone else has heard of this.

[Patria One]

I think that literalists and fundamentalists try to domesticate God and make him fit their understanding of reality or behave in predictable ways based on their perceptions (or aspirations) of politics or culture or tribal loyalties or whatever.

[JoeSchem]

What kind of discussion is possible here? You are adamant in your belief that the Creation Story was written by two different people. As soon as you can prove this with copyright notices dated 4004 BC, I will believe you.

[Destructor]

Hmmm...whom do I believe? God, or an unknown mortal? Decisions...decisions...

[mrb1960]

Ok,

I'll way in, but just briefly. I was told by an old acquaintenance of this, and he told that it was speculated, AND IT'S ONLY SPECULATION, there two different creations are being refered to.

One for a pre-existance Earth where Satan met his downfall, and the one for the current Earth as we know it. It is speculated, and please see the word "speculation", that the fall of satan as told in the Old Testament took place on a pre-existant Earth. It was destroyed and awaited to be made anew by the Lord God. It's called the "Gap Theory."

If anyone else has heard of this let me know through this discussion or private reply. I'd like to find out if anyone else has heard of this.

[Cleburne]

But this view allows us no knowledge of God-he is some Being far out into space, and it would seem that we can know nothing of him, other than perhaps that he exists and had a hand in the establishment of this universe (which seems to be a slowly re-emerging view amoungst some in science). Now, it is grand that you accept some kind of creator God, but will you accept that he has given any kind of revelation to humanity? Or do you believe he esentially reveals himself only though nature?