a-seeker

Hey, I didn't read beyond much of this That is nonsense and not at all how the Greek reads. Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν· τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ δεῖ οὐκ οἴδαμεν, ἀλλὰ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις· The meaning here is that the Holy Spirit can pray for us when human language fails us; He takes over when we fail. That is the obvious meaning implied by the first clause "in our weakness". NOte the first word "likewise". this points back to the previous verse: εἰ δὲ ὃ οὐ βλέπομεν ἐλπίζομεν, δι᾽ ὑπομονῆς ἀπεκδεχόμεθα. But if what we do not see we hope for, by perseverance we eagerly await. We lack the words; but the spirit intercedes here. Everything else in your post seems to me to be creating complexities where they do not exist. clb

I am not sure what the question is; the text doesn't seem to speak to your status as a divorcee. I doubt the text means an overseer has to be a husband--after all Paul encouraged singleness and was single himself; rather, if he is a husband, he must be so of only one wife. This doesn't mean that polygamy was a neutral issue for laypersons; it just means that it is absolutely essential for leaders of the church. There may have been persons with multiple spouses before they converted. They were ineligible for these kinds of leadership. Only singles and those married to only one wife could be leaders in the official sense. As far as apostles and prophets the response above is correct: Apostles were first and foremost those who witnessed the Resurrected Christ. There are Christians with the gift of prophecy but this is quite distinct from the Prophet. That era is done. There are no more Prophets; God has spoken His last major word through Jesus. clb

If the garden was actually on the planet, it most likely was destroyed in the flood. the tree of life is in paradise according to the new testament, but I don't recall anywhere the tree of knowledge of good and evil is. I don't recall any further mention of the Garden in our future....... but the Bible is a big book and I could have missed something along the way of reading it. I believe our new abode with be the New Jerusalem..... upscale version of the Garden. Are you saying God took the tree of life to heaven ? No, I said it was in paradise....... now we would need a thread to decide where Gods Paradise is, and the time frame of it's placing there. So all we need to do is decide where the throne is and follow the river of the water of life and there we will find the trees. Since they are on both sides of the river I can assume that there are more than one. I think it will be bit more complicated; after all, there will probably be billions of Christians. So there is going to be a line; my guess the "no cutting" rule will still apply. If the rate of growth for these leaves is the same as now, that makes the waiting significantly longer. But I suppose we can presume upon supernatural growth. Even so. clb

A simple search of scripture would answer your question if the tree of life died. Revelation 22:2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Revelation is a highly symbolic book; but even if the tree mentioned there is literal, it is a tree of the New Jerusalem which is lowered down from heaven. Thus it is problematic to identify with the exact tree of Genesis 2. clb

Does everyone here believe that there still exists a Cherubim guarding an entrance into the garden of Eden with two flaming swords? Or is the garden of Eden now accessible? Would that mean that tree of life was accessible? Or did the tree of life die and thus the Cherubim is no longer needed? clb

I wrote a response to each of yours; but then unfortunately came to this at the end. Is this an accurate summary of your thinking: 1) Genesis is about the beginning 2) God would never inspire a work about the beginning which presupposed content later to come; because those events haven’t yet occurred. And Genesis is obviously a history book meeting the modern criterion of history. There is no question here of it being anything other than a historical account of the Universe. 3) Therefore, there is no reason to read ahead. Genesis is needed to make sense of Ex-Dt.. But Ex-Dt. is not necessary for appropriately reading Genesis. If so, then there is no point for further discussion. All of that is a faith based assumption, assuming the genre of Genesis and how God would write it, “Well, if I were God, I certainly would write it this way; therefore it is written this way”. And of course I cannot disprove an assumption based on faith by the text (though references in Genesis to the future time of the author render it highly implausible; obviously the author has the present in mind when writing on the past). I think this position illogical and it imposes questionable controls on how God can and cannot inspire a document. But it does not seem likely to me that someone who holds that view would ever loosen his grip enough to give another view a fair hearing. So once again, perhaps it is best to leave it. clb Hey CLB, I think the problem with your assessment of my position is that you are being anachronistic. I am not predetermining how the text was written; I am determining how the text was written through actually reading it. It is true that responsible Christians employ logical interpretation safeguards against the human tendency to read their own ideas into the text. This is necessary to maintain logical consistency with the faith assumption that the Bible is the Word of God – and therefore has authority superior to any human idea. Your “summary” of my “thinking” is a decontextualized, overly-generalised, mischaracterisation of my position. I’m not sure why my position is “illogical”. It seems to me to be overwhelmingly, logically sound that, in our attempt to determine the author’s intent, we should give the author’s own words the highest authority. What I find logically questionable is the concept that we can interpret the Word of God however we choose – i.e. subject the intent of the omniscient Deity to the whims of finite, fallible humans. Therefore sincere believers employ logical methods to guard against our desire to hijack God’s Word (i.e. to guard against our tendency to make the Bible say what we want rather than what it actually says). These methods are mainly common sense; such as using exegesis and not eisegesis, interpreting the meaning of scripture within its own grammatical context etc. All we are assuming is that God is a rational, logical Being. If that assumption is false, then the entire reliance of our faith upon scripture is pointless and any appeal to scripture at all is meaningless. Whether you decide to “leave it” or not is your call. I’m not frustrated by the conversation. I think my main goal is to convey to you the idea that when a person is convinced that God is real and that the Bible is His Word, we do not permit ourselves the luxury of a liberal approach to scripture. We don’t consider ourselves to have the right to mitigate any of God’s Word based on the existence of some external idea. Based on the propaganda surrounding the secular models of history, I can understand why some Christians may feel obligated to find a way to mitigate Genesis however, on personal extensive study of Genesis, I have found no objective reason to think the author of Genesis meant anything other than what is written. The evidence in the text points to an historical account. I am happy to entertain other ideas, but the text itself remains my highest authority. Furthermore, on formal studies into the secular models of history, I have found no objective reason for any Christian to feel obliged to accept them as more reliable than the Biblical account. Hmmm. Remember, My "summary" was placed in the form of a question. So the real answer would be "no" or "not quite". I don't know what you mean by a "liberal approach"; but I do believe in God and believe that the Bible conveys salvific history (though i would say it is God's Word, I refrain from using that label since it has so many connotations). I don't think my interpretation "mitigates" Genesis whatsoever (what would that even mean? In my mind real "mitigation" would be an interpretation that excludes: Creation ex-nihilo; monotheism; Man as imago Dei; the Fall. I don't see how questioning whether the story of the snake is true history or fable mitigates Genesis. If at the end of the day we are left with the doctrines just now named, what has been lost? Perhaps the chief problem is that we are speaking in the abstract with very few (if any) real examples of what I mean. But, once more, if you don't allow other documents written by Moses to help interpret Genesis, then my hands are tied. I am arguing that Moses wrote all 5 of the Pentateuch and that Scripture should interpret Scripture: this does not go against the principle of authorial intent; it does, however, goes against he assumption that the Genesis account in no way is influenced by the present time of the author. That is the linchpin of my argument. Without it, I have nothing except a few word studies from Genesis, and curiosities about Eden, the garden of Eden, and their relation to the land; but even these point beyond Genesis 1 and 2 and so they are, under your restrictions, out of court. Hence, I questioned whether there was a point to this discussion. But to maintain good will, I pose a question. In JOsephus we find a commentary to this extent (my Josephus is elsewhere, so I paraphrase) "every element in the temple is meant to point the mind to Creation". Now, what would one make of this? Should such a sentence be dismissed because it is not from the Bible? Does it impel studies in any direction? clb

No, I am not. I am reading the text closely. What you forget is that I would love to discover the Bible is free of all and any discrepancy. If I were an atheist or an unbeliever, the motivation behind this list would be obvious--but I am a Christian. What possible motive would I have for this Shiloh except the rather mundane motive that I like to believe things that are TRUE, and only if I see them to be TRUE. I will not embrace a theory simply because it backs up Christianity. That is not intellectually honest. Now, to Butero I gave other difficulties with the Resurrection. I would be glad to receive a single harmonization (a single chronological account representing every element from every Gospel). In fact, I might even attempt one myself. The chief difficulties are explaining why some women were relevant to mention and others not in each gospel; the state of the stone upon the arrival at the tomb; the number of angels and their spatial relation to the tomb...well, you can look above. Obviously more is needed, since I don't understand you, and I am a fairly intelligent person. Your solution requires that both of them are descendants of David correct? And that one of them is concerned with property rights, but the other is not, correct? I will leave alone the fact that neither gospel proclaims them both as descendants of David, a rather prestigious pedigree that would only strengthen the claim. 1) What reason would one gospel have for protecting the property rights of a woman who by that time was either in the custody of the beloved disciple, or dead? 2) What reason would the other gospel have for not protecting the property rights. 3) Do we have outside sources showing this principle of adoption. Again, if all I had were Luke's gospel, nothing would ever lead me to believe I was reading anything other than Joseph's genealogy from start to finish: after all, what reason is given for the young couples' travel to Bethlehem? Because Joseph was a descendant of David. When I get to the genealogy, I am going to have Joseph on the mind. You see Shiloh, these are the sorts of questions an honest person has to ask and I am trying to be an honest person. I am not going to embrace the first solution offered simply because it confirms my faith. That is dangerous. Remember the Trojan horse: what they hailed as a sign of their victory became the cause of their downfall. If I haven't examined all the virtues and flaws in a solution, then someone (an atheist?) will, and if it does not hold up to scrutiny then I will have yielded to the enemy one more reason to scorn the faith as believable only by simpletons who will believe anything so long as it favors their faith. I refuse to give them that opportunity. I will scrutinize it before I let them. I see. I need some clarification, and I am switching to heliocentricity since it is a bit simpler. We all know the Bible describes the Sun as moving. So: 1) are you saying that the ancient authors knew as well as any modern meteorologist that the earth removes around the sun; but just as any meteorologist when not in the lab would say, "the sun rises at 6 am." so the Biblical authors describe it as moving or standing still? 2) Or are you saying that they erroneously thought the Sun moved; that they did indeed describe it such, but the Holy Spirit protected them from writing so explicitly, keeping all their language phenomenological, with the result that the Bible is protected by the phenomenological argument? 3) Or are you saying something else? clb

Hey Butero: I like you. You seem like a humble person; so before you read my responses, I want you to ask yourself something, "If you became convinced there were contradictions or errors in teh Bible, would your faith shatter?" If the answer is "Yes"; PLEASE let's just drop this altogether, don't read any further. Maybe there are solutions, but it just isn't worth it if your faith is on the line. Jesus is still Lord no matter what. clb ___________________________________________________________ there is far more than that to the Resurrection appearances. It is difficult to see a real reason why Mark should only mention three women, Matthew only two, Luke indicate numerous women but only select 3 for distinction, and John mention name only 1 (Magdalene) and give no hint that there were others. In Luke and Mark when the women arrive the stone is ALREADY rolled away. The do not see the physical removal of the stone. In Matthew the same women arrive; find the stone in place; then witness an angel remove the stone, and subsequently sit ON the stone. In Mark it is a man inside the tomb: note he is waiting, he does not appear. In Luke it is two angels that SUDDENLY appear. In John there is NO angel at the tomb; indeed, in all synoptics the women are told one way or another that the Lord is risen and it is that announcement that drives them to tell the disciples. In JOhn however, no angel appears and it is fear of grave robbery or displacement that sends Mary M to tell Peter. In Mark, the original ending has them say nothing, but I will leave that be since questions of text criticism is a thread in its own right. In other words if anyone should pick up a harmony or create one of their own, they would have these elements to put into order: 1) number of women (and reasons why any should be left out) 2) Number of angels and their relation to the tomb and the time of their arrival. 3) the state of the stone upon arrival, rolled or not. 4) Who rushes home; and with what information (grave robbery or resurrection). That should be enough, though there are some questions about the appearances of our Lord to the disciples. The genealogy: it is not the final destination that I am thinking about, whether it ends with Abraham or David; it is the route along the way. Matthew 1:7 has the lineage get to David through Solomon; Luke 3:31 gets to David through Nathan, a rather obscure 9th son of David. In Matthew the father of Joseph (Mary's husband) is Jacob; in Luke it is Heli. If we are dealing with a single line, they cannot be reconciled. Shiloh suggested an attractive proposal to solving this, but he is a little stubborn to develop it. The cosmology of Genesis will be alarming if we actually read the text carefully and don't come at it with our own conceptions about the universe, assuming that the ancients held the same. So let's look at what it says exactly. Until day two there is water; then God creates an expanse in the midst of the waters that separates the waters from above the expanse from the waters below. In other words we have Water Expanse Water. What keeps this water from falling through the expanse? It seems that the expanse is impermeable, more like a solid. This arrangement is confirmed by v. 9 where the waters "below the heavens = expanse" are gathered together to make room for dry land; we have the waters below the heavens distinguished from the waters above the heavens. Day 4 God creates the luminaries: this he places "in the expanse" itself (v.17). Not above the expanse; in the same region that he sets the birds to fly (v. 20 "Let birds fly above the earth across the expanse". So we have: Water, Expanse (in which we have luminaries as well as birds) and Water. A close reading of the text will yield those results. If there is an honest way of getting our current atmosphere from a close reading of the text, I am open to it. clb

No worries Butero, I think it is time we move on to other topics. I posted elsewhere (Defense of Gospels) a number of discrepancies and requested solutions. clb

I wrote a response to each of yours; but then unfortunately came to this at the end. Is this an accurate summary of your thinking: 1) Genesis is about the beginning 2) God would never inspire a work about the beginning which presupposed content later to come; because those events haven’t yet occurred. And Genesis is obviously a history book meeting the modern criterion of history. There is no question here of it being anything other than a historical account of the Universe. 3) Therefore, there is no reason to read ahead. Genesis is needed to make sense of Ex-Dt.. But Ex-Dt. is not necessary for appropriately reading Genesis. If so, then there is no point for further discussion. All of that is a faith based assumption, assuming the genre of Genesis and how God would write it, “Well, if I were God, I certainly would write it this way; therefore it is written this way”. And of course I cannot disprove an assumption based on faith by the text (though references in Genesis to the future time of the author render it highly implausible; obviously the author has the present in mind when writing on the past). I think this position illogical and it imposes questionable controls on how God can and cannot inspire a document. But it does not seem likely to me that someone who holds that view would ever loosen his grip enough to give another view a fair hearing. So once again, perhaps it is best to leave it. clb

And you ignore the part where the things He accuses adam of are 1) listening to the voice of eve 2) eaten of the tree of which He commanded adam to not eat of it. The Lord did not at all accuse adam of failing to protect the garden or the tree. You are projecting your opinion into scripture. Okay, I don't get the problem... What does everyone think "protecting" the garden mean? Why is this a big deal? clb The wisdom of accepting scripture for what it says without twisting scripture to mean what it does not will be seen in the walk you walk. When someone begins to take scripture out of context and apply a meaning to a statement that is not what was meant, they begin to accept their own truth, not one given when following scripture. By digging into the meaning of "to tend and keep it", it is easily seen that God intended Adam to work the garden, keeping it clean and proper. To apply the term to mean Adam was to protect the Garden from everything that ever could happen in it is just a lie to create a strange doctrine and to turn people from the truth. That is just what Satan did when he twisted what God told Adam about the penalty of eating from the tree of knowledge, as he told Eve. Let see the subtle twisting of what God said and how it led to destruction. Genesis 3:1-5 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’” Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Satan changed the meaning of one phrase to deceive Eve, "You will not surely die". God spoke of death one way and Satan another. Because of the twisting of the meaning, Eve turned from God and sinned. Be very careful when following something new. Dig into scripture to see if what is being presented to you is what scripture really means, or if it is being twisted. In this case, the meaning of keeping the garden is like the twisted meaning of death, both leads down a false road. Be as the Bereans' were an search to find the truth and do not be so quick to accept something that looks harmless. Well I will be a minority here, but the terms keep and guard are the same used for the Levitical duties in the tabernacle. In fact, WHENEVER these two words appear TOGETHER, they are being used of the priestly duties in the tabernacle. And there it means performing the priestly duties and keeping outsiders from entering the temple. Nu 3.7-8, 8.25-26, 18.5; Ez 44.14. If we are adamant that Scripture interpret Scripture, then it is not eisogesis to allow the rest of Scripture to shed light on this passage and see that Adam and Eve were to protect the garden from the serpent. Now, I do no think the first sin consisted of allowing the serpent to enter the garden, for we are not told where the conversation took place; and even if it took place in the garden, the sin was obviously eating the fruit. By an act of disobedience they failed to guard Eden. The two are not mutually exclusive: they are one and the same. clb

Then the tree of life was superfluous? Why mention it? clb

I am not sure it matters "how long" but whether they would've lived forever or not. The text suggests strongly that they would have died; that the tree of life was something awaiting them under certain conditions (probably obedience against the serpents temptation), but which they were denied because of disobedience. clb

Hi Butero, the miracles you mentioned above were explicitly described as miracles. That is my point. It is a literary issue, not an issue of faith. When the miraculous occurs, we are told about a divine agent. If Genesis had said, "the serpent spoke to Eve....for the devil had taken control of it." Then that would be a literary feature indicating history not myth. Even if it said, "for back then, beasts could talk", that would be closer on the history spectrum than on the myth. In the Noah case we have a proportional dilemma--all those animals crammed into that space. We have a similar dilemma in the gospels--all those people and only a basket of food. But in the gospels miracle is clearly occurring; the author is aware that something impossible had occurred, but there is nothing in Noah suggesting miracle--it doesn't say, "for the Lord made them all to fit.' That too would be a literary feature pointing in the direction of history and away from myth. But more importantly we have this That is not true; and it was my fault for being unclear here. I do not think the sequential problem of Genesis 1 and 2 belong to the class of contradictions. Put another way, if I were an inerrantist, I would still read Genesis the way I do. The two are not contradictory according to my reading. It would become a contradiction only if the author intended the two accounts to be sequentially consistent; then we would have an enormous blunder on our hands. I don't think he did intend that. I think he knew very well what he was doing and he was framing the creation narrative in two sequentially different ways to make highly nuanced theological points. Thus it is an error to say I read Genesis the way I do in order to dismiss inerrancy. I don't. I have posted elsewhere what appear to me to be real discrepancies. I hesitate to call them errors. My view can be hinted at by this: I think that were Paul to find out the Sun was the center of the universe, and that the authors of Scripture thought it was the earth, it would not matter one difference to him or any other canonical author. My guess is that could include all the discrepancies in the Bible. clb

Hi OneLight I do not think I have ever received one unkind word from you, so not everything said above was universal. As to this... Yes and No. I highly doubt all posters here care one bit about me (Go back and read some of their posts....a long history of posts...and tell me how they sound). But over all, it was not the love people show me I think chimerical, but the "slippery slope" they think my views constitute. I simply say I have walked to the edge, and found the terrain quite solid and the line easily maintained. That is all. I am not a young Christian or a young thinker. My heart is for those people who have also walked to the line, suffered intellectual vertigo, and fell. I don't mind being in a corner, not at all. It's fun, so long as the attacks are at my mind. It sharpens me. But to say that I am clouded and only Jesus can unveil my mind; or to say that I am defensive...well, that's just exasperating. I suppose what I dislike the most are debates which amount to little more than "No youre wrong; no youre wrong" ad infinitum. Now, I have a terse writing style; it may come off as defensive. But I am rarely upset in any of these posts--exasperated sometimes, but not upset. However, if i am actually upsetting people here, then I can certainly move on to another topic, and perhaps closing this one is a good idea. clb

I was wondering if there were any science fanatics who might shed light on the molecular processes that such a miracle as multiplying bread would have to involve. Another miracle, in John we see Jesus pass through walls. I am told this is not physically impossible; if the atoms of our bodies were so aligned that they met no resistance in the opposing atoms of the walls (like ships passing in the night). Could a similar maneuver be made to conceive Jesus' walking on water, though in the opposite way? clb

I like the first point you make (not that I dislike the rest) about God creating something from nothing. For instance, many people have trouble with or outright reject the virgin birth; yet they have little difficulty accepting Creation ex-nihilo. They also (and I as well) wonder what genes Jesus had if he had only one biological parent. But is it impossible that a new act of creation ex-nihilo were occurring, inserting itself into this one...? clb

Hi Tristen, obviously that will not work. If I tell you I can bench two hundred, and you say prove it, then tie my hands together, you havn't refuted my claim. You've just cleverly changed the rules so that I have to fail. My claim was that science can prompt a reexamination of Scripture; you added what that reexamination can and can't consist of. That was never part of my proposal. Reexamination means using all the tools pertinent to the topic. You are asking me to treat literature as no literature should be treated, at least to any purpose. No pre-conceptions!! I cannot return to infancy. Is it a preconception that light typically comes from a luminous source? Is looking at the Hebrew a pre-conception because it is not my native tongue. For that matter, is it a pre-conception to conceive "day" as a 24 hour period? Maybe back then a "day" was much longer. Now we've opened the door to day/age, which I think both of us would reject. Your entire claim that Genesis should be read without reference ahead is artificial. Who is to say that Genesis was written first? Because it comes first in our Bibles? Then we should say Matthew was written before Mark and all the gospels before Paul. When I open up Exodus the first thing I see Moses writing is the law-covenant. Why should that not be a starting point? But even so: Genesis 1 has the world made in 6 days, Genesis 2.4 opens up with it being a day. Again (but I have been over this so many times), in Genesis 2.18 God declares it is not good for man to be alone. He declares he will make a helper fit for him. What is the next thing he does...makes birds and beasts (not had made, but made). clb (I wonder if I should just give it a rest).

This OP is from someone admittedly ignorant of science. It is not intended to be controversial. I am not raising the issue of whether miracles can happen; I believe they can. I am more curious as to the behavior of nature when a miracle is occurring. Perhaps a concrete example will help: We are told that on two occasions Jesus multiplied bread. I admit I have always had difficulty imaging such an event--after all, if I were looking at one of the baskets, what would I see? Would the loaves be bubbling and expanding; would there suddenly appear a new loaf. But I also admit that the inability of the imagination to reproduce an event does not make that event impossible. What I am really interested in is the chemistry required for that to take place: After all, we have something appearing that wasn't there before (new loaves). Loaves are, I assume, made of atoms. That means these atoms had to come from somewhere? Where did they come from? Was there an enormous shift of atoms as some from the ground move through a disciple and ultimately come into alignment with other atoms so that finally we have a new piece of bread? And yes, I am aware that I probably just exposed my embarrassing deficiency in atoms. clb Oh, other miracles are forthcoming

You’ve missed my point. You asked why I should let science even prompt me to reexamine Scripture. My point is, if I pick up a commentary, it will give an explanation of a certain passage, and that very fact means it has an influence on my reading of Scripture. Perhaps I will reject the interpretation, perhaps I will accept it. But it prompted my rethinking. I agree. I don’t think I have said anything to contradict this. To reexamine Scripture because the sciences say the earth is very old is acceptable. When YECs attack the scientists, they are, indirectly, allowing them to influence their reading of Scripture. There is nothing controversial in what I have proposed. What I have challenged is the a priori assumption that any new interpretation discovered, prompted by scientific claims, is merely an accommodation to the sciences and devoid of any substantial evidence. That is illogical. That is rather bold to say what I would or would not find. Now, when you say, “without appealing beyond these passages” are you saying that I cannot consult the rest of Scripture? Or ancient documents outside of Scripture? That is rather restrictive. After all, Scripture interprets Scripture, right? Pick up your Josephus and he will tell that the temple was, in all its features, intended to lead the mind to contemplate creation. That alone should warrant at least the curiosity in seeking temple motifs in the creation account, and creation elements in the Jewish temple. So let me know if I am allowed to consult the rest of Scripture, ancient documents, and, depending on your answer, I will provide evidence for the temple motif. No. I suppose I was talking with “tongue in cheek”. I do find it amusing when Christians denounce evolution as threatening to the imago dei, when the imago dei was created out of dirt! As if monkeys were a less respectable material cause than dirt. But no, I was certainly not deriving the theory of evolution from Adam’s creative process. Now come on. I am addressing issues arising in a thread that has touched upon the age of the earth. I thnk you are being too hard. And again, you are (or seem to be) demanding that I interpret Genesis 1 and 2 without consulting the rest of Genesis! Why? I really don’t get your point. I am saying that the ages mentioned later should not be added to the seven days of Genesis 1 (or the one day of Genesis 2) to give an age for the earth. clb

Hi OneLight. The most important part of this is that you accuse me of trying to get people to doubt Scripture. That is not true; I am not hoping people will doubt Scripture. And the street goes both ways here; many have said that I and others like me are against God. I have been called a wolf in sheep's clothing. I have been told that I am not intellectually capable of discussing this, all this by Christians. People on this thread and forum, it seems, are allowed to be rude and demeaning; but if I push back, then I am rebuked. I reject the warnings posed to me because I think they are chimerical, illusory, more like a phobia. There is no danger in my approach to Scripture. My approach to Scripture has given me firm, unshakable conviction in Christ as Lord. clb

Hi Butero, Starting from a place of unbelief....? that is rather vague. unbelief in Christ? No, that is not my starting place. Unbelief in creation by God? Nope. Unbelief that Genesis is inspired? Nope. My starting place is careful and honest thinking. Thus it is hasty to say "I don't believe in the Genesis account of creation and the flood". I should make it clear that I don't think Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other; they can only contradict each other if the author intended them to be sequentially congruent. It is obvious to me that he didn't. One of the reasons I do not take the first 12 chapters as straight forward history is that they don't bear the signs of straight forward history. There is much in them that is what we would call miraculous; can God produce miracles. Of course. But I study the Bible and see certain characteristics of the miraculous that do not appear in Genesis. The author does not acknowledge the isolation of light from the sun (cf. Revelation where the author makes it explicit). The author does not say, "back then, snakes could talk" (that would be an historical comment) nor does he indicate any supernatural agency (cf. Balaam's donkey). Characteristic of myths is the complete lack of explanation of the uncanny and preternatural. The Noah story has 2 of every species enter a boat and survive for over a year: thus the boat must have room for enough food to sustain them; enough room for offspring (a dog's gestation period is like 9 weeks) enough room for Elephants; remember that lions are predators, what are they going to eat? Then there is the enormous and insuperable journey which penguins and kangaroos must make to get to that boat in time. The ancients were not idiots, they would have recognized that all of this requires miracle. Can God do miracles? Yes. But there is no explanation or indication that the miraculous was occurring here. But another genre allows for impossible events without need of explanation: myth. As for the two accounts, I don't think you are being entirely honest. Immediately in 2.4 we are told that God made the earth and heavens in a day. At first blush that should give one a start...was it one day or 7? Now, there are solutions to this. Great. Every single one that I've met is weak. Again, we are told that on day 3 we have plants obviously not contingent upon cultivation; in 2.4 we are told that they are contingent upon cultivation. Again, the sequence leading up to Adam looks like this: Adam is alone. God recognizes this is not good and says LET US MAKE A HELPER SUITABLE FOR HIM. Now, having read that, what is the next thing you would expect God to do? MAKE A HELPER. What is the next thing we read? God forms (NOT HAD FORMED) beasts and birds. He presents them to Adam. It explicitly says no helper was found. Your theory is to have me believe that God declares the need for a helper, postpones that by presenting beasts and birds to Adam, discovers, lo and behold, they won't do, and then gets to the business of creating Eve...? The obvious interpretation is, God declares the need for a helper, makes the birds and beasts, Adam names them (naming and function were tied in the ancient near east) discovers none will do, so God creates Eve, Adam names her showing that she indeed is suitable. It is not obstinacy that prevents me from accepting your interpretation. Its reason. clb

So, God can't spell? And the bold face is a man-made criteria. You have selected what errors the Bible can and cannot contain. clb Complete nonsense. When I speak of scribal errors like spelling errors, I am referring to the errors made by copyists, scribes who are working from copies. Inerrancy only speaks to errors of substance. It is clear that you don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy. You are reaching for anything you can to paint the Bible as document full of contradictions that are irreconcilable and full of errors and in doing so you you diminish the Word of God. Sir, please explain to me how else I am supposed to interpret the following: I mean, if by original you mean the original first copy, and not the actual paper that Paul's pen touched, you need to be clearer. No one would read that any other way than to suppose you thought Paul could've misspelled something. Good grief. You just said it was fine if Paul misspelled a word. You believe that every jot and tittle is inspired, which I think would include spelling. So naturally I asked whether God can spell. clb I am sorry. I forgot. You have abandoned all commonsense and rational thinking in order to mount your little campaign to destroy faith in God's Word. I said "original." I didn't say original first copy. "Original copy" would be as nonsensical as referring to something as a "genuine replica." Honestly, I think I was pretty clear about what I meant. Inerrancy speaks to the Bible's accuracy in its historical record. Inerrancy doesn't speak to the human element involved in the writing of Scripture. So spelling errors are inconsequential. You are trying to applying a standard of spotless perfection of the physical text to inerrancy, which has nothing to do with what the doctrine entails. You don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy and so it really makes it impossible to have a decent discussion about it. It would be one thing if you had a handle on the concept and were arguing against inerrancy for what it really is, but you are arguing against what you THINK inerrancy is, and not the actual doctrine. So really, before you can argue against it, you need to learn what the doctrine really entails. The bold might be a good point; however, you were inconsistent above. You said that it mattered not if Paul made a spelling error (i.e. original). I then asked if God can't spell (Scripture is inspired, but not its spelling). You then said you were talking about spelling errors by the copyists, not the original. Therefore I thought by original you really meant copies, which made no sense to me. Read your posts; my conclusion is very logical. Now, if you are admitting that there could be spelling errors in the originals, but no errors regarding matters of substance, obviously the question arises, what are "matters of substance?" It is a highly subjective criterion. For instance, obviously I do not think it a substantial matter that Genesis 1 and 2 do not align sequentially. You obviously say it is. Who is to arbitrate between the two of us? Again, I don't think it matters much if there are geographical errors, you do. Where is the objective standard by which we decide this? Are only those things substantial which, without the security of inerrancy, our faith in Christ would crumble. For instance, in one one persons mind the notion that the Bible contains geographical errors makes them cast doubt on the Resurrection; therefore, for him, it is essential that the Bible is inerrant on all geographical issues. Perhaps for another, the thought that the original manuscripts might have spelling or grammatical errors, that would be psychologically unbearable; therefore for him inerrancy must also include grammar and spelling. clb

I am not sure what the point of this OP is. Please state it; what is the opposition you are countering? You've acknowledged in your translation that one account has God create the universe in seven days, another in one day. So what are you claiming? Are there two different accounts? Your New Testament passages are nothing to the point. They are just random passages that pious and well-meaning but unskilled Christians throw about to support beliefs that are not always Biblical. Your OP was about Genesis; let's just stick with Genesis. My guess is you are advocating the view that Genesis 2.4 onward is a focus upon day 6 of chapter 1. But it doesn't work grammatically or narratively--the latter is not a word, and so I mean the logical flow of the narrative--that is, why one sentence follows a next-- the narrative of chapter 2 clearly points to beasts and birds being created after Adam but before Eve. If all you read were chapter 2, you would NEVER, EVER, EVER, suppose that beasts and birds were created prior to Adam. Now, I think none of this matters essentially; If you think that the entire Gospel depends on successfully showing that Genesis 2 and 1 or sequentially consistent, then you are simply wrong. DEAD WRONG. The Christian good news can be defended to great success; indeed, antagonists will be left either dumbfounded or sounding dumb, when they attempt to explain the Resurrection with any other explanation that does not conclude HE WAS RAISED. All this regardless whether Genesis one and two are sequentially compatible or not. It matters not. clb

I see none of that in the text. Genesis is controlled by linear and segmented genealogies; And why is the line of Seth preferable to the line of Cain?