Odemus

1) It requires faith to believe, just like any other historical event you haven't witnessed.

2) It must be taken literally because the literal life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Gospel message

I don't see any need to take it literally, nor do I know of any doctrine contingent upon a literal 6 day 24 hour interpretation of the creation account.

rainbow walking

rw: You don't know that either, you only believe it. If you believe christ lived, died and was resurrected then you are describing literal events. I await your response on several posts. I'm especially interested to hear your alternative interpretation of the geneaologies.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: rainbow walking ]</p>

HelenM

Hi David,

We had the following exchange on the thread where you were introduced:

David: I became a Christian by obeying the gospel at approximately age 12.

Helen: Thanks...

David: In the circles I move in 'obeying the gospel' is not an especially familiar phrase and I'm also not very familiar with the Church of Christ. Could you be more specific? Do you mean you got baptized (in water)? Do you mean you prayed a prayer giving your life to the Lord? Do you mean both or neither? Are you saying something about your outward behavior?

David: My family is a Christian family but I always knew that the decision to become a Christian was my own to make. I got to a point at which I realized the importance of becoming a Christian and did so.

Helen: Fair enough...I would appreciate if you could spell out a bit more what that entailed. {from <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000405&p=14" target="_blank">here</a>)

And your next comment to me was:

David: I appreciate your interest in my religion but I cannot be drawn into this sort of conversation as it bears little relevance to the subject matter. (from <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000405&p=15" target="_blank">here</a>)

Since you wouldn't comment on that other thread, and since you used a phrase I was unfamiliar with, I am surprised you are so sure we understand those terms the same way.

Now are you ready to tell me what you meant by "I obeyed the gospel at age 12"?

Or am I supposed to share things with you that you were unwilling to share with me?

Anyway if it's what you want to hear, yes, I'm an evangelical Christian. I don't know what that tells you, though. Are you an evangelical Christian, David?

love
Helen

B. H. Manners

I made a mistake Oedemus, I meant to say "I see no reason the writer meant Genesis 1 to be interpreted allegorically." Instead I put "literally" for allegorically"

The resurrection was literal because that is what the Christian religion rests on? Well, Christianity rests on its Old Testament forbears including Genesis 1. As I have said before, I see no reason to understand the writer to intend Genesis 1 to be allegory no more than I see the writers of the Gospels to intend the resurrection to be allegory. I did not ask how an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1 reflects on the interpretation of the rest of the Bible, I asked how you KNOW Genesis 1 is allegory.

David Mathews

Hello wordsmyth,

David: I would still remain a Christian under those cirumstances.

David: I agree. That is why when you object to such characterizations I am inclined to agree with you.

David: Will you speak on behalf of the Muslims?

Consider what The Qur'an, Surah 2:135 states: "Say ye: 'We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ismael, Isaac, Jacob. And the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus. And that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: and we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

If there is any doubt about the meaning of the verse, read the commentary written by 'Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali:

"Here we have the Creed of Islam: to believe in (1) the One universal God, (2) the Message to us through Muhammed and the signs as interpreted on the basis of personal responsibility, (3) the Message as delivered by other Teachers in the past. These are mentioned in three groups: (1) Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes: of these Abraham had apparently a Book (lxxxvii. 19) and the others followed his tradition: (2) Moses and Jesus, who each left a scripture; these scriptures are still extant though not in their pristine form: and (3) other scriptures. Prophets, or Messengers of Allah, not specifically mentioned in the Qur'an (11:78). We make no difference between any of these. Their Message (in essentials) was one, and that is the basis of Islam."
(The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an)

David: To whatever extent these religions are devoted to the One God they have the same God, the differences otherwise are superficial and related to the symbolic language used to describe God's nature, character and motives.

David: If God resented what I said about him I suppose that He will tell me.

David: The supernatural explanation of mental illnesses was never a major component of religious thought. I don't see such explanations as essential or vital to Theism or Christianity.

David: I believe that science is not omniscient. I believe that science is fallible. I have no confidence nor faith in science.

David: I stated that I considered the creation account and the temptation allegories. I consider the life, death and resurrection of Jesus history. The context of the story determines my interpretation of it as allegorical or historical.

David: Comprehension of the Bible's message does require belief. Understanding that a Bible exist and that people believe it does not require faith. Those people who do reject the Bible do not have faith in the Bible, this is simply true by definition.

I believe that those other cultures who encounter the Bible are benefited by the encounter, in the same way that I am benefited by reading the scriptures of the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Taoists.

David: Yes, that is true. But you should keep in mind that the posts which I am addressing to you are also read and commented upon by other atheists whose views may or may not differ from your own.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

B. H. Manners

Here are some verses that imply the Bible writers did not take Genesis 1 (or 2 for that matter) as allegory.

Old Testament:

Deuteronomy 32:8
I Chronicles 1:1

Both verses portray Adam as a literal person.

Now from the New Testament:

Romans 5:14
I Corinthians 15:22, 45
I Timothy 2:13-14
Matthew 19:3-6

All portray Adam as a literal human being with a literal fall, along with the woman.

Here is some more about "the creation" itself:

Romans 8

More verses could be cited about the "creation" but I feel the above shall suffice for now.

I ask again, how do you know Genesis 1 is to be interpreted allegorically and not literally? I am not asking you to tell me what you believe on the matter (its allegory) but how you come about your idea (your mechanics of interpretation).

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

David Mathews

Hello rainbow walking,

David: Perhaps you might want to introduce the geneaology subject in a different thread. Identify the problems in the geneaologies and then perhaps we can discuss them.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello HelenSL,

As an evangelical Christian, you should really know what "love God" means and be able to answer that question affirmatively without commentary.

Are you certain that you are not an atheistic Christian?

Thanks,

David Mathews

excreationist

David Mathews:
(I emphasized my main questions in bold)

Well here is a link to <a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/bible/genealogies.htm" target="_blank">my summary of Bible genealogies</a>. The creationist explanation is that these ages are literal and humans used to live longer because of their perfect genes and the filtering of cosmic radiation from the water vapour canopy. Once the vapour canopy collapsed, mutations started accumulated which caused people to have shorter lifespans and incest became a problem. (see <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4082.asp" target="_blank">AiG article</a>)

You said that there are alternative explanations (plural) which explain those ages in a non-literal way. rainbow walking and I would be very interested in hearing what those explanations (plural) are...

On the subject of ages, in Genesis 17:17 it says that God allowed Abraham at the age of 100, and Sarah at the age of 90, to have a baby. Is that an allegory that contains a spiritual truth? e.g. that God can do anything? If the event wasn't even real then it doesn't prove that God was very powerful... in Genesis 23:1 it says that Sarah died at the age of 127 and in Genesis 25:7 it says that Abraham died at the age of 175. Was that literal? Isaac lived to be 180 (Gen 35:28), Jacob lived to be 147 (47:28), Joseph lived to be 110 (Gen 50:26), Levi lived to be 137 (Ex 6:16), Kohath lived to be 133 (Ex 6:18), Amram lived to be 137 (Ex 6:20), Aaron lived to be 123 (Num 33:39), Moses lived to be 120 (Deut 34:7) and Joshua lived to be 110 (Joshua 24:29, Judges 2:8).

Earlier you said that "Unbelievers are not objective evaluators of religious texts". This implies that you think that you can evaluate your religious text objectively. So objectively speaking, do you think the writers of those referenced Bible passages intended those ages to be understood in a literal sense or in an allegorical sense which conveys some kind of hidden spiritual truth?

And also what about these passages - are they literal or allegorical or what? If they convey a spiritual truth, what is it?

Genesis 19:26 - Lot's wife looks back and is turned to a pillar of salt.

2 Kings 2:23-24 - Elisha curses some youths who are teasing him and two bears come out and maul 42 of the youth.

And what about the plagues and miracles in Moses's time?

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

Bluenose

Helen is kind, caring and polite.
I like Helen.

Helen has been here since I began to read IIDB and shared many good things and been a good influence. I like Helen and have learned from her honest reactions.

David trys to teach Helen when David should/could learn from Helen. Helen is a good girl. David is a bad boy.