Genesis 2:7
“...then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”

Unfortunately, it is our tendency to insist on fact checking the above text in a manner for which it was never intended. For example, it was not intended to describe the true method / process of man’s origin.

The initial chapters of Genesis serve as a prologue to simply set the stage - ie to briefly introduce God the creator, man as part of creation, man’s delegated purpose, man’s rebellion & resulting curse, and God’s promise to restore.

The above verse invokes certain imagery that is used elsewhere in Scripture (example - God creating man as a potter creates clay vessels, which symbolizes God’s sovereign freedom in creation, providence, judgment and mercy) and it involves word play using the underlying, similar Hebrew words that are translated as Adam (and man) and ground. The structure & placement of that verse intends to highlight that man was created to be unique relative to the rest of creation and thus was to govern as God’s delegate over that creation. But the verse also signals that man is not God and will never be equal with God. Combined with the following verses about the tree, the tension in this drama builds and leads on to man’s fall.

We miss the point if we force evidence or lack of evidence onto text for which it was never intended.

Psalms 8:3-6
When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?
Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
You have given him dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under his feet,

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FHHM213,

quote:

Originally posted by clayflingythingy:
"And just exactly as it is written in plain English..."

I must point out the story was written in Hebrew. It is translated into English.

And I asked if people believed it as it is written in English—as it is now, and probably more commonly than in Hebrew. But thanks for pointing that out.

One of the most common apologies for holy writs of all varieties is the fact that except for the Qur’an most of their readers are not fluent in the original language in which they were written and therefore anything that is embarrassing, vague, or incomprehensible is supposedly due to difficulties in translation. There are of course several flaws in that simplistic solution to the problem of “What it says isn’t what it means” defense of holy writings.

The most obvious is that extremely few of us will ever be able to become fluent in such languages. And that leads to the obvious question of why that should even be necessary. The most important books ever written that are to serve as instructional manuals for everything we should do are incomprehensible to all but a tiny fraction of their intended audience. If the authors of the works were inspired by God to write what they did, why couldn’t there have been some inspiration to write other versions while they were at it?

Then there is the issue that there are in fact no “originals” to be read in any language, and most glaringly in the case of the New Testament and Jesus’ sayings. I was once advised to learn ancient Greek so that I could read the Gospels in the original, but did he preach the sermon on the mount in Greek? “Um …, well, no, his language would have been Aramaic.” “Oh, well then, I should learn that so I can read what he said in the original original—right?” “Ah, no; we have no versions of the Gospels that were written in Aramaic.” “Uh, huh; gotcha: The present English and other translations might be incorrect, but the Greek would have been perfect; I see.”

I know all that’s an extension of the simple statement about what language the Old Testament was first written in, but it is just one example of why so many people have trouble believing that biblical stories are the literal truth of what they described.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:


One of the most common apologies for holy writs of all varieties is the fact that except for the Qur’an most of their readers are not fluent in the original language in which they were written

Most Muslims cannot read or write Arabic. The most populous Muslim countries are Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria.
/thread drift off.

yes sir i believe. many seem to find "logic" gets in the of their faith...

God's "time" (i.e. a day, a month, a minute etc.) is infinite and inspires.

many get caught up in measuring His time in with our meager minds.

God is so cool!

bob

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:
Most Muslims cannot read or write Arabic. The most populous Muslim countries are Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria.

Many non-Arab Muslims are at least semi-fluent/literate in Arabic, as a result of their religious instruction. And during Muslim services, even those in non-Arabic-speaking countries, the Quran is frequently read/quoted from in Arabic and prayers performed in Arabic.

Similar to how many Jews are at least semi-literate/fluent in Hebrew, with prayers and readings from the Torah tending to be in Hebrew, and many/most Jews receiving at least rudimentary instruction in Hebrew as part of their religious schooling.

Or somewhat similar to how historically, Catholic services were presented in Latin even in areas and time periods where Latin was not the dominant language of Catholic worshipers, with some Catholics being taught to be fully/semi literate/fluent in Latin through their religious schooling. (The main difference being that, unlike the Quran or Torah, it's not suggested that the Bible was originally revealed/recorded in Latin.)

quote:

Originally posted by clayflingythingy:
"And just exactly as it is written in plain English..."

I must point out the story was written in Hebrew. It is translated into English.

Not even Hebrew. Aramaic for much of the Old Testament.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by clayflingythingy:
"And just exactly as it is written in plain English..."

I must point out the story was written in Hebrew. It is translated into English.

And I asked if people believed it as it is written in English—as it is now, and probably more commonly than in Hebrew. But thanks for pointing that out.

Many years ago I read a (probably anecdotal) account of a Southern School Board President railing against the teaching of foreign languages in the public schools: "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us!" I thought it was funny, but I have run across a few Fundamentalists who really believe it.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:
Can’t say that I do. I also don’t believe most of anything in the Bible occurred as written or at all for that matter.

Couldn't say it better, so...

quote:

Originally posted by patw:
. . . If I am wrong,what have I lost? On the other hand, if I am right, what do you have to lose?. . . .

This is called Pascal's wager! I learned it long ago studying "The Philosophy of Religion" as an undergrad. Wasn't sure if you knew it had a formal name, but it is interesting concept nonetheless.

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:

quote:

Originally posted by patw:
. . . If I am wrong,what have I lost? On the other hand, if I am right, what do you have to lose?. . . .

This is called Pascal's wager!

I had heard of it before someone actually presented it to me: “Why don’t you just believe? It can’t hurt.”

To me it’s such a strange idea that it’s hard to give a polite response. First, do we really believe that God is going to take that as a sincere act? “Oh, let me get this straight. You ‘believed’ because of a bet and the odds were in your favor‽ Was that truly how you thought it all worked?”
I am astounded by what some people’s idea of what true faith is.

And more important for me was my puzzlement over the thought that belief in something like that could be turned on or off like a light switch. “Lessee … believe and good thing might happen, don’t believe and bad thing might happen; I guess I’ll believe.”
It’s like the people who think that sexual orientation is a matter of choice: “Okay, now, I’m starting to have sexual urges, and as I understand it, some guys are attracted to girls and some to other boys. But mom says that being attracted to boys isn’t right, and I’m a good boy myself, so I’ll go ahead and be attracted to girls.”

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:

quote:

Originally posted by patw:
. . . If I am wrong,what have I lost? On the other hand, if I am right, what do you have to lose?. . . .

This is called Pascal's wager!

First, do we really believe that God is going to take that as a sincere act? “Oh, let me get this straight. You ‘believed’ because of a bet and the odds were in your favor‽ Was that truly how you thought it all worked?”
I am astounded by what some people’s idea of what true faith is.

What's also astonishing is, in light of Pascals Wager, the subscription to and vehement defense of a single deity when the logic would dictate subscription to all deities, you know, just in case.

quote:

Originally posted by Kraquin:
What's also astonishing is, in light of Pascals Wager, the subscription to and vehement defense of a single deity when the logic would dictate subscription to all deities, you know, just in case.

I don’t normally get to that point when thinking about the idea, but it’s actually the most potent criticism of Pascal’s Wager. Most religions don’t threaten us with never-ending torture if we don’t accept them, but there are exceptions, most notably Islam. It’s a nice example of the logical fallacy of begging the question to assume that it’s Christianity we must accept to avoid going to hell rather than becoming a Muslim or something else. It’s also a form of faith in itself: Have faith that you’re having faith in the right thing.

quote:

Originally posted by wolfe 21:

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:
Can’t say that I do. I also don’t believe most of anything in the Bible occurred as written or at all for that matter.

Couldn't say it better, so...

I am not a believer. I was raised as such, but it didn't take. But I am a student of history. A seeker of not right or wrong, but truth. Students who take on history trying to find out which side was the good or bad are in for a terrible lesson, there are multitudes of sides one may take, but only one truth. A real historian seeks the truth, not the outcome, because the truth is the only side that doesn't have an agenda.

To say that one doesn't agree with the literal translation of the biblical stories should be completely acceptable to those with and without faith. One can make solid arguments for each side (albeit one based in fact and one based in faith). However, to disbelieve the events in the book occurred at all, means a complete ignorance of history.

You don't believe in Romans? (The culture, not the chapter) You don't believe in religious persecution? (In the historical record) You don't believe in the mass migration of the Jews from Egypt? (in the historical record).

Believe whatever you want, I won't judge any faith. But to claim something as outrageous as "all that bible stuff never happened" is just as ridiculous - if not more so - than to claim the dinosaurs didn't exist.

Many of the events in the bible are proven historical record. Things that actually happened. Jesus - or a man claiming to be Jesus - was really crucified by Roman decree in that time. Now rather you believe he was the son of god, the father and creator of all things, or just some dude who had a spat with the government and church of the day, or just some hippie high on shrooms making fantastical claims, that's on you. But to close your eyes and plug your ears and scream "nuh-uh" in the face of the historical record is just foolish. Equally if not more so than the foolishness of not believing in dinosaurs.

I too am amazed and baffled by some responses. Those that stand in the face of evidence and claim the earth is only 6000 years old (demonstrably false) or that society and civilized living started in Sumerian era (proven wrong). But I am equally as baffled by those that would claim that most of the events of a religious text never happened either.

To those on both sides of the fight - spend less time trying to be right, and more time looking for the truth. True history is a record of what was. That is all. It is not trying to win any followers or sway any non-believers. It doesn't have any agenda, and it doesn't care about yours.

if Clark believes the Adam and eve story but ,
he does nothing ,on a daily basis to follow anything else that the bible has to offer,
in the way of making the world, city or neighbor hood a better place to live,

or if Clark does not believe the adam and eve story ,
but goes out of his way, on a regular basis to
enhance the world around him ,

does it matter?

quote:

Originally posted by Kraquin:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:

quote:

Originally posted by patw:
. . . If I am wrong,what have I lost? On the other hand, if I am right, what do you have to lose?. . . .

This is called Pascal's wager!

First, do we really believe that God is going to take that as a sincere act? “Oh, let me get this straight. You ‘believed’ because of a bet and the odds were in your favor‽ Was that truly how you thought it all worked?”
I am astounded by what some people’s idea of what true faith is.

What's also astonishing is, in light of Pascals Wager, the subscription to and vehement defense of a single deity when the logic would dictate subscription to all deities, you know, just in case.

Well, but some of them, the Christian and Jewish god included, won't brook believing in any other gods.

quote:

Originally posted by bionic218:
But I am equally as baffled by those that would claim that most of the events of a religious text never happened either.

You make some excellent points, but a couple of thoughts.

First, I don’t know of many nonbelievers who claim that “most” of what is described in the Bibles never occurred. Are there some who do? Yes, just as it would be hard to find any belief that some people don’t accept. Would it even be a “belief” that we could point to if that weren’t true?

But the question is what is “mostly” described in those religious texts? It’s mostly about the miraculous or at least what is significant to the religious narrative. The Old Testament is full of accounts of things that supported the various tenets and practices of the religion. One example is the story of God’s telling Abraham to not kill his son; some scholars point to that as the reason human sacrifice was ended among the early Jews. “Yeah, we’re not going to do that any more because Yahweh said it’s okay to sacrifice sheep instead.”
Do I believe that the practice was changed, and possibly because of a story like Abraham and his son? Yes.
Do I believe that God (or a supernatural messenger) actually told Abraham that himself? No.

There are some scholars who question even the actual existence of a single prophet named Jesus. Did the Romans crucify people? Of course, but is it reasonable to examine the evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and question whether it’s reasonable to believe that he brought dead people back to life and turned water into wine? Mention of Jesus appears in the work attributed to Josephus the Jewish historian, but he was born after the supposed date of Jesus’ crucifixion and it’s believed by many scholars that the entry was spurious and added much later by Christian editors. There were other historians who recorded the events of the actual time who didn’t say a thing about the sky’s turning black or dead people arising from their graves and wandering about the countryside. As another example, there are no historical records of a census at the time of Jesus’ birth that would have required everyone to return to their home towns—something that would have been a major societal event.

There can be no doubt that something led to the establishment of Christianity, but was it as described in the New Testament?

I agree there can be valid criticisms of some criticisms of the Bibles, but there are countless examples of things that can be legitimately questioned as well.

As I was growing up, my father attempted to impart some wisdom to me from time to time. At one point in my early teens, I believe, he told me: "There are two subjects you should stay away from in social gatherings: Religion and Politics."

It was many years later when I discovered WHY those two subjects were best avoided at social gatherings: Everyone thinks they know what they're talking about.

Seriously, at a party, you could have a person who spends every free moment studying politics. This guy has advanced degrees in politics - he's even knowledgeable about all of the political regimes of former civilizations, etc. "The Rise And Fall of the Roman Empire from a Political Perspective" is on his bookshelf and shows the signs of being used many times. This guy's interest in politics is so extreme, he has even become very well acquainted with human psychology as a result.

Then, there's another guy at the party who's never even finished reading a book from cover to cover. His philosophy is, "If God had intended for man to read, He wouldn't have created television."

If these two guys were to somehow end up in a conversation with each other about politics, believe it or not, the TV-watcher would sincerely believe his uninformed opinions about politics would be just as valid as the well-read man who's favorite subject in the world is politics.

The same goes for religion.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The Old Testament is full of accounts of things that supported the various tenets and practices of the religion. One example is the story of God’s telling Abraham to not kill his son; some scholars point to that as the reason human sacrifice was ended among the early Jews. “Yeah, we’re not going to do that any more because Yahweh said it’s okay to sacrifice sheep instead.”
Do I believe that the practice was changed, and possibly because of a story like Abraham and his son? Yes.
Do I believe that God (or a supernatural messenger) actually told Abraham that himself? No.

Where are you getting this stuff?

During the primeval (and undated) period as told in the early chapters of Genesis (Chp 1-11), God specifically prohibited the taking of human life (Gen 9:6) as Noah was resettling after the flood.

In the patriarchal period (starting Chapter 12), God promises Abraham that he will create a great nation from Abraham and that through his offspring shall all the nations be blessed (ie God will reverse the curse he had set in the Garden). A bit later, God promises that this line will be through an actual son of the aging Abraham and his barren wife Sarah (not her younger maid servant) and that such son shall be named Isaac.

In Chapter 22, God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on a particular mountain. Abraham obeys God and starts the journey with Isaac up the mountain. When Isaac asks his daddy as to the whereabouts of the lamb that they are to sacrifice, Abraham responds, “God will provide”. Then, as Abraham is about to slaughter his son, God tells him to stop and then points the obedient Abraham to a true substitute lamb. The time of Abraham was roughly 2000BC.

In Leviticus 20 in the time of Moses after the exodus (500-700 years after Abraham), God issues a specific regulation against child sacrifice which apparently was a common ritual practiced in the worship of a false deity (Molech) by descendants of Abraham’s nephew, Lot. Of course, that regulation only reinforced the earlier command from the days of Noah.

At around 650BC, the Judean king, Manasseh, was condemned by God for child sacrifice in worship of other false gods. Such was essentially the last straw and resulted in God’s punishment of Judah via the Babylonians.

Thus the practice didn’t stop unfortunately with the command to Abraham. Furthermore, the text didn’t say that God instituted a new policy when he prohibited Abraham from carrying out the very disturbing act that God had just commanded. It was a test of faith. In the letter to the Hebrews (NT), we are provided with insight as to Abraham’s unimaginable willingness to sacrifice his cherished and only son:

“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.” (Heb 11:17-19)

The practice of sacrificing a lamb was not instituted in the Abraham / Isaac story. Young Isaac’s question to his father indicates that he was accustomed to such burnt offerings made to God. The first animal sacrifice was by God in making a better loincloth to cover Adam & Eve’s shame (sin), for which they could not adequately cover by their own self-constructed apparel using leaves. Noah used burnt offerings to give thanks to God after the flood.

And of course, the Abraham / Isaac story points forward to a day when a father would offer his only begotten son:

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

To follow on what FHHM213 said.

Abraham was provided a ram (not lamb) on Mount Moriah to sacrifice, but the offering was typically a lamb.

At the beginning of the gospel of John, ch 1 v 29, John the Baptist says 'Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world' when he first sees Jesus.

2000 years later, in the same location where God said He would provide the sacrifice, Jesus, the Lamb of God, was crucified for all of our sins.

quote:

Originally posted by FHHM213:
Where are you getting this stuff?

From biblical scholars who claim to be as knowledgeable as you evidently are.

But the mere fact that the order had to be issued more than once, as I often found during my military and subsequent careers, is an indication that not everyone got the memo the first time, or at least didn’t think it was important to pay attention to. Plus sometimes illustrative stories that add “verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative” make more of an impression.

But whether those authorities are right or you are is immaterial to the point I was making, and which was evidently incomprehensible—as are many of the points I make here to many of the members. In any event, thanks for the comments. I always appreciate the extra education.