Notre Dame

Madman

Senior Member
I'd say the same. So how does the evidence square with the biblical account of creation, the great flood, the origin of species including our own, the origin of human languages, the ability of stars to fall to the earth, etc?
Just fine. I read the letters in the literary sense that they were written. Historical, poetry, etc. All of Scripture is not historical.
 
Last edited:
Just fine. I read the letters in the literary sense that they were written. Historical, poetry, etc. All of Scripture is not historical.
That sounds like an attempt to avoid acknowledging evidence that conflicts with a literal interpretation of scripture. Problematic in the context of a religious tradition that took those very same scriptures to be literal/historical for thousands of years. Also creates theological problems if you do that. If humans evolved as a population and there was no original man as the bible says then how do you get original sin? What criteria do you use to determine if a scripture is intended to be historical or fictional? Did I miss the footnote that said Adam and Eve were fictional characters? And if the creation account was just a poetic story not to be taken as historical then why does the bible trace the genealogy of Jesus to Adam?
 
And what would be significant about figurative stars falling to the earth? Is that really something people should concern themselves with?
 

Madman

Senior Member
That sounds like an attempt to avoid acknowledging evidence that conflicts with a literal interpretation of scripture. Problematic in the context of a religious tradition that took those very same scriptures to be literal/historical for thousands of years. Also creates theological problems if you do that. If humans evolved as a population and there was no original man as the bible says then how do you get original sin? What criteria do you use to determine if a scripture is intended to be historical or fictional? Did I miss the footnote that said Adam and Eve were fictional characters? And if the creation account was just a poetic story not to be taken as historical then why does the bible trace the genealogy of Jesus to Adam?
You make statements you cannot support the church has always interpreted the Scriptures as I stated. If I were to write you a doctoral dissertation on the accounts of Christs geneology it would not convince you of anything. One must first understand the simple answers in order to grasp the more difficult. Google has everything you need to know.
 
Last edited:
You make statements you cannot support the church has always interpreted the Scriptures as I stated. If I were to write you a doctoral dissertation on the accounts of Christs geneology it would not convince you of anything. One must first understand the simple answers in order to grasp the more difficult. Google has everything you need to know.
:bounce:
 

rosewood

Senior Member
Sure God knows that. The writers wrote using words that the people understand. Also you must understand we are reading it from a translated version, not the originial Hebrew or Greek. 2000+ years ago, people would have thought a meteor was a star falling. They didn't know stars were larger than our Planet or that the Earth orbits the sun and it is a star also.

Rosewood
 
It is called meteors dude.
A meteor isn’t a star and the Bible doesn’t say meteors it says stars.

Matthew 24
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

This isn’t supposed to happen until after the tribulation yet we get meteor showers all the time and the stars are still there in the sky. An omniscient author would know the difference between meteors and stars. A fallible human author living in antiquity not so much.
 
Thread starter #51

WaltL1

Senior Member
Sure God knows that. The writers wrote using words that the people understand. Also you must understand we are reading it from a translated version, not the originial Hebrew or Greek. 2000+ years ago, people would have thought a meteor was a star falling. They didn't know stars were larger than our Planet or that the Earth orbits the sun and it is a star also.

Rosewood
The writers wrote using words that the people understand
That one ^ made me giggle.
The Bible was never intended for the "people". Nor did the writers even know they were writing the Bible.
When the people did get it, they immediately started carving themselves up based on their various understandings.
Also you must understand we are reading it from a translated version, not the originial Hebrew or Greek.
We (A/As) are constantly told "Oh a mistranslated word here or there doesn't change anything". Now you are reminding us that we are reading from a translated version as though it DOES matter.
Wish you guys would make up your mind.
 
That one ^ made me giggle.
The Bible was never intended for the "people". Nor did the writers even know they were writing the Bible.
When the people did get it, they immediately started carving themselves up based on their various understandings.

We (A/As) are constantly told "Oh a mistranslated word here or there doesn't change anything". Now you are reminding us that we are reading from a translated version as though it DOES matter.
Wish you guys would make up your mind.
We have the texts in Greek. You notice he didn’t use them to point out a mistranslation.
 
Top