Anyone here think the earth is 6000 years old?

Originally posted by kirksey957
Just look at what you are saying. On the one hand you say all the talk about original languages, translations, interpretations, etc is "subtrafuge" and then you say the meaning of truth takes diligent study over a lifetime. Exactly what have you got against people who study the texts in a critical way? These people certainly aren't lazy and are not con ...[text shortened]... ith interfaith dialogue. I enjoy reading and learning about new stuff that challenges me.

I think I'm being misunderstood. I'm all for reading everything available to deepen ones insight and learning. I would encourage anyone to do just that.
What I was addressing is the inference that is made by some that spiritual understanding requires a PHD in theology. Being critical is a good thing when properly applied, but not if it is used to cause doubt about the reliability of the written word.
We all know that words can be deceiving. But by study and application of the truths of Gods' word in our lives we gain insight into the true meanings of those words in their spiritual sense. Words written on a page can be made to say anything, but the spiritual meanings of those words are what we're after.

I too enjoy being challenged. I've been challenged here in this forum for the past 4 months. And I've learned alot from everyone posting here. I don't have all the answers, but I'm having a great time here. I know I come across as being patronizing, dogmatic, and even vitriolic sometimes, but I've taken a position and a stand for the truth as I see it, and I hope that we can give each other enough wobble room to be ourselves and keep our criticisms pointed at the subject and not at each other.

Originally posted by whodey
Perhaps that is how you read the stories but it is not how I read the stories. Can you expand on how the stories are contradictory?

Simple...

The first creation story is found in Genesis 1. Take a look at the excerpts below:

Genesis 1:26

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'"

Genesis 1:31

"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

In the excerpt above, God created humans after he created animals, vegetation, etc. However take below a look at the second creation story which occurs in Genesis 2:

Genesis 2:4-7

"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Again, in the Genesis 2, God does not create animals, plants, etc. until after he creates man.

Reread the chapters if you still don't see it. Also, I left out passages that further suggest the contradiction, so see for yourself.

Also, as others, such as ahoysney have posted, there are contradictions elsewhere in the bible, many of which nobody cares to discuss, apparently... 😕

Originally posted by rwingett
I'm sure you're aware that the four gospels weren't written until between approximately 70CE and 110CE. That's some 40 years after Jesus' death for the earliest one, and about 80 years for the last. I'm sure you're also aware that we don't have any of the originals, but only copies of copies that were made hundreds of years later. And finally, I'm sure you' ...[text shortened]... tten by god, I think he would have done a better job in getting the message out there.

This is all unfortunately very true, and I believe it offers even more of a convincing argument for the need to interpret the bible, not just accept every word as literal.

And before anyone even thinks about it, I admit, I do not have any "perfect interpretation method," but I am willing to debate it.

Originally posted by josephw
Evidence doesn't prove anything, and what makes you think I'm not calm?

You're right, evidence doesn't prove anything absolutely.

Go ahead and send out letters to prison guards across the nation convincing them to release their prisoners because they were convicted on "evidence."

Originally posted by whodey
Something to consider. Genesis 2:4 says, "These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in THE DAY that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." So what are the generations? It appears to me that, on the one hand we see time in terms of how it relates to man and then THE DAY as time relates to God. I am not sure yo ...[text shortened]... much is hidden in the original Hebrew writings than the translators were able to uncover.

I think much is hidden in the original Hebrew writings than the translators were able to uncover.

Hallelu Yah!

Originally posted by rwingett
Why don't you get your head out of your nether regions and do some research on your own for a change?

Wikipedia lists Mark as being the oldest of the gospels, written in the late 60s or early 70s CE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Date

Most scholars agree that the gospel of John was written between 90 and 100 CE.
http://en.wikipedia.o t ardent christians, who, surprisingly, seem to know the least about the history of the bible.

The Codex Sinaiticus, for example, contains the Epistle of Barnabas, and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas, both of which are no longer considered to be canonical.

Interesting; I just came upon that fact in something else I was reading (John W. Rogerson, “The First Christian Writings,” in The First Christian Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Church).

EDIT: Jaroslav Pelikan, in his The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, volume 1) notes the following:

“It is not clear how early the term ‘Scripture,’ as applied to one or more books now collected in the New Testament, began to carry some of the connotation of authority it had when applied to the Old Testament.” (p. 114)

“There was no early Christian who simultaneously acknowledged the doctrinal authority of the Old Testament and interpreted it literally.” (p. 81)

“Clearly it is an anachronism to superimpose upon the discussions of the second and third centuries categories derived from the controversies over the relation of Scripture and tradition in the sixteenth century, for ‘in the ante-Nicene Church...there was no notion of sola Scriptura, but neither was there a doctrine of traditio sola’.” (p.115)

Originally posted by wittywonka
Simple...

The first creation story is found in Genesis 1. Take a look at the excerpts below:

Genesis 1:26

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'"

Genesis ictions elsewhere in the bible, many of which nobody cares to discuss, apparently... 😕

That Genesis 1.26, Let US make man in OUR image....
It would seem that it is not only your god that is in our image but his buddies too. The thing I don't see is why would a god need to look like mankind? Isn't this god supposed to be above everthing in our universe? So out of all the forms that life can take and your god just HAPPENS to pick the shape of mankind to be its form? That smells to high heaven, so to speak.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That Genesis 1.26, Let US make man in OUR image....
It would seem that it is not only your god that is in our image but his buddies too. The thing I don't see is why would a god need to look like mankind? Isn't this god supposed to be above everthing in our universe? So out of all the forms that life can take and your god just HAPPENS to pick the shape of mankind to be its form? That smells to high heaven, so to speak.

Although not in all ways, I agree that this is not a story to be taken literally. You pointed out several additional reasons why I think it is a metaphor.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That Genesis 1.26, Let US make man in OUR image....
It would seem that it is not only your god that is in our image but his buddies too. The thing I don't see is why would a god need to look like mankind? Isn't this god supposed to be above everthing in our universe? So out of all the forms that life can take and your god just HAPPENS to pick the shape of mankind to be its form? That smells to high heaven, so to speak.

Fundie Xian Say:

US/OUR refers to Trinity.

Image of God refers to not to physical form but mental faculty and reasoning.

Not terribly old arguments here.

Originally posted by Big Mac
Fundie Xian Say:

US/OUR refers to Trinity.

Image of God refers to not to physical form but mental faculty and reasoning.

Not terribly old arguments here.

Trinity? In the OT? Thought that was NT BS.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Trinity? In the OT? Thought that was NT BS.

The trinity doesn't appear in the bible at all. That's why there was so much strife and so many wars over the concept in the early days of the church.

Originally posted by rwingett
The trinity doesn't appear in the bible at all. That's why there were so much strife and so many wars over the concept in the early days of the church.

The word doesn't. You are correct. The concept, however, appears through out the OT and NT. Several times in the NT, the 3 persons of the Trinity appear in the same verse.
The OT does refer to the Son of God, God the Father, and the Spirit of God. Even at creation, 2 members are obviously present: God (often understood as the Father) and the Spirit hovering over the waters.

FYI: Referencing the Trinity, or the Trinitarian Godhead, is much simpler than explaining it. I cannot. They just simply are.

EDIT: This is all according to my world view which is based on the whole of the Bible. I in no way expect you or anybody else to agree.