Bible Buffet (Run-off From Noah's Flood)

Do people tend to just pick and choose what they believe from the Bible (or unreasonable facsimile thereof) ??? It's worth discussing. Message 75Message 76From Noahs Flood .Inerrancy = Inaccuracy?

Thread copied here from the Bible Buffet (Run-off From Noah's Flood) thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Of course. Otherwise, there wouldn't be the multitude of denominations of christianity there are. I, personally, have come to read it literally and the same I would a contemporary piece of literature: because that's what it is. I had a reading teacher in 8th grade who was, in my opinion, a bit over the top in his methods. However, he did teach us to pretty much tear about text. I remember reading a poem in class and we spent a good 20 minutes discussing why the writer used the word "the". This was a standard 8th grade reading class, not advanced, mind you.At any rate, when you allow yourself to read the bible as allegory or parable, you open it up to a multitude of interpretations, none more right or wrong than the next. Couple that with an unwavering amount of faith in you particular interpretation, and you can see how no good can come from it.

---

Yes, Iblis, people throughout history have chosen to just pick and chose what they want out of Scripture. In a way, hooah is right in what religion can do in a negative way to society. Take the Roman Catholic church for example....their misinterpretation of the bible led to actual Christians being burnt at the stake, by the "church" no less, during the Reformation period.Now, that's not to say their isn't a right way to interpret scripture. For example....for thousands of years, Genesis was read literally. God created what we see, in 6 literal days, he rested on the 7th, all this done around 6-10k years ago, give or take a few. Really the age of the earth was not much of an issue. Only in the last 300 years has the church begun debating the issue of origins and creation.So the question is, how do we interpret Genesis? For me, it's simple and easy. I read it how it says. However, some in the church see it differently. They feel, and maybe rightly so, that evolution is sprinkled in their somewhere, that the 6 days in Genesis aren't literal but are millions of years, that there is a gap in between verse 1 and 2 of millions of years, that Noah's flood is a myth and/or allegorical. What I'm curious is though, from an OEC or from a TE, why the need to interpret Genesis in this fashion?

This is exactly what I was getting at. This is at the top of my list of "what do I have against religion:" It's the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. Now, I'm not saying the catholic church is right in what they do or how they read the same book you read, but I'm also not saying you are either. Yet, you seem to think you ARE right, and they are wrong.This is the intrinsic problem with indoctrination. It is a discussion I had with my ex-gf and her friend (a lengthy post I have yet to type up: it was a doozy of a discussion). I tried to point out all of the religions they were ignoring by teaching my son her particular take on the bible. It was Pascal's Wager at it's finest. It's fine for you to believe your particular flavor of the month, but since there ARE so many different ways to interpret ONE book, none of you gets to tell anyone else who doesn't know any better that yours is the trvth. It's intellectually dishonest.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

The answer is simple, Flyer.What would your reaction be if the Bible said very specifically that flying tot he Moon is impossible?We've done it. Obviously, it is possible.So do you disbelieve reality, disbelieve the Bible...or rationalize? Those are really your only three options.You could believe that the Moon landings were hoaxes and that all of the evidence from video footage to devices left on the moon we use on Earth today were all fabrications and lies, and that humans have never actually landed on the moon.You could accept that the Bible is not infallible, and that it was simply wrong. It is possible to fly to the moon.Or, you can rationalize that the Bible must have meant only that it was impossible to fly tot he Moon without technology, or without help from God, or at the specific time of writing, or any number of other possible post-hoc rationalizations. It's called apologetics.The fourth option doesn't really count - it involves simply ignoring the discrepancy as if it doesn't exist.It's what happens when deeply held beliefs are directly contradicted by evidence. You automatically try to find a way to make the evidence compatible with the deeply held belief.

quote:

---

What I'm curious is though, from an OEC or from a TE, why the need to interpret Genesis in this fashion?

---

If you had been reading my posts in the Noah's Flood thread you'd already know.It's pretty much the same reason people like you need to pretend that Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre was successful. Or the same reason people like you can't admit that the child of Isaiah 7 had to be born in the reign of Ahaz.

The OEC has exactly the same motivation as the YEC.They both wish that the facts were in agreement with the Bible.But they have different ways of approaching the problem that the facts flatly contradict the Bible.The YEC denies the plain facts, and the OEC denies the plain meaning of the Bible.To an outsider, both methods seem equally ridiculous.

And you know this is a msinterpretation because? Are you all knowing? Are you infallible? Then how can you possibly know what the correct interpretation is? Are all other denominations of Christians wrong? Is yours the only one that got it right?Do you see the problems here? Without being all knowinfg and infallible you have absolutely no way of determining whether or not one particualr interpretation is correct or not. This is also what I meant with "people pick and choose from the bible". Since none of them can know whether or not their interpretation is valid, none can claim TRVTH. Yet somehow, they all do.

The problem is that many people do not obey the little amount of light from God they do get from the Bible. So God does not waste His light on someone He knows is not going to respond.For example, say a Bible reader is living in fornication. He is sleeping regularly with a woman who is not his wife. Now say this man opens up to read some things in the Bible. A particular portion seems to speak to his conscience as he reads through Genesis.Perhaps these words seem to leap off the page and speak to him in a personal way: "And Lamech took teo wives for himself ...".The man has a sense that he is being watched. He is convicted of his lustful living by this one passage. But instead of asking God for forgiveness and help to break out of his sin, he sweeps it under the rug. He determines that he will continue to live in fornication anyway.The next day he also picks up the Bible and complains that there aer too many interpretations. "This person has one opinion. That person has another opinion. Who knows who is right? The Bible just is a big mystery with some many interpretations."He goes to Christians and complains that the Bible has too many interpretations.However, when the Holy Spirit spoke something to him from the Bible he did not allow it to touch his living. He hardened his heart. He would not acknowledge that he was a sinner in need of forgiveness and repentence.Because he did not walk in the light that God did grant him, perhaps God will only give him a blank stare now when he reads the Bible.One should be in fear of this situation: Too many assume that the word of God is given simlpy to tickle our intellectual curiosity about creation, floods, boats, migrations, populations, etc.If you walk in the light that God speaks to you from the Bible He will grant you more understanding. If you come to the word of God just seeking information that will not touch your life but is merely objective curiosities, you may become more blinded.It is good for a person frustrated with different interpretations to pray "Dear God, what HAVE you spoken to me in the past that I did not give heed to? Take me there again. Bring back to my rememberance your speaking."

Right, see this is exactly what I'm talking about. Here you are talking like you're the only one who knows what god meant when he wrote the bible. How arrogant of you.You're just a fallible human, you're not all knowing. How can you possibly know what god meant, who has an intellect far greater than anything you could ever hope to fathom? How can you know that god is like you say he is? That he will only act the way you think he should act?See Flyer, this is what I was referring to. Not half a day after I posted this to you, you have a Christian coming on here claiming he is the one who holds the truth about what the bible says and who can interpret it correctly. This is what I meant.

Do you not see the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude from atheists? From evolutionists? Richard Dawkins, an atheist/evolutionist, has that attitude. Kenneth Miller, a theistic evolutionist, has it. Since they have conflicting "I'm right, you're wrong" opinions on what guided evolution, does that make you have something against evolution?I'll bet your answer is no, because you believe the basics of evolution to be true, and the details of Dawkin's vs Miller's attitudes are minor. In the same way, Christians believe in salvation through Christ's works, and the details in the natural history, and human behavior requirements written in the Bible are minor details.So my point is, I think your reason to "have something against" religion only because of the actions of some religious people is shallow, if that's your only reason. I'd bet you probably have other reasons.I don't have something against atheism only because of the arrogance of Dawkins, or what I believe to be the phoniness of Miller. I have other reasons.

The Bible has basics, the Bible has details. Evolution has basics, evolution has details. Do you apply equal standards to evolutionists, even as none of them can know if their exact details of how evolution happens/happened are valid? None of THEM can claim the truth either, yet somehow, they all do.

The difference is: science doesn't deal in absolutes. Religion does.

---

Another difference: science deals with evidence, religion deals with non-evidentual subjects, scripture, dogma, belief, and "divine" revelation.That's why there are some 4,000 different world religions, and some 40,000 different sects, denominations, and offshoots of Christianity alone.If religions dealt with evidence you could determine which, if any, of those was right and which were wrong.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.