Does the Errancy of Fundamentalism Disprove the God of the Bible?

I've been reading this thread for a bit it seems quite fascinating. Might I propose that both sides could be right here. Is it philosophically possible that creationism and evolution could've co-happened? After all, some of the biblical verses need to be interperted and ought not be taken literally. For example, In Matthew 5:30 Jesus says, "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna." If we took this one literally, then about every man on this earth (if he were God fearing) would be walking around blind. Obviously he didn't mean literally tear out your eye. Further, when you look at the first book of the bible, it is this: very, very symbolic (much like the last book). Therefore, all things essentially in the bible are those truths necessary for following the divine law (not necessarily the laws of physics and biology). Christians (arguably Protestants and Catholics inclusively) made that mistake with Galileo.The Bible is a collection of writings that are the inspired word of God. The old testament tells of salvation history and the new testament tells of the fullfillment of this history. They can cover topics concerning physics and biology, but that's not their aim. Thus in Genesis where it says (2:7) "the Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being." could simply be the best way that the Jewish people could convey the progression of "a cascade of guided molecular collisions ultimately resulting in the steps from inorganic molecules to amino acids, to nucleic acids, to coordinated biological systems to one celled organisms, to coordinated cellular networks, to animals, et cetera." Id est (i.e.) the part where God blew into his nostrils the breath of life could just be the infusion of a human soul (the basic organizing principle of a human being -- the philosophical "form") with matter (the determinable element that enters into the basic physical makeup of all finite beings). Therefore, evolution is possible by the biblical account, only the transition from dirt (inorganic material) to a human body could've taken millions of our years. Besides who knew what a day encompassed before we humans started measuring motion? What does a day mean? A human day? Or a day to God (who, by the way is outside of time). So it is possible.This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-21-2006 06:46 PM

You assert that Catholics are not Christian...then who, may I ask, compiled the Bible? Who, may I ask, preserved the sacred texts for 1500 years before Protestant Churches even existed (as the only other Churches are the Orthodox churchs, and that was only a political split within the Church)? Non-denominational churches didn't even exist until at least the 1800's. Look up Christian history. FURTHER, explain to me why you don't take Matthew 5:30 literally!The only existing Christian church in the 500s was using the term Pope. Besides, where the heck to you get the idea for the "Trinity" IT NEVER SAYS "TRINITY" IN THE BIBLE! That was a doctrine defined at one of the CHURCH councils (Vatican II being the most recient CHURCH council).This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-21-2006 07:44 PM

Um...the Bible wasn't complied into one book until the 200s for starters. Secondly, what proof did you have for the existence of the "non-denominational" churches in the early Christian Church? Thirdly what is the CHURCH? And what proof do you have for the Catholics burning Nero's things, anyways?Further where does it ever say that they are Three Persons in one Divine Being, yet one God? It never says anything about that? It never says that the Holy Spirit is in the Father and the Son. Prove this to me (I don't have to, because there are more sources for revelation than the Bible -- where did the new testament exist before it was written down? Sacred Tradition. Right).This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-21-2006 08:35 PM

You said this:besides someone had to be the heretics, someone had to light Nero's gardensI assume you were referring to the Catholics you were just discussing. Besides, you talk about Acts, explain this one to me:Acts 16:33
"then he and all his family were baptized at once."Certainly children and infants are included in the "all his family."Further, Acts 10:24-27 & 10:44-48, Acts 16:14-15, state entire household were being baptized. What is your reasoning for denying infant baptism anyways?This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-21-2006 08:48 PM

Further, you haven't addressed my philosophical suggestion about creation. Why aren't they both possible? Again, I ask you, do you sin? With your eyes? Why don't you pluck them out (you cannot interpert the bible literally all of the time).

As far as baptism is concerned, Look at Mk 16:16 and figure that one out (why is faith AND baptism necessary)?At any rate, concerning STRICTLY literal interpertation: Jesus said, if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Why not take that literally? I doesn't matter if you don't think you're going to hell, Jesus told you to do it if you sin with it...if you believe in a strictly literal interpertation of the Bible. It's obviously nuts to take this passage literally. So you have to INTERPERT this passage. However you cannot interpert it yourself (this is clearly condemned in 2 Pt 1:20). Further, there are two sources for revelation: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the latter containing the former for at least 30 years until the first Pauline letters were written --- the Gospels weren't written until after Paul finished most of his letters).Evidence: Thessalonians, 2:15 "So then brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you whether by word of mouth or by letter."Revelation comes from two sources sacred tradition and scripture, as Paul mentions here. You see, by the literal interpertation of the Bible, you skew its meaning. Again, explain this passage literally:"You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of the neatherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Mt 16: 18-19What does this passage mean? It doesn't make much sense literally. However if you look at the context you see something else. This means, in the Jewish context: the keys given to Peter meant that he was to be Jesus' steward when he left. In Jesus' time, the steward was the guy who looked after the king's kingdom until he returned -- this is what the keys meant - stewards were given keys to the kingdom. Peter was to hold the office as leader of the church until Christ's return. If a steward were to die in the king's absence, another would be appointed as steward. This has happened throughout the years: Peter, to Linus, to Cletus, to Clement, et cetera.So, you cannot take the Bible literally (all of the time), nor can you interpert it yourself. There must be an interperter throughout the years for Sacred Tradition (part of which has been written down in Sacred Scripture).Therefore, you cannot let the literal interpertation of the Bible skew your thought process. It makes the Bible not make sense and can contradict what it's actually trying to say. Therefore, you must find the correct interpertation for what Genesis says during the creation story. Does the Genesis account, then necessarily dismiss the possibility for an evolution-like thing (not necessarily, the hapazard random, unguided process gross materialist evolutionists suggest, but an intelligent Designer - God perhaps?)? Biblical Fundamentalism contradicts itself, and therefore introduces errors that contradict what scripture is trying to say, obscuring what God is trying to say. This leads us back to the beginning of this thread:"the Errancy of Fundamentalism Disproves the God of the Bible."Well, it seems to make His inspired word not make sense.This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-22-2006 12:54 AM

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a mormon.

I need to clarify something. My point of dragging in the Trinity issue was to show that not all we know about the beliefs of Christianity comes from Scripture. Jesus says in the Gospels "I AM" which is analogous to when Yahweh says his name is "I AM WHO AM." Jesus has many sayings throughout the Gospel where he says, "If you have seen me you have seen the Father." These both mean that Jesus is God as much as the Father is God. Further in Genesis, when God is referring to Himself, he oddly uses the plural pronouns We and Us. This implies multiple persons in God. This further we know the Holy Spirit is part of this Trinity based on how he is refered to in Acts. The term "Trinity" is a devlopment in thought about how those hints in the Bible came to be understood. It was a defined dogma in the early Church at one of the councils. So what I'm saying is that the Bible cannot be taken literally, or it doesn't make sense, and some of the understood beliefs id est the Trinity (One God, but Three Divine Persons) don't seem to have any basis either.Case in point: fundamentalism is flawed, and it makes the Bible not make sense. Besides who is to be the authority that 2 Pt 1:20 is referring to if no one can personally interpert the revelations that were to become the deposit of faith? Obviously some of those who've been claiming to have the Holy Spirit speaking through them have been lying, because some of these people have contradicted each other. There must be someone that God has designated to do this. There must be an official interperter of the deposit of faith....but who is that (there seems to be one Church throughout history that has guarded the Christian faith...and fundamentalism is a more recent occurance)?

I'm a Christian.

First provide evidence for this statement: Secondly this quote: concerns the Albigenses - a heresy that taught that all things corporeal (the body, material things) were part of the evil substances (which were equal in power and commanded by someone (satan?)) The spiritual things, however, were part of the good substances (commanded by God who was equal in power to the evil side). Thus the body was bad, so Christ couldn't have had a body because the body is evil. Ummm...this is not what Christians believe. They were corrupting the Christian beliefs. I don't know for sure how they were dealt with. I would be nice if you provided proof for your assertion.and this quote: Is an incorrect assertion: you have no proof to back this statement up. Jesus was most likely referring to the persecution by the Scribes and Pharasees using the Roman army (seeing as he just got done talking about the descent of the Holy Spirit that would take place in Luke's second volume of his Gospel - id est Acts) that would take place during the Apostles' lifetimes (notice they were all martyered, except John -- who was exiled).Thirdly, you seem overly ready to condemn the Catholics and Protestants. Why? Who told you these people were not Christian? Catholics, especially seem to be quite Christian, because they are uncompromising on things like Jesus' teaching on marriage (no divorce unless the marriage is invalid -- caused by fornication according to the Greek, which would invalidate the marriage in Jewish Law). Further, they have vowed celibates which reflect Paul's teaching that a man who does not marry does better coupled with the Eunichs for the sake of the kingdom bit taught by Jesus. Further, they have monks who dedicate their entire beings, renouncing every thing of this world (the cloistered monks) to praise and pray to God, and to Meditate on His word.. How is this not Christian, might I ask? I wouldn't be so quick to condemn the Denominational Christians, because, non-denominational Christian Fundamentalists have had there bad eggs in higher up places as well. By that logic every Christian federation of any sort that has corruption in it anywhere is going to hell. That's absurd to condemn the entire sect based on the sins of a few. How about the thousands of Catholics and Protestants during Galelio and otherwise who were not written about (not just the few clergy unfaithful to their promoses) -- those that were praying and fasting, and doing good works -- are they to be held accountable for the sins of others? That's absurd.Fourthly, I brought up the Trinity issue to make you look for where the term came from. I ACCEPT THE TRUTH OF THE TRINITY AND WHAT IT STANDS FOR! However, it was a term told to you by someone. Where did the term first come from (the term is not in the bible itself). I'll tell you: it was the term used to describe the relationship between the three Divine Persons as definied in one Church Councils (the product of one of these councils being the Nicean Creed that many Denominationals use which clearly defines the relationship of the Trinity). The idea was already there, but people were challenging the concept, so they had to define it using a term...so they could protect the deposit of faith.You also seem quick to condemn evolutionary theory. Sure hapazard chance evolution is satistically absurd. But if it was God's hand guiding it, is it in conflict with scripture?This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-23-2006 10:13 AM

Wow...that's helpful. I was never made aware of those facts about Galileo. Do you have some reading on this? I'm VERY interested in this information.

The reason interpeeting the Bible without being a clergyman was viewed as a problem was for a number of reasons:1. Most people were uneducated (with a high illiteracy rate) and would comprehend it incorrectly (Galileo obviously doesn't fall into this category).2. Secondly, the Church viewed itself as the authority for interperting the deposit of faith due to its Apostolic succession (all the bishops in the Catholic recieved their authority by the laying on of hands described in Acts throughout the centuries - ask any Catholic bishop, and he can give you his historic apostolic lineage going all the way back to one of the Apostles). They were viewed as having recieved the authority from the apostles to guard and interpert the deposit of faith. That's why they didn't allow people to interpert the Bible on their own account (because they felt they were guarding the deposit of faith and people not authorized by the Church could have a high chance of introducing heresy into the faith). Not allowing people to read the Bible without explaination from an educated clergyman was the best solution they could come up with at that time. That's what they felt was the best recourse then. Now the situation's different, for whatever reasons. Galileo wasn't clergy and didn't have the authority of a bishop to interpert the scriptures (clergy are SUPPOSED to be taught the meaning of the scriptures according to the deposit of faith). He disobeyed Church Law, so he got in trouble (he knew he would've gotten in trouble if he did it, but he did it anyways). By the whole Catholic Church, or by a directive from a few of its members? If he was burnt by Cardinal so and so then he was burnt by Cardinal so and so, but not the Catholic Church as a whole (don't be condemning innocent people here, as thousands of Catholics at that time knew nothing of the event). What's the point of including this passage anyways? It's not really relevant to this discussion about Galileo.I would love to progress in this discussion, but unfortunately I'm beginning work that will keep me from the internet for a while. I thank all who've helped my deepen my knowledge on this subject. God Bless!