+joe game I mean face it, the Abramic religions aren't going away in the short term (centuries). If the religions have to stay, then the believers who are willing to change with the times, who are willing to adjust their understanding of a book to fit into the 21st century, are the ppl we can live with peacefully. The people who insist on taking a 2000-years-old book literally can only obstruct social, political, scientific, and ethical progress. According to the Bible, those parents who beat their teenage son to death in that New Hartford Word Of Life Church are beyond reproach and should not have been arrested. Because God allows the stoning (to death) of misbehaving children. It's debatable whether religion is a boon or a blight upon humankind, but there is no debate for bibliolatry. www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-idom/the-bible-vital-tool-or-m_b_814058.html
Mlai00 it's kinda stupid to take it 100% literally when almost half was poetic. That's not what the bible says. Let me explain this to you "If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear. " Now let's look at this closely. here are several things to keep in mind about this particular sin and about the law: The sin was ongoing and continuous. Deuteronomy 21:18 indicates that the punishment was only meted out after a persistent refusal to heed both father and mother and after all discipline had failed. The parents have tried to deal with their son in a loving, firm way, but nothing worked. It was deep-seated sin. Verse 20 specifies that the son is stubborn in his rebellion. Not only is he recalcitrant, “he is a glutton and a drunkard.” This is not a case of a child who misses curfew or plays ball in the house. This was a true menace, a child who is causing trouble in society and grieving his parents, possibly to the point of endangering them physically and financially. The punishment was not an impulsive act of anger or vengeance. Verse 19 says that the city elders had to oversee the case and determine the guilt of the child. It is only after the elders pronounced a sentence of death that the execution could take place. The law did not allow an angry parent to arbitrarily stone a child. A modern equivalent of this is when a parent sees news footage of his child committing a crime and subsequently turns the child in to the police. If parents know their child is acting in a way that endangers society, they are responsible to obey the civil authorities and report the crime. The punishment was designed to preserve the nation. As verse 21 explains, the reason for this law was to purge evil from society and act as a deterrent to further rebellion. Israel was a nation chosen by God to be holy (Exodus 20:6). God gave the Israelites three types of laws: judicial, moral, and ceremonial. This is a judicial law. A child who was actively and deliberately rejecting the laws of the land needed to be punished judicially. You have no Idea what you're talking about
You are doing exactly what a literalist does not do; you are putting the passage into historical context, and saying "That is the context, that is why Israel did this millennia ago, that doesn't mean you can just do this today in the USA". The parents who beat their teenage son to death inside the Word Of Life Church can be seen as literalists. Their son wanted to renounce God; if that's not the definition of rebellion I don't know what is. They took their son to the church for "confession"; if that's not the definition of "take him to the elders" I don't know what is. If you follow the Bible literally, then those parents are blameless. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Bible interpretation requires that you consider the context surrounding a passage including the author's motivation and what was going on that the author wanted to address. The second requirement is to understand the literary style and genre of the text. If you know the context and you correctly handle the literary issues then the likelihood of reaching the correct conclusions increases. If you believe the Bible, I encourage you to pick up a book on biblical interpretation. Obviously, if you do not believe the Bible or make fun of those who do then this is a mute point.
I've read the bible, it is full of lies and contradiction and hate and discrimination. An ancient fallacious ad hominem against humanity in literary form. In fact reading the bible was the POINT A in me becoming an atheist.
You are correct sir. How does the infinite describe the infinite to the finite? A lot of the Bible is trying to describe indescribable things.Jesus said many times, how shall I liken the kingdom of God, and then he would teach a parable. To give analogies and metaphors and similes and allegorical examples of the things that he was trying to explain.And the entire Bible is like that except for the historical aspect of and personal stories of the patriarchs.And it is difficult. Thats why you have to study if these things are important to you.
No matter which religion, the problem with people reading words in books they believe contain holy information ... is ... they then want to become preachers, rather than students, and they want to instruct others how to be "saved,” or “enlightened” ... and all because ego doesn't have any way of controlling itself. Non-human animals don’t suffer from such mental blights.
Amen to that, MrKerpelWatson! I've gotten stuck on watching Dr. Keller for, I think, 2 months now. I hope there are some new postings soon because I've about reached the end of what's currently posted.
Genesis 1-11 has to be taken literally for the rest of the Bible to work. Period. And I think the term “literal interpretation” is inaccurate. I prefer to use the term “honest interpretation.”
Believing or not believing is an individual experience. No one can tell you whether not you believe or not. God would not have created us as individuals, with our own souls and lives , if he did not intend us to be individuals.
It's not such a dumb question. Many people do take it all literally, some pick and choose which parts to believe. Also there is no agreement between the millions of Christians as to what is literal or symbolic. I think the only sensible choice is to ignore the whole thing.
Glad to see Big Think featuring Timothy Keller. The best and brightest thinkers are not all atheists, after all. Would love to see Big Think also interview people like John Polkinghorne, Ard Louis, Kenneth Miller, George Ellis, Denis Alexander, Simon Conway Morris, Jennifer Wiseman and Francis Collins.
Science was the "first emanation from God towards man", and the biblical writers of Genesis knew the science of divinity such that their words would guide humanity to the True Self which speaks to all things.
Parting thought: How many constructive conversations have you had where your opening position is that the other, seemingly honest person, serves a monster? You asked respect but you don't seem ready to give it. Read Keller, you need what you have read explained to you. He is respectful throughout the book and all of his teaching. I leave it at that.
proverbs 1 tells us how to discern the bible. it lets us know our common sense should be our guide. the holy spirit will help us know if its a full on historical account or a story with deep meaning. ONE thing I know is there is a spirit and there is power in it. and the bible is an amazing work of literature with amazing insight for everyone. which is why its still around and read by more than we think. I read it twice. I would never read any book twice, but I liked it so much the first time I had to read it again. its very real, and truth can be gritty just like real life. it don't pull any punches and it says things that people will never tell you.
The Prodigal God is absolutely awesome. I would recommend it to anyone, Christian or not. If you are not a believer, you will at the very least gain a better grasp on what the Gospel really teaches and see that many many many churches and "Christians" don't preach the true Gospel.
@@rontate7719 The serpent was the god Enki from Sumerian mythology. Later combined with Enlil to become Yahweh. The Babylonian god Marduk is also incorporated later on.
I most definitely view the Bible as history wherever it quotes names of people or places. Not one town, country or person in the Bible has ever been proven to be wrong. Did you know Imhotep was Joseph? Most likely Moses also had an Egyptian name as well. The first book of the New Testament was written within months of Jesus death and resurrection. The last book was written within 30 years of his death and resurrection.
Well the great majority of Bible scholars believe it wasn't Moses who wrote the first books. They believe they were written in about 500 BC. That doesn't necessarely mean they are not generally true. But to count them for precise historic accounts isn't correct.
Last post from me: Yes, it is sad that we exchange posts here and you don't even look up the table of contents of The Reason for God on Amazon. Your questions are all there. Even get the DVD and see the honest interaction with skeptics. You will really be better equipped to understand Christians.
My first comment was about interpreting the Bible. Romans 5:12 says "sin came through one man." I Corinthians 15:20 says "... in Adam all die..." If Christians believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, why dismiss what the book says? If there is no literal Adam, why is he in Jesus' genealogies (Matthew and Luke)? It's not about what a particular denomination believes, it's about what is clearly written in the book. Some "sin" by working Saturdays, others commit genocide. (I Samuel 15)
I'm catholic, I live in sydney australia, very few people are creationists, you must come from a place where people see the bible as history. I see a different kind of truth. if archaology shows that a person existed, great! but we then have no idea what they did in life. remember, the bib;e stories werent written right after the deather of the person, they were spoken about for ages until written in the bible. some historians say momses existed but doubt he turned a wooden stick into a snake.
The point I'm making is that you don't choose to take the whole thing as one, its more complex than that. also the only major disagreement among bible believing Christians is whether to take genesis literally or not. and no true believer simply picks and chooses what to believe, that's heresy.
It's a really good succinct video, just one point: In Genesis 3 it wasn't a "talking snake." It was a beautiful, intelligent, non-creepy creature -- called a "serpent," albeit with legs (verses 1 & 14). It was only after it was divinely cursed that it became the creepy creature we know as the snake. Incidentally, some people scoff at the idea that Eve was able to commune with this animal, but this was before the fall and the Genesis curse on creation. I talk with my cats every day: They inform me when they want to cuddle, when they want pet, when they want food, when they want out, etc. I, in turn, communicate with them: I indicate when they're welcome on my lap or when they're not welcome, e.g. "Get!" And they understand me on their primitive level. Now, imagine how heightened this kind of communication would be before sin entered the physical realm and the corresponding curse on creation; when everything was "good."
A talking snake seems to always throw a wrench in the works of the atheist mind. Which, consequently, is the same mind that believes it is a talking monkey. I think the talking serpent Maybe a hint at Deep time and The Reptilian sentient beings that evolved Consciousness long before us.
He does explain some of it in in a paper he wrote called "Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople" If you search for that it should be the first result.
"Not true" is your opinion. Here's what the Bible says, "Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" Romans 5:18-19 NIV. There are no square circles.
If you think Paul was wrong, you don't believe he was "inspired by Yahweh's spirit" when he wrote. How do you choose which books or verses to believe. How do you decide which to disbelieve? Are you aware Paul's writings precede the Gospels? Why are you contradicting Jesus. However, if he was wrong about the mustard seed, could he have been wrong about other matters? Universality of Sin? Do you mean sin such as the killing of Amalekite and Midianite children? Do you mean sin as in slavery?
the reasonable and moderate believer. difficult to take offense even though one realises there is a moral superiority lurking quietly behind. This man considers all that do not follow his particular god to be ignorant of the truth. He has felt the need to write a book that uses a fair few tricks to present his views. The same tricks he accuses the atheists of using incidently. Life eh?
I'll offer honesty and respect, objectivity as much as I can. Similarly, I've had many conversations with non-Christians, mostly atheists, that I really can't say that they respected me. I've had a relationship with Jesus Christ for as long as I can remember, and if we reach a stage where I'm expected to say that this relationship could be a figment of my imagination, then I can't offer that. Maybe, as a starting point, do you believe there is one God, who is eternal, good, loving and just?
I've debated Christians in the past; all have insulted me when they couldn't beat reason. I'm a Deist. The Bible is an authentic historical document, but that doesn't mean I believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. If you would like to engage in a conversation about the Bible, Yahweh, Reformed Theology, or a related topic, I only ask three things (which i'll also provide) honesty, objectivity, and respect.
The term literal is not a wooden, stiff interpretation of any literature . The term means identifying the genre you are reading ie. a literalist knows when he’s reading poetry vs. a historical accounting of something . You bet, when reading the Bible I’m a literalist , I don’t check my brain in at the door and become a Bill Maher.
Unfortunately ive not yet been lucky enough to experience "the amazing love of God" I too see much beauty in the world but feel no reason to attribute it to hidden supernatural causes, sorry:-)
Adam, if you received a present, would you thank the gift, or the person who gave it to you. Essentially you're thanking the creation, but not the creator. Everything you see on Earth is a gift and the work of a very creative intelligent mind beyond comprehension. If I were to live on Mars for my entire life, and one day I visited Earth. I would be so astonished by all the creation on earth, due to the fact there was nothing on Mars and it was empty. Even while living on Mars I would not be able to even try and make out what a tree could look like, because of its creativeness. To simply form all this life, is a miracle. Just study the human body. And you'll discover how complex we are, and how our DNA forms us, even more evidence for a god.
Many people think of their parents’ interpretation of the Bible - or the interpretation they have adopted from someone else - as satisfactory. Many other people decide there is something wrong with their parents’ interpretation of the Bible and, the longer they try to find a satisfactory way to interpret it, the more convinced they become that their parents’ interpretation is not satisfactory. Many such people say they have rejected “God” when what they have really rejected is only their parents’ caricature of him. Some people decide that most or all of the Bible should be considered allegorical. Some other people have been introduced to an interpretation that is represented as “literal” and, because of that representation, they assume that the only alternatives are to interpret the Bible as allegorical or in the way they have been told is “literal”. But what if the interpretation someone is being told is “literal” literally denies that some Bible verses should be taken literally? How many people have been taught by someone claiming to be a biblical literalist that there is a Bible verse that says “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years upon the earth.” If you can find a Bible and read Revelation 20 verse 6, you will find that the last part of what was misquoted above is “literally” not there! How many people have been taught by someone claiming to be a biblical literalist that Jesus said “In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where you are, there I may be also.” If you can find a Bible and read John 14 verses 2 & 3, you will find that what was misquoted above is “literally” the opposite of what Jesus said. Do you prefer to take the Bible literally? So do I. Just be careful to not put too much stock in a person’s interpretation just because he claims to be a literalist.
when I came to christianity, I was surprised. Happened to watched a video today on Picard, an MIT professor, who thought religion was for the stupid, was surprised with the wisdom in the bible search Rosalind Picard - personal story [part 1] - Coming to faith
our understanding of the new testament relies heavily on our understanding of the old. because the old informs the new. our understanding of the old testament relies on us refraining from placing “necessities” on its meaning outside of what it actually is prepared to say. the bible cannot answer the modern questions we place on it. it is an ancient book and does not behave like a modern “game plan”. it was a product of it’s time. why ancients even thought it necessary to write anything down is a good question to ask. one modern biblical criticism has sought to answer for a long time now. i don’t think the answers satisfy evangelicals because they require too much change. and to them the stakes are too high. I can see Keller has inclinations toward a ‘freer’ bible, yet I venture to guess he will not let his heart’s thirst be quenched by certain (really good) answers in fear of crossing party lines and unraveling his very identity as a protestant christian.
I haven't given you my opinion; I'm quoting from the book that teaches about Adam and Jesus. However, if you don't believe that verse, I have no problem with that.
If Christians don't take the Bible literally, There would be no need for Jesus' sacrifice. It is written in the Bible that sin and death came through one man (Adam), and salvation came through another man (Jesus). Without a literal Adam, there is no need for a literal Jesus. Keller is just another apologist trying to explain square circles.
Not only do I disagree with apologist's interpretation of the bible, I disagree with apologist's interpretation of the word interpretation. Every apologist I have ever met thinks that one can take a bible verse that they don't like, and just change it to mean something different, without any explanation, and call that interpretation. That is alteration, or manipulation, not interpretation. One question that theists really need to ask themselves is why is the bible open for interpretation? If God really does exist, and the bible is the word of that God, why couldn't god be clear and say exactly what he means, and mean exactly what he says so there can be no doubt about what message he is trying to convey? By leaving it open to interpretation, he has allowed people to make it mean whatever they want it to mean, and that is exactly what has happened, and because of that, Christians are like snowflakes, no two are the same.
1. Not some scholars but the majority. 2. They are smarter than you. 3. The majority of those scholars are christians as well. 4. This stance is written even in the introduction to the Old Testament in the Bible (probably not the older prints). 5. Bible scholars are the ones who translated the Bible. If you can't trust them, how can trust what they've translated? 6. Has God Himself yold you that the Bible is a 100% HISTORIC document? 7. Test all things (Thes. 5:21).
Hitler was raised as a Catholic. He read the Bible. He was influenced by Yahweh. I'm not moving any goal post. Our discussion has been, as the title of the video states, about interpreting the Bible. I notice you haven't touched my comments about Yahweh's murderous rampages. I don't accept a criminal as a god. I remind you that you were the one who attacked my initial comment. I'm merely responding; that is my right. I have not disrespected you. Good day.
When you don't know, you believe. That's the literal definition of belief, not knowing. We know the earth is a sphere, flat earthers believe it is flat. See the difference?
Who told you that rubbish? Do you really think that the absence of knowledge is the foundation of belief? Your statement is quite silly and certainly not true at all. Your definition reveals your lack of literary understanding. Even the dictionary does not share your definition. Not knowing is simply ignorance, but it is not the epitome of a belief. One does not require ignorance to believe something to be true or false. By the way, Christianity is also not "blind faith" or empty belief. It is evidence based. No Christian would claim that they believe because they don't know.
No that's not what he's saying. The bible doesn't really have any homophobic treachings, it just says that homosexual sex is wrong, but it also says sex with anybody who is not your spouse is worng. And a history book of the world without rape, incest, murder, and the other horrible things wouldn't really be a history book now would it. If you think that God condone's rape, because rape happens in the Bible you haven't learned how to read the Bible.
Hermeneutics "irrelevant in this discussion"? Aren't we talking about interpreting the Bible? Romans 5:18-19 presents parallelism between Adam and Jesus. It says "sin came through one man." Common sense, Matthew Henry, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, and every other theologian I've read say that man is Adam. Jesus needs a literal Adam. If "sin" could have come through another man (not Adam), "salvation" could have come through another man (not Jesus). That is the parallelism in Romans 5:18-19.
Right but historically many of the many notable pre-medieval and pre-enlightenment theologians took things like that to be metaphors. Obviously I would have to have examples to know specifically, but as a general trend that sort of thought is not well supported.
As a non believer this is why I find religion so interesting. This guy is clearly a very intelligent and articulate bloke but is willing to suspend all common sense because of a book written by bronze age peasants. I just don't get it!
I meant that Wikipedia says that modern Deism holds a wide spectrum of beliefs. And no, I do not agree with your statement. Similarly I said that I'm a Christian of Reformed Theology view, so for a simple yes or no you should know what I'd say. So we may be stuck. I'll read some of Johnson's work, and I suggest you read more of Keller's. I suggest The Reason for God as a good start.
You're incorrect to assume they have been disproven and please show me one person from the Bible has been proven to not exist. Everyday archaeologist are making new discoveries proving the Biblical timeline, towns and names as true. I have to say this is my first time hearing about someone claiming to be Christian and not believing in the Bible. Are you a Jehovah's Witness or Christian Scientist sect?
Christianity also has a wide spectrum of beliefs. I am always confused by Christians who criticize relative moral values, yet are comfortable with slavery and murder. Thanks for suggesting those books, but I have already read (many times) the 66 main Christian books. Nothing anyone says is going to convince me that I didn't read what I read. I suggest you read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine and "Lectures of Colonel R.G. Ingersoll."
Scripture has only one interpretation and it is found in the author's intent, not in the reader's intent. So if you seek the author's intent you will correctly interpret and if you seek your own intent then you will find your own evil reflected back at you.
there are upwards of 30,000 christian cults in the US alone. so much for "only one interpretation" hahahaha! that's one of the most ignorant things I've heard all day!
***** The authors intent is clear for those that seek it for all of the points of the author move towards that purpose. Most seek support for another idea and therefore never find the author's intent
strengthinweakness1 Let me guess.. If I interpret "correctly" I'll come to the same conclusions you came to, right? "Correctly" just means "as I see it."
***** "For example if we look at Genesis Chapter 3, the Adam & Eve story can be read in a variety of ways" IMO, literally is the worst way to read it. It's much better as a symbolic myth and to try to make literal sense of it is to *miss the point*.
After studying hermeneutics, and over twenty other theological courses, I don't think reading more on the subject is going to change my mind. Keller can't turn a circle into a square. It's not about what a theologian tells me the Bible says, it's about what the Bible says. Did Yahweh order slavery, the killing of children, and the annihilation of tribes? Are those actions moral? It is not disrespectful to wonder and ask the questions I have asked. The truth is sad.
I recognize psalms as poetry and read it as such, to me that is taking it literally. The creation narrative is a hodgepodge of motifs from various cultures and was not written for thousands of years after the events supposedly occurred. I read that in the context of a Bronze Age near easterner. Again, I would consider that approach as literal. If you think the snake was actually talking, and consider that a literal reading, then you’re just a moran.
Yes I believe by faith God incarnate came into the world through a Virgin. It is based on faith. But if God were to come into the world it would be in a unique way.
Virgin birth is logical because if God becomes a man, he will come into the world in a unique way. God being eternal has no creator, so therefor he come as a human through the virgin Mary but is without an Earthly father. Mary didn't just happen to get pregnant with a random Child. It was God coming into the world through a virgin. The resurrection of Jesus is the most important thing in the Christian faith. If Christ has not been raised we are still in our sin and hell bound.
I'll debate with you, if you like. You mention Yahweh, the covenant name of God. I'm a Christian of the Reformed Theology view - so that you know my position. Would you please state your position, for my context? Also please specify if you think the Bible an authentic document (i.e. same words originally written, regardless if true).
Let's take one line of reasoning at a time. 1.) God does not exist and only men are responsible for all the atrocities committed throughout the ages. A "non existent" God cannot be put on trial for atrocities he did not commit. Where does that leave mankind or where does that lead your philosophy on life?
@iloveyellow " The bible does not interpretation, it's not black in white for a lot of things. " Why is that? Isn't it supposed to be the word of god? Did god mumble? It IS black and white on the issue of owning other people as your property ( slavery). Both testaments say it is OK. How would you interpret this passage from the Bible? "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." "I know that scares you" Why would it scare me? As far as has been demonstrated, it is a poorly written book of fables and myths. "but that's why we have the holy spirit" Can you present any evidence for this alleged holy spirit? ", and we use that to discern the word of God" And that system works SO well that there are thousands of different sects of Christianity. And everyone interprets god's garbled words so that surprise surprise--- god's word just happens to mean what they want it to mean.
@keiichi Maebara How could you fail to understand the Bible? It gives such clear concise advice. Here are a couple examples: Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. ... and this advice: Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Just follow those two pieces of advice and you can't go wrong.
@keiichi Maebara "sorry for the confusion if you thought I didn't understand the moral side of the Bible " ???what moral side would that be? That it is OK to own someone else as your property? That you are to kill the following people ( this is a partial list) because god commands it? - adulterers - people who worship a different god - people who worship no god - women who are not virgins on their wedding night?( men get a free pass here because they can have sex with concubines & slaves) - people who work on the sabbath - disobedient children - homosexuals - -
+nadoeloiskat There can be disagreements about historical facts because its like putting together the pieces of a puzzle. What I have written here about beliefs being subjective include your statement, "you arent supposed to read history books." Who made this claim? You read the gospels you believe contain some truth and ignores the others which is also consistent with your personal beliefs. Why is this? Who explain the truth to you? I also had to laugh when you used the word "wish." Another form of magical thinking?
Keller is wrong about Genesis 1. Notice that he glosses over it quickly with the passing comment that it is not prose. That is a meaningless reason and Genesis is written in its entirely as historical narrative. To change gears without textual clues suggest an ulterior motive and here it is: Keller has been duped to believe that evolution is true(prolly because he doesn't want to offend the majority) And I attend Redeemer in Manhattan
No, sorry, evolution IS true, despite what an ignorant subset of christian fundies want to believe. Oh, you attend a bible college... no wonder you're so damned wrong about everything.
Osmosis Fallacy of argument by assertion since you made a statement and didn't support it with evidence. Evolution hasn't been observed and there is no evidence that single cells ever evolve into multicells
strengthinweakness1 I'm not even going to dignify that with a response other than virtually every scientist in a relevant field would laugh right in your face if you ever got close enough to a university to talk to one. Which we know will never happen.
Osmosis That is the best that liars, that are hiding behind other liars and believed by empty headed non-critically thinking lemmings like you can do to hide their irrationality can formulate, e.g. laughing right in my face.
Excellent points... "The obstacle which prevents the so-called religious man from accepting the teachings of God is literal interpretation." - Abdu’l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, Baha'i Faith
Well metaphors and parallels for one aren't history. If you take them literally you could be proven wrong. =P It's more about interpretations. Some places are supposed to be history some aren't. Being a Bible scholar can help you determine which are which.
Well, if you talk to Jesus, and he talks to you, then I guess you have a relationship with him. But if you talk to him, and he doesn't answer, you should be honest with yourself. As far as believing in God, I already told you I'm a Deist. Now let me ask you, would a good, loving, just god order slavery? Would he order the murder of children? Would he order genocide? Would he require blood sacrifices? Would he elect some "before the foundation of the earth" (which implies rejecting others)?
Tim Keller doesn't know anyone who's a "biblical literalist." Well, good for him - He's never met a single member of my dad's side of my family. Please do let me know if there's anyone else TK doesn't know and I'll easily show him a few.
Ah, it's a FATHER issue. I might have guessed. I'm A-FREUD that about as much atheism as theism can be "explained (away)" by psychological factors. Dr. Paul Vitz might be of some help here. Google him sometime, or not.
strengthinweakness1 "Learn logic" Coming from you, that's rich. "going thru life as a blathering fool will lead you to hating your life and even suicide" What makes you think you're qualified to a) tell me I'm a blathering fool and b) tell me how my life will turn out? methinks the blathering fool is YOU!
Yes, the songs, dreams, metaphors and such probably aren't meant to be taken literally. There is hidden meaning and prophecy in many of them though. Abram came from Ur of the Chaldees, so its safe to say he might not of spoken Hebrew. I do believe by the time Moses came on the scene Hebrew was the language of the Israelites. Moses did right the first books of the Bible. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, the Garden of Eden was real and there was a flood.
Many has done great harm to society and their own christians brothers and sisters with a literal interpretation of the Bible. It takes more than reading to understand the Bible.
It's not that benign actually. It's really important to reject the bible's teachings with all that you are. It's an incredibly manipulative, evil book. It is not just a work of fiction. It is NOT innocent.
How convenient for you, Tim! Those verses that make your religion look bad can be interpreted figuratively, while those that elevate your religion are read literally. First you say you accept "the authority of the Bible," then you contrast your interpretation against those who "accept the full authority of the Bible." Just another Guru beating a dead horse with a talking snake.
All related fields of science have demonstrated that the earth is much older. That is nature revealing to us who she really is. Interpret that as you will.
Ivan Buck I choose receive my information from the Creator of nature. He knows when and how she was made, therefore any sort of scientific discovery must be rejected if it is not in accord with the Bible.
First of all, you sit down & calm down. U need to think with brain not mouth. Now, note this: I was not talking about invention, but consistency, so to show CS doesn't always go against Bible and u are wrong. But u apparently r unable to tell the conceptual difference between the two. Thirdly, try and tell me: Based on what u think u understand Bible to bigmouth about it? On ur ignorance? Or on ur intellectual incompetency? Or on ur CS brand of "truth"? U need to learn how to read & think.
