Biblical Innerancy Fallacy

Discussion in 'Theology' started by wil, Mar 17, 2009.

  1. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    But I object to contrived mysteries. A true mystery is something that occurs as a result of being alive. You can learn from it, so talking about it can be good.

    I can't help but be curious what that was, but I guess you can't tell me.

    I'm not seriously seeking any more plateaus or unveiling, mostly. I genuinely want to make a difference in the world. I think you understand this. Let's say you realize that bugs are people, too. How are you going to live without ever killing one or in some way supporting the deaths of innocent insects? Suppose you are The Atom, a character able to change both your size and density and to shrink down to examine individual electrons. You still have to be normal size in order to have a life! Living through revelation after revelation is like seeing more of the universe -- you know your tiny size better but can live with it less.
     
  2. Paladin

    Paladin Purchased Bewilderment

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,084
    Likes Received:
    1
    The things I've come to understand are pretty ordinary really, but I think that's the wonder of it. To see something amazing in what everyone else sees as obvious. Take emptiness for example, It sounds hard to grasp if you read about it, but really simple once you see that even your own self is "empty".
    Reading early Christian texts like "Imitation of Christ" or "The Cloud Of Unknowing" takes on a deeper meaning from this perspective.
    And when Paul says that "Christ liveth me" is much different for me now from when I was a small boy in Catechism class.

    Life itself presents us with a mystery, that like Martin Buber wrote about God is neither Immanent or Transcendent but both. We ask the Great Reality from within our ecstatic state "How shall we then live?" But the answer is right there in front of us isn't it?
     
  3. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    A little different bent here. In the very orthodox-yet-liberal wing of the Religious Society of Friends the focus is on the Inner Light, the Still Small Voice Within, That of God in Everyone. The scripture, men of the cloth, and any other traditions are secondary and to be tested against the Light (which in turn is tested against other Friend's experiences).

    This lack of placing the canon as a sancrosanct repository of the Word of God was the major reason for the Lamb's War (Puritan repression of Quakers) and was influencial (to some extent) on the Unitarian/Universalist/Unity wing of Christianity.

    The fundamentals are that the Divine is everywhere waiting for us to experience it in our own unique way. Looking for answers in a text (be it OT, NT, Koran, or whatever) rather than in our Heart which shouts "I am the Divine" seems to always leads to an us-versus-them attitude. The Divine wants love and peace and inclusiveness. Think of it as a Path trod from (George) Fox to (Matthew) Fox.

    Pax et amor vincunt omnia, radarmark
     
  4. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe its a result of a lack of understanding of the divine and that kingdom. Misinterpretation of the books has always lead to violence , arguments ect. Everyone does have a divine human self. Finding that along the way is each individuals personal path but knowledge and understanding leads everyone into that direction . I believe its a journey with a few bumps along the way.
     
  5. fadded blue jeans

    fadded blue jeans New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    POPE Benedict XVI HAS INDICATED TO CONFESSIONAL LUTHERANS HE AGREES WITH US THAT THE BIBLE IS WITH OUT ERRORS ..

    POPE BENEDICT would disagree that the bible says
    the sun revolved around the earth or that the bible says the earth is flat ..

    he knows just as well as lutherans do the bible never claims such things ..
     
  6. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Okay,

    Falt Earth Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory” (can onloy be if earth is flat)

    Pi=3 (st Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26)
    Matthew
    16:27-28​
    For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
    Think the date is off.

    Leviticus 11:20-22​
    All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.

    If you can't count this works.

    Psalms 104:5​
    He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

    Moves all the time.

    Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree."

    There are emany thousands of smaller seeds (see any orchid), and mustard is not tree.

    "horns are like the horns of a unicorn." Deuteronomy33:17

    I have, literally, hundreds more. Sorry, know your bible first.

    Pax!

     
  7. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    i don't know about the new testament stuff, but the old testament stuff is all translation or context errors rather than actual mistakes in the original text.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  8. IowaGuy

    IowaGuy Hunter-Gatherer

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    2
    Would you be willing to clarify this with regards to the age of the earth and the amount of time humans have been on this earth?

    As you know, the OT has been used to back many different theories regarding the age of the earth/humanity; many of which fly in the face of modern science...
     
  9. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    The Bible reference is to The Holy Scriptures, According to the Masoretic Text, The Jewish Publication Society of America. 1917. The word is "kavev" or "three", whoile there are some alternative Gematric (number interpretation) and mystical readings, I =was refering to the literal text (in Hebrew).

    Am I wrong?????
     
  10. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,279
    Likes Received:
    1,705
    Yes it is quite interesting what the Jews think the Jews meant by what the Jews wrote.....and what the Christians think the Jews meant by what the Jews wrote!
     
  11. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Surely is, but until we have time travel, that will be pretty hard to do. I still like Louis Leakey's speech from say 50 years ago, "if one accepts that Day was really 'Period od Time', Genisis is quite close" (or words to that effet, as I recall them now).
     
  12. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    I would hope that the Chronicles of Narnia or Lord of the Rings trilogy wouldn't be used to describe how the universe began. There is a chance that someone might try to use them as science textbooks, but the probability of that happening is extremely small. It is not a matter of fiction, but a matter of literature. The bible simply wasn't written to be a science textbook.
     
  13. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    yes.

    they also fly in the face of how we understand the Torah. look, it's quite simple. if you want an answer to *how*, ask a scientist. no problem. is you want an answer to *why*, look in Torah. the genesis story in Torah is about why humans are the way they are and how they got that way. what does it mean to be human? the age of the earth is irrelevant to this question.

    i am aware that there are jewish people, some of whom are quite knowledgeable, who nonetheless maintain that the world is only 5772 years old, but they are forced to have recourse to the idea that the world was Created "looking as if" it was 14 billion years old or however long it is, as time was Created at the same time. now, of course, this is not testable and, frankly, i don't really see the point of such a point of view, but i would be wrong to deny that there are such people, however misguided i feel them to be.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  14. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,679
    Likes Received:
    1,616
    Er ... I don't think so, as were he to do so, the media would be screaming heretic from the rooftops.

    What the Catholic Church teaches is that the Bible conveys those truths necessary for man's realisation of his fullest potential, but that the text may contain errors ...

    I also suggest the sun standing still, as spoken of in Scripture, is a poetic trope, something that fundamental literalists fail to see ... as I also suggest that God being 'jealous' or 'vengeful' or 'kind' or even 'father' falls under the same idea.

    The point then is what does the trope tell us?

    In which case you have to read it in context.

    God bless

    Thomas
     
  15. IowaGuy

    IowaGuy Hunter-Gatherer

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    2
    The difference is, the Chronicles or Rings aren't widely taken as divine revelation.

    If someone interprets the bible as divine revelation ,then why shouldn't they use that book to describe how the universe began? Why should a scientist's theory (based on experiments) be more important than the actual Word of God?

    The bible wasn't written to be a science textbook because the scientific method as we know it didn't exist at the time. But don't you think it was written to answer those "unknowns" about how the universe and mankind began? (Not the unknowns according to modern science, but the unknowns 2,000 years ago.) Or do you think Genesis was just filler material?

    Like it or not, the bible IS taken as a science textbook by many who believe it to be the literal word of god. Just like it IS taken as the ultimate moral authority by many. Just like it IS taken by many as the answer to what happens to believers/nonbelievers when we die. The Word of God is the Word of God and can be applied to any subject matter, or do you disagree?

    If you think modern scientific findings should override the explanations in Genesis, what other parts of the bible do you think should be deemed irrelevant because of modern philosophy/science?


    Do you think the bible is just another piece of literature like the Chronicles or Rings books? If so, would we have all the politics (on my side of the pond) pushing for "intelligent design" to be taught in classrooms?
     
  16. IowaGuy

    IowaGuy Hunter-Gatherer

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi BB, thanks for your well-grounded answer. I like your "how": ask a scientist; "why": read the Torah/bible. I am reading some Mortimer Adler and he suggests approaching science/religion/philosophy with that sort of mentality; each discipline answers a different kind of question.

    But I wonder, if you think the age of the earth is irrelevant to what it means to be a human, would you say the same about evolution?

    Do you think that whether life started as a single-cell organism and we ultimately evolved from a monkey-like creature; or OTOH whether Adam was created from dirt and Eve from his rib (and both in "god's" image); is the answer to that question relevant to what it means to be human?

    Because the age of the earth is very relevant to the issue of evolution, and many folks use the Inerrant Bible as evidence that evolution didn't/doesn't occur...
     
  17. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    And more than that methinks, read "The Book of Nature" and "The Book" metaphorically (at least the latter) so that paradoxes are resolved.
     
  18. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    I think BB answered that in ways I couldn't.

    While I was reading your post here, I just had an idea. We must accept that the science is right and that the scripture cannot be false. There must therefore be a way of reconciling the two.

    Here's my theory........

    99 per cent of people assume that Adam is the first human. That may be true in a sense, but not in the way we may think. Evolution theory and science describe the origins of humans in a way that is scientifically observable/measurable. They describe our physical origins, not our spiritual origins.

    The story described in Genesis is not our physical origins, but our spiritual origins. Physically, we evolved from "apes," but spiritually, we came from somewhere else. We are actually divine.

    Adam is not actually the first human. He is the first divine human, the first incarnation of divine humans into this world. The descendants of Adam and Eve had sexual relations with purely biological humans and as a result, the Divine began to spread among the purely biological. There is no way of knowing how many people have a "divine soul" in them and how much "divinity" has spread among the human population.

    Consider that the opening passage of the Gospel of Matthew, Luke 3 and parts of 1 Chronicles lists the genealogy of Adam, Abraham, Jacob, David. We could well consider the Genesis story to be partly metaphorical, but I do not think the genealogy is metaphorical. I think we must take the genealogy literally. What is the point of listing a genealogy if we don't take it literally? The earth may be much older than 6,000-7,000 years, but quite obviously the lineage from Adam to the present generation is not much older than 6,000-7,000 years -- give or take a few hundred or thousand years.

    I am not talking here about the ancestor of the entire human race (including the biological members), but the ancestor of divine humans. Adam isn't everybody's ancestor. However, we can be sure and certain that Adam is definitely the ancestor of the Jewish people!!!!

    Maybe that's the real point and this is where things may start to shock people. I hope you don't take this the wrong way.

    We know from the accounts in Genesis and other places in the Bible that of all the "races" in the world, Adam is definitely the ancestor of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are therefore divine. So that's one group. Because Abraham was a descendant of Adam, all descendants of Abraham are also "divine." The Arabs, the descendants of Ishmael were descendants of Abraham, so therefore Arabs are also divine (and it doesn't really matter if they're Muslim or not -- it isn't about faith).

    The story of Genesis isn't really about the origins of the human race, but about the lineage of the Divine. If this is one possible and legitimate interpretation, then science doesn't really force us to concede that the Genesis story is wrong, but rather it forces us to realise the truth about what Genesis is really talking about -- that some, or all of us are divine -- and that Genesis calls us to rediscover our divine origins.

    This is where it may start to shock people -- because it is probably starting to sound a bit "racist" or "racialist" now. If we started talking about who was "divine" and who was not, we'd be talking about two races here.

    I don't know if this is a coincidence or not, but I've read how some Hasidic groups see all non-Jews as "subhuman" and Hasidic groups take a mystical approach to Judaism. I think we can all agree with the idea that any part of the human race is "subhuman" is wrong, but it's the weirdness of the mysticism and kabbalah that leads to that concept. What gets me interested in what these Hasidic groups are thinking is whether the mysticism gets them close to a point Genesis might be making, even if they get the crucial aspect wrong -- the status of non-Jews.

    I just wonder if it is really a distorted version of what the Genesis story is really trying to say. The reason why we can't regard one segment of the human race as "lower life-forms" (apart from the wrongness of considering some people subhuman) is because now that the Divine and Biological Humans have mingled and intermarried over so many generations, we're all more or less in the same boat now. Most of us now have a divine soul.

    Many Hasidic groups have been tempted to say "let us differentiate" but I don't think differentiation is possible any-more.
     
  19. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,679
    Likes Received:
    1,616
    How do you define 'many'? They're mostly American Fundamentalists ...

    God bless

    Thomas
     
  20. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,279
    Likes Received:
    1,705
    They are so vocal Thomas, if you were here in the states you'd see how it is 'many'.

    I only here realized this is an american phenomenon. What you may not realize is many Catholics in the states are fundamentalists, most have been for most of my life. They believe Genesis to be physical fact. It is what they were taught in 12 years of Catholic School, or maybe rather, they weren't taught any different.

    Thankfully the Presidential candidates that come out as being short earthers haven't made it to the top in recent years, but I'd say many presidents in the past were of that belief.....and they are present in each election cycle today.

    Many is not most....but it would be an interesting poll.
     

Share This Page