The Faith & Religion mega Thread

What's amazing is that Adam somehow managed to accomplish this task in a single "day." How many animals exist on this planet? What about the fish of the sea? (Could Adam breathe water?) The birds? (Could Adam fly?)

So – this is why I don't concern myself with wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I say, simply leave the earliest passages of Genesis to be whatever they are, but do not strive too hard to read "literal" meaning into them. In my humble, "these texts do not require this, and neither does God." So, you're off the hook.

"Were you there?" No, you were not. And, I daresay, neither was the author of these earliest chapters.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs What's amazing is that Adam somehow managed to accomplish this task in a single "day." How many animals exist on this planet? What about the fish of the sea? (Could Adam breathe water?) The birds? (Could Adam fly?) So – this is why I don't concern myself with wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I say, simply leave the earliest passages of Genesis to be whatever they are, but do not strive too hard to read "literal" meaning into them. In my humble, "these texts do not require this, and neither does God." So, you're off the hook. "Were you there?" No, you were not. And, I daresay, neither was the author of these earliest chapters.

This is the sort of thing that arises when people don't ponder the Scriptures.

The Hebrew word for 'day' can also mean 'period of time.' We have that usage in English too: "It the old days…"; "In my father's day…". In fact, at genesis 2:4, the six creative days were spoken about as a day.

Originally Posted by (Genesis 2:4) This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

I don't concern myself about how many angels can dance on a pin either, but I believe some fralse religion spent a few days at a conference discussing it.

Your humble opinion or mine is all well and good. But going by Celestial 'Court Precedent', your opinion or mine doesn't count for much - it's God's opinion that matters. His past judgements don't bode well for opponents, unbelievers, or those sitting on fences. The early chapters of Genesis matter enormously because they set the scene for the issue we are all settling. They also make sense. A correct approach to understanding the Scriptures is outlined in Proverbs 2:1-9.

And to answer your question: No, of course I wasn't there. But I believe the author of Genesis chapters 1 & 2 (up to verse 4) was; and I know the one who inspired them knew what went down. So you won't get off the hook with skepticism, nor will anyone else.

@business_kid: While I earnestly respect your belief that "the author of Genesis was," as for my own personal belief system I simply do not require that. Long ago, I decided for myself that I didn't need to go there. If God wants to reach me, He knows my number. He doesn't need to use thousand year old books.

And: I also cannot fail to observe that He does use those "thousand year old books!" I suppose that "Deity has its privileges."

P.S.: "spent a few days at a conference discussing it ..." Touché ...

@sundialsvcs: I don't require to be correct on the author of Genesis. As long as I take the Scriptures as inspired, it doesn't matter who wrote them. They can be used for learning & teaching.

As for presenting a case at any Divine or human court, "You have my number" isn't the wisest way to do it . They have your number all right - in more ways than one!

Speaking of teaching, let me add lesson 2 on Genesis 1:2 then ask for contributions. Lesson #1 is in post #10402.

Originally Posted by Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.

There is mention of water, which is H2O between 0ºC and 100ºC. No mention of ice or steam. So we can conclude that the exterior has cooled from the 8,000ºC at the earth's core, but has not gone down to the absolute zero of empty space. Now we notice the past continuous or imperfect tense "was moving" so this state was continuous over a period. Therefore, despite the darkness, earth is in some sort of orbit and the atmosphere must be absorbing the light. Earth isn't in it's final orbit becsuse that appears to be adjusted later.

This understanding ties in with later verses, so please don't contradict me without reading the entire chapter. Any further insights welcome.

EDIT: As for using thousand year old books: The first humans had a lack of knowledge about God, and themselves. They needed education. If God only came along with a book now, people would rightly ask: "Where the <expletive> were you for all this time? You're trying to convince us you made all this and never told us?

@business_kid: I can't argue with "inspired," nor do I intend to. Neither am I concerned about either of the first two verses of Genesis. I don't have to explain them: I don't feel the need to care about physics, nor the length of a "day." If you do, please continue. We have no quarrel. I've never been an "apologist," and I won't begin being one now.

To me, these two chapters "are what they are," and they are beautifully written. Other religions and cultures of course have other versions of "how the world began," but I don't think that they sang it. (Although I could well be wrong about that.)

I thought we were chatting rather than arguing.

Singing Genesis? Perish the thought.Mind you, some religions are capable of intoning anything in Latin.

As for Genesis 1:2, I'm just sick of people who think their first thought on Scripture is the last word on it, which is rarely the case. Then they conclude the Bible is nonsense, because their first thought is.

Originally Posted by business_kid I thought we were chatting rather than arguing. Singing Genesis? Perish the thought.Mind you, some religions are capable of intoning anything in Latin. As for Genesis 1:2, I'm just sick of people who think their first thought on Scripture is the last word on it, which is rarely the case. Then they conclude the Bible is nonsense, because their first thought is.

As I said earlier, you can easily find videos and audio recordings of Genesis 1&2 being sung in their original language. (As far as we can determine it.) Not Latin ... although of course you can find that, too. It is a poem based on the original linguistic structure, which does not translate exactly either to Latin or to English. This is why "and the evening and the morning were ..." is repeated as it is. But in the original tongue you hear the sounds. It is a beautiful way to begin the massive text that is Genesis.

As for "thoughts of scripture," I believe that everyone must and will find their own way. And I will never tell anyone else what that can or should be for them.

Originally Posted by business_kid As for Genesis 1:2, I'm just sick of people who think their first thought on Scripture is the last word on it, which is rarely the case. Then they conclude the Bible is nonsense, because their first thought is.

Please don't overstate your case. I haven't seen anyone in several pages of posts say any Bible is nonsense. I may be forgetting someone with that much disdain for the Mormon Bible, and though I consider that Bible founded in fraud it is still not without worthy parts, but no actually ancient bibles have been so attacked in my recall. IMHO the Christian Bible is far from nonsense but it IS a conglomeration from numerous extremely superstitious, but nevertheless highly intelligent, authors over a huge span of time and should be considered a from of poetic allegory. Literal interpretation is simply folly since it is demonstrably impossible without major jumping through hoops.

The Bible is a mixed bag of many literary forms. Some is song or poetry, illustrative, and so forth. Much of it is literal; some is directly prophetic; some is prophetic, and meaning is masked by various devices, so it can be revealed at a future time, as such passages as Daniel 12:8-10 and 1 Peter 1:10-12 make clear.

Even the ministry of Jesus was often done by use of illustrations. Depending on his audience, those without a spiritual interest might not be able to get the point. Let's give an example: Matthew 13:1-9 gives the parable of the sower, an illustration; Matthew 13:10-15 is the dialogue that took place between Jesus and the Apostles; and Matthew 13:16-23 explains the meaning of the parable.

OTOH, Matthew 21:33-41 has another parable about a vineyard spoken to very unspiritual chief priests & Pharisees. They have no difficulty following the story and even answer Jesus' question to them. When Jesus applies the parable in Matthew 21:42-46, however, they want to kill him, recognizing themselves as 'the builders.' They had in fact just passed a capital sentence on themselves!

Now let me ask: Jesus applied the prophecy at Psalm 118:22-23. If, in the course of some discussion,

• I had made the point that those particular verses were a prophecy, would you have agreed with me?
• If I had said that the 'chief cornerstone' applied to Jesus, would you concur?
• If I had made the application of the parable that Jesus did, would your viewpoint line up with mine?
• If I had waxed enthusiastic about the outworking of God's purpose (Psalm 118:23) would you have thought me insane?

Your unrevised opinions may be in fact locking you out of the spiritual knowledge available in scripture. It's not surprising you have negative opinions of the Bible. That stops most people, but not everybody. That's why we do Bible studies - to educate folks and clear misunderstandings.

Business_kid this is simply difference of opinion. From my point of view my opinion of the Christian Bible isn't negative! It is your view of my view that sees it as negative and my view of your take is impossible since you apparently insist on "literal" which actually means "as you see it" and everyone else is just wrong. I am absolutely certain scholars know far more and in more depth than I do so I don't consider my view "the right one" and certainly not "the ONLY correct one". I don't have a personal investment in it. It appears to me your very identity depends on how you see it. No one book defines me except the one I am in the process of "writing".... and that is a metaphor just like Psalm 118:22-23 and a great deal more in the bible.... ie: subject to personal translation.

Well, I'm prone to coming accross as OTT, and sorry if that's the case. But after 40+ years of studying the Bible and educating others in it, I certainly have a view.

Do you feel the interpretation of Psalm 118:22-23 as given by Jesus Christ is the definitive one? If not, why were the chief priests (The last few high priests had been Sadducees) and Pharisees so incensed by it, if it could mean anything? Was it not that they DID agree with his interpretation, and were condemned by it?

EDIT: The Bible contains many facts in various forms. Bits of the Bible are open to interpretation. But to assert the whole book is open to how you read it is to close your eyes and ears to God communicating with you. That's your choice, but don't expect me to agree.

I think most Christians of whatever denomination regard this psalm as a prophesy of Jesus, and likewise a number of other psalms such as Psalm 22. There were psalms that were definitely regarded as both prophetic and messianic by Jews but these particular ones were not, because the Jewish Messiah was not expected either to be rejected or to suffer. Like the suffering servant in Isaiah, these were prophecies that weren't recognised for what they were until after the event and then only by Christians. I don't think it's reasonable to expect unbelievers (or indeed religious Jews) to accept the same chain of logic.

In Jewish tradition, "messiah" meant "anointed one." And, the term did not necessarily apply to just one historical person. The Jews were looking for a victorious military leader which would, in their day, liberate them from the Romans. They did not equate this person with being "the son of God." They did not expect this victorious military leader to have come down from heaven, nor to return to it. In fact, they did not and do not now think that God ever had a human son. (Although the name of the arch-rival god, Ba'al, could be interpreted as "son of the god.")

Yes, Jesus is described in several places as declaring that this-or-that prophecy foretold him. But many of these phrases – such as the one about the rejected stone – are actually very vague. In the context of the surrounding poem, it does not imply that it is a reference to any person at all. The writer also celebrates that he was not "given over to death," while we know that Jesus was.

Yes, it's handy that the text was fairly-arbitrarily divided into "chapters" and "verses" for ease of locating a particular phrase, but this also makes it very easy to lift "a phrase" out of context. How many people know what "John 3:17" says? In ordinary speech and writing, you usually do not focus upon any single sentence, or sentence fragment.

Sometimes, a prophet was very explicit: "this king or that king is going to come and whup your butt - or, vice-versa." And sometimes we know from other historical sources that they were dead-wrong. (e.g. "This person is going to become king," but he is killed in battle.) And, sometimes a prophet was completely vague. This vagueness allows you to decide that the prophecy "means," well, whatever you want it to. Because the sentence as written does not say anything, it can say anything you wish.

The writers of the four canonical Gospels needed to establish one thing: that Jesus was literally the "only begotten" (referring to physical birth) son of God, and that he was the singular fulfillment of prophecy ... which foretold his coming and which could not refer to any other person. The book of Hebrews, allegedly written by that famous Roman, Paul, is completely about making this argument. The author's purpose is to convert the Jews. Unfortunately, his lines of reasoning are entirely foreign to Judaism. It says that this one man, Jesus, was "'the' messiah" that no Jew was ever actually looking for. They have had many "messiahs." The word could apply to any of their kings, all of whom were "anointed" as part of the coronation ceremony. Especially if those kings subsequently won battles. They weren't looking for a literal son of God to show up, and then be carried up to heaven, "Elijah-style." In their day they wanted someone who could kick Rome's ass. Too bad they never found him – and their temple was destroyed. Jesus certainly wasn't that person: he never fought anyone. Turned over a few tables once, but that was about it.

When Jesus entered the city and was lauded as a king would be, the Romans did what they always did with such people – they immediately seized him and publicly executed him, putting a crown of thorns on his head and tacking up a notice saying exactly what his crime was. They did not tolerate the slightest hint of insurrection. Ever. And that's the only real reason why he was killed – not because the Jews wanted it. (To the ruthless Romans, provincial officials were useful idiots.) They executed everyone who opposed them – they even executed common thieves, like the other two men who died that day. They would even "decimate" their own legions!

You're quite right, hazel. The majority of Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah have huge difficulty with clear Messianic prophecies. Those folks want particularly to rip Isaiah chapter 53 out of the scroll! Funnily enough, they were close to accepting Simon Bar Kokhba as a Messiah. He was the version of the Messiah the Jews wanted. He was a military man, not the least bit spiritual, who drove the Romans out - until they came back and drove the Jews out. That ended with Jews sold as slaves in exile, and forbidden on pain of death from entering Jerusalem.

What the Jews lacked then and lack now is meekness, a willingness to be taught. Being meek means Scripture has to be able to correct your line of thinking and you have to allow it to do that. As you can see, some don't want that.

Of course Jews are not meek! We are a stiff-necked people and proud of it. Only a really stiff-necked people could have survived the long and bloody shaping that God put the Jews through. If the Irish had had to suffer anything like it, they'd be extinct by now.