Liberal / non-literal intepretation of bible impossible...

Post Reply New Topic

You still have not shown me where verbal inerrancy is taught. You are assuming a direct relationship between statements in a written text and God's own words. Therefore, to you, if a statement in what you regard as an inerrant document is in some way flawed, it means, from your perspective, that God himself is lying. I make no such assumption.

God does not write books. People do.



You do not agree with me. However, Wrong Planet is not a Christian forum. It is a forum devoted to AS and similar conditions.

By the way, and you can disregard this question if you prefer, have we met on Paltalk?

Cheers,

Mark

Last edited by nominalist on 09 Oct 2007, 7:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Well, have you seriously considered the many inconsistencies in the Bible?

No room to list them all here, so I'll just toss out an obvious one. In the early part of Genesis, God warns Adam that he would die the same day he ate the fruit. In another part, it says that Adam had multiple children after eating the fruit and being expelled from the garden, and he went on to live to the age of 930!


>> For ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free! <<

And in yet another part of the Bible it says a day to God is as a Thousand years.

The Bible is written in a certain way as explained here in Daniel Chapter 12

" 9 And he went on to say: “Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of [the] end. 10 Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will certainly act wickedly, and no wicked ones at all will understand; but the ones having insight will understand."

I guess its a way of seperating the Sheep form the Goats, the sheep looking hard until they find the answer because they want God to be true.
The goats rejoicing over the slightest reason they can find to convince themslves God doesnt exist.

But to say that a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day is an inconsistency. It also calls into question the genesis creation story.

Does that mean that the process of creation really took 6000 years instead of 6 days? Was that long enough for the dinosaurs to breed enough to leave all those fossils? And since those 6000 years included 2191500 days, and since a 1 day = 1000 years, the those 6000 years are really iteratively 2,191,500,000 years? Which means the universe is really 2.1 billion years old to God?

At Babel, God sent down confusion on mankind and jumbled the languages of the world.
Paul said "God is not the author of confusion."

Bare in mind meanings can get lost in translation, especially from a language like Hebrew.

As for Genesis and the period of Creation, yes, though evolutionists tell us we have been here for millions of years, secular archeology tells us that evidence of civilized man occurred abruptly 6000 years ago.
This also corrisponds with the Jewish calender and its family tree back to Adam.
World events correspond with what the Bible calls the last days, added to the 1000 years of Jesus reign after armeggedon and you have Gods 7th day of rest lasting 7000 years.

Therefore it is logical assumption to consider all the days of creation lasted 7000 years each.
Maybe you are right with the 2.1 Billion year bit, but I would consider the 48000 years long enough for a few dino fossils.

By the way, you might find it fun to do a search on dinos being around at the same time as man.

you're pulling the thread off topic... we're talking about the doctrinal UNVIABILITY of being a "liberal christian" (an oxymoron)

But we're talking about establishing the inerrancy of PAULS WORDS, not the entire bible. What PAUL CLAIMED was that his words were NOT HIS, and that he got them from christ and God. If pauls claims his words are from god/christ, and it IS a teaching that god does not lie (is inerrant), then it follows that if Paul claims his words are from god, and you claim paul is in ERROR, that YOU ARE IN ERROR.

If you are claiming the text is in error because the people who wrote it made errors, then there is NO POINT to believing "in" christianity because the works are written by men, and there is no standard for what is true versus what is not. Thereby making any claim to be "Christian" or believe in the "Christian god" unintelligible and logically incoherent. (untrustworthy).



True, but then why are you even participating in this thread?? WHAT f*****g POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE? IF you're not a Christian or have any scholarly biblical background TAKE A HIKE... because god damn, I'm getting pissed off that you are not well read enough to even be discussing the issues I have presented here. So DO NOT PARTICIPATE because you are obviously too ignorant of Christianity and biblical texts and related beliefs to add anything to the discussion..



No s**t but look -- it's in the forum titled - Politics, Philosophy, and Religion.

Last edited by ZakFiend on 09 Oct 2007, 8:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Daniel is clearly prophetic book though, there is a big difference. Anything that has allegorical element is CLEARLY demarcated from what is presented in the bible as historical.

You would have to give me the context of Pauls use of the word confusion, but its probably not going to be the same as the Babel incident.

See, at Babel, you had a One World Order where the whole of Mankind was under a dictatorship of Nimrod who was in opposition to God, you also had a One World Religion, a Satanic Sun Worshipping religion, (it was Nimrod who married his own Mother by the way giving birth to apostate Christianities Trinity worship and December 25th Bithday of the Sun.

Anyway, worship of th etrue God would have not been allowed in this religious dictatorship, which is one reason why God seperated all the nations and gave them seperate languages so that they couldnt comunicate with each other.

Now if the Bible ahdnt used the word confusion, but had said, seperated thier languages so that they couldnt communicate with each other, would you still consider this as a real reason to consider the Bible contradictory?
Be honest with your self here, it makes little differance to me what you choise to belive.

By the way, the One World Order of Babel, was the "Pattern of things to come" with the Satanic New World Order we will shortly be getting under the United Nations and the Satanic religion of Babylon the Great.

Whilst what you say is true, I think the principle holds true for all of the Bible.
Consider the Wild Beast of Revelation 13 where people falsely assume the Beast is Satan, those who have read the whole Bible would have fond in Daniel that Beasts allways refer to Human Governments.

If I say that Paul was like the rest of us - right sometimes and wrong other times - I do not have to prove it. That merely tells us he is a human being.

However, if you say that Paul is inerrant, you are logically required to prove it. You have not done so.



Expressing your desire for a standard of truth does not establish that there is one (or that you have discovered it).



You do not own the thread. If you do not like my comments, you can certainly ignore them.



Yes, and I am a sociologist of religion, a college professor, which is why I participate in this section.

Cheers,

Mark

I am saying that when paul says he is speaking on behalf of god, he's saying (and qualifying his phrases) that they are not of his own authority

I've had it... you are one stupid mother f****r, you have dragged this thread way off course and are making non-sequitor statements. If you're a sociologist of religion, it means nothing. Your thought quality is piss poor, and you are deliberately misinterpreting my statements. You are being purposely obtuse and I will not accept it.

This thread is talking about the VIABILITY of Christian liberalism, it is not viable, period. It is incoherent to label oneself a Christian and at the same time believe that the same god described in the christian holy text is real, and that he/she will live again for real.

If one is to be CONSISTENT with the character of christs own teachings... A liberal Christian is an impossibility. If he/she actually believes he/she will REALLY LIVE AGAIN because he/she believes in the Christian god/book/writings and all associated propaganda, but rejects most of what is written by cherry picking what is true and false... then he/she is a moron.

If one is free to pick and choose what is true and false, and words are free to mean anything, then claiming to be christian is useless. Because there is no standard for truth. If words are meant to mean what they say and are clearly defined, and their interpretation finitely limited by the presentation and context.

If you're a sociologist of religion, prove it, what university do you work for? Where's your bio? I'm going to call and check to see if you are on faculty. Because I have a feeling you're just being a s**t disturber, being unable to think clearly because you're locked in your own egocentric world.

I would just like to state that I find your last post even more unpleasant and offfensive than your previous ones. Are you so frightened by other peoples views? I know that a tendency to black and white thinking, an incapacity for "fuzzy" thinking, is a classic sign of ASD. I used to demand/expect everything to be logical,and got furiously exasperated , and I still freak out at inconsistencies on occasion, but you are on wrongplanet; you know all this!

I would normally automatically agree with you that liberal christianity is not logical ,as I said , and I think that is obvious to most people. Christianity has become so much a matter for discussion/interpretation that almost anyone can claim to be christian.

It was already a matter for discussion and interpretation in 400 AD .

I think GB Shaw said something like "Christianity might be pretty good if anyone actually tried it". But I don't know what he thought that "essential" christianity was!!( probably some sort of socialist humanist atheism ! !!)

You really don't need to get so verbally abusive about such a well known and widely understood fact. Why are you so angry about people describing themselves as christian who don't fit your criteria?

(If anything it weakens your perfectly commonplace observation to the point that I'm even beginning to wonder whether in fact liberal christianity IS logical,( too logical for a religion anyway).

Its very logicality is losing it its followers in the West ! ! )

Oh, I thought it was a subject for discussion. But it is not viable! Period! Because you insist.

The simple fact is that there are many different interpretations of Christianity. Your arguments make sense to people who share your interpretation, but no one else. And your anger is silly. You are free to believe what you like, but other people are, too.

someone posting like this sure the hell
shouldn't be suggesting what is reasonable
in a debate.

If you only want people who agree with you to respond,
may I suggest starting your own forum - and not inviting
anyone else?