Does the Christian message fall apart without a literal interpretation of Genesis?

by nicolaou 175 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  wobble

  I think the problem this thread has highlighted very nicely, so thanks Nic and all who have contributed, is that there is more than one way of looking at the world.

  Two ways are the rationalist way and the religious way, which we see in debate in the thread here, each trying to prove their point of view is more valid than the others.

  Take a third way of looking at things, as the artist or poet does, the rationalist could take issue with the artist/poets view as being unreal , not productive, etc etc.

  the religious often take issue with the poet/artist for being blasphemous or immodest etc etc.

  But it is just a different way of appreciating life, the universe and everything.

  Sometimes the different viewpoints come together in a happy union, religious poetry and art etc, but someone from one or other camp will find fault with it, from their perspective.

  What we rationalists have to realise is that believers have a way of feeling (or believing if you like) that we cannot share, what believers have to realise is that they cannot prove that this perception is valid, to a rationalist.

  Just as the artist/ poet cannot show the value of his work to a Philistine, so the believer cannot prove his belief to the rationalist, or even put it in words that a rationalist would appreciate or understand.

  Where both sides fall down is in thinking their way is superior rather than just different.

  I detected just a little of that in your comment dear Nic "I wanted to understand how anyone could take the Christian message seriously when it was drawn from the same well as a fable...."

  The origins of our rationalistic thinking are not exactly without problems, so the Christian message (whatever that is) may be valid even if the well water is a bit murky.

  Having said all that, if the Christian message is what I think it is, as a rationalist, I do think it is invalid.
• 

  nicolaou

  So then, for me, everything that complies with what he said, I believe that.

  But Tammy, dragging this conversation back to the question we started with, Jesus did accept Genesis as literal!

  "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' Matt 19:4
• 

  nicolaou

  How you doing wobble?

  Where both sides fall down is in thinking their way is superior rather than just different.
  
  I detected just a little of that in your comment dear Nic "I wanted to understand how anyone could take the Christian message seriously when it was drawn from the same well as a fable...."

  I wasn't trying to hide it wobble, I'm more than happy to state my position openly. Rational thought is superior to faith in every way.
• 

  tec

  Nic, that doesn't prove anything, either way. I would refer you to Terry's post on page four, since some understood better from him the same point I was making in other terms.

  Literal or allegory, the point or moral lesson being communicated is the most important part.

  I think the problem this thread has highlighted very nicely, so thanks Nic and all who have contributed, is that there is more than one way of looking at the world.

  Yes. More than one way to look at the world. More than one way to look at a story. More than one way to look at just about everything. NOT so black and white.

  Tammy
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Tammy

  You know what? That was just too long, and I'm saying the same things again and again. How about this: You prove to me that the bible in its modern entirety is inspired scripture.

  I'm not sure where to start. I told you several post back I'm not trying to change your mind. I thought we agreed this was God's job?

  What I'm trying to understand is how you can claim to be a believer in Christ (GOD) in one breath and reject much of what was revealed about him in another, by simply stating that YOU don't believe that's within his nature.

  For example, when I asked for some specific scripture that is of a "different spirit than Christ", you cited (indirectly) types of passages that are intended by God to show the evil nature of men (I believe that is the purpose of the law), not the Spirit of God. I don't understand how revealing the evil nature of man negates the inspiration of scripture.

  I agree that eye for an eye is the basis for much law in our society. But why is that relevant? It isn't what Christ taught. He taught us to turn the other cheek. Do not repay wrong for wrong.

  An eye for an eye reveals God's justice to unbelievers. God gave the law to Moses for a society of believers and unbelievers alike. Christ comes and reveals the "law of love" (a higher standard) to believers. There is no conflict there, that I can see.

  I think you answered your own question in this next example:

  Since Luke says in his opening to Theopholus that he had investigated matters fully... this is not indicative of inspiration, but of investigation and report. Do I think he loved Christ and God, and that his faith inspired him to be honest and sincere and to show the fruits of the spirit? Of course. But scripture are writings inspired directly by Holy Spirit, aren't they?

  What does the personality and thoughts of the narrator have to do with whether or not he is inspired by God? Was he to give up his mind and personality? It puzzles me to think of why/how anything in Luke's opening statements negates direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Look at what Luke records Jesus saying to the seventy.

  Luke 10:16

  "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."

  I'm beginning to think we have two different understandings of biblical inspiration.

  It's almost as if you think these men had to become some sort of Zombies to receive prophecy. I don't believe that scripture had to be dictated, like to a secretary, in order for it to be inspired (this seems to be the way most JWs understand it).

  The personality of the individual authors was present as they were moved or as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

  So then, for me, everything that complies with what he said, I believe that. The rest I take with a grain of salt.

  How do you know what he actually said?

  The problem you have is, if you don't accept the authority of the entire Bible, you have no way of knowing what Jesus actually said. According to you, the same men that told you what he said, say things themselves that conflict with him. Why believe them at all?

  I learned about Christ's teachings from the NT. From the recordings and accounts written about Him. I learn what they mean from Him, through experience and understanding that He gives me. And I do not believe that there isn't more to knowing Him than just what is written in the bible, because that is only a partial picture.

  Again, if it's not a package deal, how do you know those parts (the ones containing Christ's words) of the NT are inspired or even true for that matter? How or why do you believe (as Nic asked) ANY of the bible is inspired or which is which.

  Nic

  Prove to me that any part of the bible is inspired scripture*. Then I can ask you questions, and you can do the explaining.

  * Let's agree that 'inspired scripture' is defined as biblical text that has been revealed to the writer by God.

  I would love to do that (but that's God's job) and if I were God, it would be simple. Another problem with that statement is 'inspired scripture' is as much revealed (by God) to the reader as it is to the writer. I also believe that only God can change minds and hearts.

  I thought, you claimed to have made that determination, and you have no problem calling yourself an unbeliever. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not dissing you when I say that. I don't agree, but I respect your right to say that.

  Nic

  Prove to me that any part of the bible is inspired scripture*. Then I can ask you questions, and you can do the explaining.

  * Let's agree that 'inspired scripture' is defined as biblical text that has been revealed to the writer by God.

  I would love to do that (but that's God's job) and if I were God, it would be simple. Another problem with that statement is 'inspired scripture' is as much revealed (by God) to the reader as it is to the writer. I also believe that only God can change minds and hearts.

  I thought, you claimed to have made that determination, and you have no problem calling yourself an unbeliever. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not dissing you when I say that. I don't agree, but I respect your right to say that.
• 

  tec

  I'm not sure where to start. I told you several post back I'm not trying to change your mind. I thought we agreed this was God's job?

  Yes, and I mentioned when I answered Nic, that I should not have asked you to prove it. So I apologize. I knew it was the wrong word when I went to bed. However, I really don't understand why you think it is inspired scripture, from start to finish. Maybe that's easier, because you have something tangible in your hands to refer to?

  What I'm trying to understand is how you can claim to be a believer in Christ (GOD) in one breath and reject much of what was revealed about him in another, by simply stating that YOU don't believe that's within his nature.

  Well, I don't believe that Christ IS God for one. But that would be an entirely different conversation. So what is revealed about God, for me, is shown through his 'image'... Christ. See Christ, see God.

  For example, when I asked for some specific scripture that is of a "different spirit than Christ", you cited (indirectly) types of passages that are intended by God to show the evil nature of men

  Ah... I don't see this the same as you. But I can understand where you're coming from better now.

  What does the personality and thoughts of the narrator have to do with whether or not he is inspired by God? Was he to give up his mind and personality? It puzzles me to think of why/how anything in Luke's opening statements negates direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Look at what Luke records Jesus saying to the seventy.

  I don't think anyone has to give up mind or personality to be inspired. Luke doesn't say God showed me through the Holy Spirit... he says he investigated (think investigative journalist) everything from the beginning so that he can write up an account.

  Lets look at it from a very different perspective in something Paul wrote:

  "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord)..."

  "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)..."

  The first is inspired, to me... the second is not.

  The problem you have is, if you don't accept the authority of the entire Bible, you have no way of knowing what Jesus actually said. According to you, the same men that told you what he said, say things themselves that conflict with him.

  I don't have to accept Hebrews to accept Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We reject books that some of the apostles and servants of Christ referenced. To accept the authority of the entire bible, I have to accept the authority of those who decided what went into it and what did not. I don't have any reason to do that.

  But I can still take the accounts as witnesses to Christ. And from their message, go to Him... without the need to constantly search the scriptures, thinking that I will find Him there. I will learn about Him, yes. But I will find Him in Spirit.

  Even the apostles argued among themselves. (think Peter and Paul) So they must have had moments where their steps were their own, and not guided by the HS.

  Again, if it's not a package deal, how do you know those parts (the ones containing Christ's words) of the NT are inspired or even true for that matter?

  Because of the truth in what is said. Because I see the truth and the wisdom in what Christ is written to have said, when I apply his teachings to my life, when I look at the world around me. My duty is to listen to Him, and do as he taught.

  Paul didn't need any scriptures to have faith in Christ. In fact, he had spent his life studying the law and scripture, and yet denied him. Nor did he decide he would have faith in him because of something he found in scripture. His faith came from direct revelation. Not from measuring that revelation against scripture.

  Tammy
• 

  jay88

  Paul didn't need any scriptures to have faith in Christ. In fact, he had spent his life studying the law and scripture, and yet denied him. Nor did he decide he would have faith in him because of something he found in scripture. His faith came from direct revelation. Not from measuring that revelation against scripture.

  Hmmmm,..... pretty,pretty,pretty good.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Tammy

  Well, I don't believe that Christ IS God for one.

  That really explains most every answer you've given, and answers every question I have.

  Thanks!
• 

  transhuman68

  tec =
• 

  tec

  DD - I agree that seeing Jesus as God, vs seeing Jesus as the image of God changes our outlook on some things. Did you read the last of my post about Paul, though?

  Jay - Its funny because I've read the bible cover to cover many times. And even through all of these pages about revelation vs scripture, and discussing Paul, it wasn't until the moment before I wrote that that I could see 'the forest through the trees'. (I think that's the way you use that analogy) I am not smart enough to come to that on my own, or I believe I would have come to it long ago during my many readings. But it is the Spirit who teaches. Perhaps that's why I'm a little uncomfortable receiving transhuman's five stars:) I feel like I'm taking a pat on the back for something that doesn't belong to me. But thank you for the encouragement.

  Tammy