Seraphim23 wrote : paranoia agent I base the assumption on the view that Genesis as a book has obviously large sections that are not literally true. Man evolved and didn’t come from Eden according to the evidence from DNA and other sources. The archaeological history of the Jews is at odds with biblical record in some instances and so on. On top of this the picture of God himself is not consistent on many levels when these things are taken as literal. Plus there are other sources of spiritual insight about God that happen today that contradict the traditional picture of God of old times. Even Paul says we see through a glass darkly. Where light does shine, as with strong scientific evidence, I tend to go with it, because if truth does exist, then it doesn’t contradict itself!
There is so much here explained abstractly so allow me to discuss one section at a time.
I base the assumption on the view that Genesis as a book has obviously large sections that are not literally true.
I either understand it or I don't or I have reasons to believe in it or I don't. This is not to mean that I don't make mistakes and that I don't assume, we all do to a certain degree like I assume that the doctor knows what he is doing and I assume that the police is actually a police officer, however I do not believe in apriori assumptions, explained below.
http://youtu.be/14JavH4Rk7k
The problem I see in believing in biogenesis and evolution is:
a) This refutes the doctrine of original sin thus Jesus did not die for us
b) Many past Christians believed in false doctrine, even preached from the NT by Paul and others.
c) Biblical doctrine could be subjected to even more changes in the future possibly making your views redundant
The archaeological history of the Jews is at odds with biblical record in some instances and so on. On top of this the picture of God himself is not consistent on many levels when these things are taken as literal.
I take it that you are not ignorant of the biblical clashes going on. A Muslim apologist said to that the Koran is true, its just that current scientific (we were discussing science) discoveries has not caught up to it. You could had taken this presuppositional stance but you decided not to. You could had taken the side of Marcionites or the Ebionites. You seem to use current findings to interpret your current view of what the bible is so let me ask you.
Could you be wrong about god of the OT and NT and why not?
Plus there are other sources of spiritual insight about God that happen today that contradict the traditional picture of God of old times.
How do you know that there is only one deity? And these insights that you know, was it God?
Even Paul says we see through a glass darkly.
Then what is the point in believing in such an incoherent book. Now don't give me its not just the bible, without it there wouldn't be Christianity.
Where light does shine, as with strong scientific evidence, I tend to go with it, because if truth does exist, then it doesn’t contradict itself!
But you are not interested in truth as you have already made an apriori assumption about god. Science has disproven god along time ago by Galileo but you seem to want to keep re writing history, philosophy has disproven Yahweh even longer. What about Enoch2 from the Dead Sea scrolls that speaks of a flat earth? What about all the contradictions in the NT, and all the gore, rape, cannibalism, genocide in the OT?
By you picking and choosing what to believe in you are also contradicting the bible, speaking where it is silent, part of the sin that all religions make.