I definitely can't see how you can so absolutely claim the genesis account is meant poetically. I think if you observe it in its historical context, it would be more and more literal the farther back you go.
"An example would be the debate over the Book of Genesis from the Bible. 6 day creation theory not being true is a crock. Why? Because the entire thing is written as prose inspired by God. So, I do beleive that there is a definite meaning that should be followed, but I also believe the context must be observed. One should not read the word of God and doubt it being history."
The things with that is the book is written chiastically, and with various other literary elements in it. It's a story, not the nuts and bolts of creation. The whole point of that is to say, "God created everything." To take more from it is simply neglecting the literary context.
I would say in such a scenario as this, there needs to be a balance. Neither pole is correct I believe, but yet both are necessary to understand. You have to willing to look at the literary devices that enable an individual to pick up on subtleties within the text. An example would be the debate over the Book of Genesis from the Bible. 6 day creation theory is a crock. Why? Because the entire thing is written poetically. So, I do beleive that there is a definite meaning that should be followed, but I also believe the context must be observed. One should not read poetry and believe it to be history.
Just so you know, Wesso, "stroke" isn't the verb you'd use here. You'd want either "conflict" or "go against".
I'm not sure what you mean by "the scientific view". I don't believe the Bible is to be interpreted literally, I believe it needs to be assessed and scrutinized with the knowledge that it is a collection of texts written by people of various traditions without history whose views, interpretations, redactions (which is a word, we need a better spellcheck on this site), and intentions must be taken into account when reading them. My view of God is profoundly, profoundly different from the view of the traditions out of which Deuteronomy came from.
If you're asking something like whether or not the creation stories from Genesis contradict science, oh yeah, definitely do, and I have no problems saying they're just stories.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I find mythology to be fascinating and comparative literature is interesting, but I always wince at these because there are so many people who take these things and then say, "Your religion came out of this religion!" And it's like, no, you need to do more research than a superficial comparison of similarities.
Mosaic Literature was never meant to be interpreted literally. Each book of the Bible falls under a specific section; The Law, Wisdom, Historical, and Prophecy for the OT, and the Gospels and Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation in the NT. Literary context is crucial to getting the full story.
Understanding the cultural historical context of what an ancient biography looks like is needed to understand the Gospels, as a biography then does not serve the same purpose as now. Cataloging every single event was not the point, it was merely to pronounce the highlights of the journey. This is prevalent throughout history. They didn't care what day the events happened, but rather that they did. (The discrepancy between the Synoptic Gospels and John).
Lewis' work was groundbreaking, but has become obsolete in a lot of ways due to the rise of Postmodernity. No one cares about objectivity anymore, and as such his arguments fall on deaf ears. For a more refined rendition, I would look into Peter Kreeft. He makes a more reasonable case. Lewis is a pioneer, sort of how the Wright brothers are to airplanes.
The issue with the Qu'ran is that it puts Jesus in the category that is not a valid option, which is "Great Teacher." He cannot be this, and not God at the same time. He either is God, and a great teacher, or he is not God, and he fraudulated himself.
Also, the reason we only have his childhood (A couple stories) and his last three years of ministry is simply due to the fact that it is an ancient biography. The only important parts to document were the big things. For Jesus, that included Birth, the story with the Teacher when he was about 12, and His ministry followed by his resurrection. Everything else is fodder, and unlike modern biographies, they stuck to the talking points.
Well, if you look at the Old Testament, sure, there's tons of stuff that clashes with the New Testament. But I think you all may be forgetting that they are 2 separate volumes, just named overall the Bible. Sure, Jesus draws from the Old Testament; He was a rabbi, after all. But he also changed the way the Old Testament was looked at as well, example, working on the Sabbath, or the passage about being sinless to throw the first stone at the sinful.
I would be somewhat inclined to disagree. The NT is simply a fulfillment of the OT. The prophecies fulfilled, the law explained, the Messiah come. The places where it appears to clash are where Jesus comes and clarifies the law. Some laws were removed, because they fell under the context of the Sacrificial law, which Christ fulfilled on the cross. Almost all of Jesus' teaching comes from the OT, but he does rebuke the legalism of the Pharisees that were around him when he was teaching.
The two are meant to be companions, as you only have 1/2 the story with OT, and you have no backstory with just the NT.
My central point with the trilemma is that it is in fact a trilemma. In fact, the "legend" category is addressed with its own trilemma.
Also, the biblical text can be dated as early as the first century, where we uncovered some passages of Mark. Not all of course, but there is evidence at least in part that Scripture existed this far back.
As it is, I think I am bowing out of this discussion, as I cannot keep up with 6 pages of posts between each login.
I like the random arbitery "i choose the fetus...i save two lives instead of one"...there was never a second life in question at ANY POINT.
This is evidence CLEAR AS DAY that you have an utter irrational determinism to save a foetus at all costs regardless of the context least your absolutism be challenged in anyway.
This second person appeared miraculous and was never previously mentioned until your very inference to use as leverage bolster your case. There was never ANY MENTION of a second patry to the foetus. It’s pathetic that you just make it up as you go along. You've changed the entire context of the question without blinking an eye yet this type of revisionism is completely exeptable to you? How honest! Next you’ll be citing biology, that a foetus depends upon a mother therefore it was never in question that the mother’s life was at stake. Never mind miscarriages or any other form or abortion that occours in the natural sense of the word.
I was at a farm recently and the farmhand's girlfriend was pregnant. One morning he drove past in his car saying he was going to hospital, she had had a miscarriage. As it turns out she was pregenet from a previous relationship and had fallen pregnant to the current farmhand as well! The two babies of different fathers began competing in the womb. Suffice to say one lost and a miscarriage of one was the result. How insane is that. It’s a 1 in 5 million chance. Crazy no? I suppose we should charge the foetus with murder.
Ok, first. A fetus does not exist by itself. To save the fetus, I assumed the mother was also in jeopardy. Claiming that saving a pregnant woman and unborn child is "irrational" is a bit much, though. Also, let's keep this civil.
Also, I have already mentioned natural cause and abortion as being to separate entities. One is natural occurrence. The other is choosing to play God.
Finally, to your claim of "revisionism." I was under the impression that this was an applicable scenario, so as such I envisioned the scenario of fetus with mother, because I cannot see a situation where I could help save the child where the mother would not also be in jeopardy of harm. I was merely taking your hypothesis to its logical end. I do not value the life of a fetus higher than a living child, but not lower either. Please read my responses in context.
Okay I admit I'm not an expert in Christian theology but I was under the impression that none of the men who supposedly knew Jesus in his lifetime wrote anything about him. Can anyone clarify this for me?
Matthew: Written by Matthew
John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, [Possibly Revelation]: John
Luke, Acts: Luke
Mark: Mark (In the garden when Jesus was arrested)
Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 &2 Thesalonians, Titus, Galatians, Colossians, Ephesians: Paul
Hebrews: Unknown (Most Likely Apollos)
Jude: Jude (Direct Relative, possibly 1/2 brother)
James: James (Direct Relative, possibly 1/2 brother)
All of these authors had direct interaction with Christ or his apostles. Most were apostles.
I do not have the authority to, "play God" as it were.
In both cases, I am not qualified to makes that call, but their is a likely chance that I would make a call, in both cases.
If we are breaking it into cold logic:
Former question, I choose the fetus: Save 2 lives instead of one.
Currently: Whichever looked as if they had the lowest probability of making it without it.
I am not the person who gets to make those calls, but in a forced situation i would most likely act in this way.
4x Gatekeeper of Malakir
4x Manic Vandal
4x Vampire Nighthawk
3x Phyrexian Obliterator
2x Inferno Titan
4x Duress
3x Inquisition of Kozilek
4x Lightning Bolt
3x Incinerate
2x Sign in Blood
3x Black Sun's Zenith
4x Dragonskull Summit
3x Lavaclaw Reaches
11x Swamp
2x Mountain
3x Vampire Hexmage
2x Dismember
4x Tectonic Edge
3x Crush
3x Pyroclasm
The things with that is the book is written chiastically, and with various other literary elements in it. It's a story, not the nuts and bolts of creation. The whole point of that is to say, "God created everything." To take more from it is simply neglecting the literary context.
Mosaic Literature was never meant to be interpreted literally. Each book of the Bible falls under a specific section; The Law, Wisdom, Historical, and Prophecy for the OT, and the Gospels and Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation in the NT. Literary context is crucial to getting the full story.
Understanding the cultural historical context of what an ancient biography looks like is needed to understand the Gospels, as a biography then does not serve the same purpose as now. Cataloging every single event was not the point, it was merely to pronounce the highlights of the journey. This is prevalent throughout history. They didn't care what day the events happened, but rather that they did. (The discrepancy between the Synoptic Gospels and John).
The issue with the Qu'ran is that it puts Jesus in the category that is not a valid option, which is "Great Teacher." He cannot be this, and not God at the same time. He either is God, and a great teacher, or he is not God, and he fraudulated himself.
Also, the reason we only have his childhood (A couple stories) and his last three years of ministry is simply due to the fact that it is an ancient biography. The only important parts to document were the big things. For Jesus, that included Birth, the story with the Teacher when he was about 12, and His ministry followed by his resurrection. Everything else is fodder, and unlike modern biographies, they stuck to the talking points.
I would be somewhat inclined to disagree. The NT is simply a fulfillment of the OT. The prophecies fulfilled, the law explained, the Messiah come. The places where it appears to clash are where Jesus comes and clarifies the law. Some laws were removed, because they fell under the context of the Sacrificial law, which Christ fulfilled on the cross. Almost all of Jesus' teaching comes from the OT, but he does rebuke the legalism of the Pharisees that were around him when he was teaching.
The two are meant to be companions, as you only have 1/2 the story with OT, and you have no backstory with just the NT.
Also, the biblical text can be dated as early as the first century, where we uncovered some passages of Mark. Not all of course, but there is evidence at least in part that Scripture existed this far back.
As it is, I think I am bowing out of this discussion, as I cannot keep up with 6 pages of posts between each login.
Ok, first. A fetus does not exist by itself. To save the fetus, I assumed the mother was also in jeopardy. Claiming that saving a pregnant woman and unborn child is "irrational" is a bit much, though. Also, let's keep this civil.
Also, I have already mentioned natural cause and abortion as being to separate entities. One is natural occurrence. The other is choosing to play God.
Finally, to your claim of "revisionism." I was under the impression that this was an applicable scenario, so as such I envisioned the scenario of fetus with mother, because I cannot see a situation where I could help save the child where the mother would not also be in jeopardy of harm. I was merely taking your hypothesis to its logical end. I do not value the life of a fetus higher than a living child, but not lower either. Please read my responses in context.
I find a cumulative case argument to be the most effective. Critical rationalism gets places.
Matthew: Written by Matthew
John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, [Possibly Revelation]: John
Luke, Acts: Luke
Mark: Mark (In the garden when Jesus was arrested)
Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 &2 Thesalonians, Titus, Galatians, Colossians, Ephesians: Paul
Hebrews: Unknown (Most Likely Apollos)
Jude: Jude (Direct Relative, possibly 1/2 brother)
James: James (Direct Relative, possibly 1/2 brother)
All of these authors had direct interaction with Christ or his apostles. Most were apostles.
I do not have the authority to, "play God" as it were.
In both cases, I am not qualified to makes that call, but their is a likely chance that I would make a call, in both cases.
If we are breaking it into cold logic:
Former question, I choose the fetus: Save 2 lives instead of one.
Currently: Whichever looked as if they had the lowest probability of making it without it.
I am not the person who gets to make those calls, but in a forced situation i would most likely act in this way.