A non-creationist interpretation of Genesis

(Highlighted by me)
Yepp, and supposedly Armstrong never set foot on the moon and Prince Philip is a lizard. All these suppositions play in the same league. Likelihood is that the autographs never even made it into the times in which the Bishop of Rome gained supreme prominence within the Church. If not kept under perfect conditions papyrus rots within decades, so you’ll be hard pressed to find any original texts from antiquity, religious or secular. There’s absolutely no need for fantastic "Da Vinci Code"-like conspiracy theories to explain the absence of the originals.
When it comes to the scientific reconstruction of the original texts of the New Testament, you may or may not be interested in the work of the “Institute for New Testament Textual Research” which edits the “Novum Testamentum Graece” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece). This link vaguely explains to the layman what its scholars do and what they have to say about the purity of the transmitted text ( 99.5% textually pure). And as the link points out: this work has nothing to do with faih, it's just nitty gritty painstaking textual criticism:
http://www.str.org/articles/is-the-new-testament-text-reliable#.Ui88KD-rmSk

 

To lie to the self, is dishonest

To mislead another is cruel,
to claim no responsibility is corrupt.

But to not care and know these truths, is evil.

 

Well, you’ll have to take that one up with Augustine, seems his interpretation of Genesis differed from yours:

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/tag/creation-ex-nihilo/

And from Wesley’s Notes On The Bible:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.ii.ii.ii.i.html

 

If God can inspire the written word, he can make it so it doesn't rot/decay.
Else, give V.2 of the bible.
With God all things are possible. That is inspired word is now only 99.5% accurate, what does that suggest? In another 2000 yrs, what will the accuracy be?
How do we know how accurate this is from the very 1st written words?

 

?

Did you miss the word "beginning?"

We estimate the "beginning" of time back to 13.5 Billion years ago.
The clock has been ticking ever since.

 

God the creator is Energy.

This hardly helps because physicists have never been able to explain what Energy actually is.
They can only saying Energy comes in seven Forms, can be active, (or Kinetic Energy), and passive, at rest, (i.e.; Potential Energy), and it is what "moves things," which defines the concept "Work."

But as Einstein explained, Energy can be converted into Matter and the necessary Space/time to contain it, i.e., the Big Bang.

Energy, and all its Natural Laws governing it, is God the entity that existed outside of Space/time before the Big Bang.

 

So are you wanting to discuss the exodus, or is this another "drive by"? We tried this earlier, and you seemed to not be inclined to discuss it.

So what is ones position and speed, and explain it to me, please?

 

I do believe that you could somehow interpret evolution into Genesis, I just haven't seen anyone explain it, and its evidently beyond my comprehension. But, as far as "judas' death", I never found a problem.

 

No, I do not wish to discuss "the exodus", I use it to show just 1 known mistranslation and there are others.
Even juno says .5% of the bible is incorrect. Which 0.5% is it?

As to time: I can't do better than einstein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

 

HOW ABOUT THIS EXPLANATION FOR EVOLUTION IN THE GENESIS GENEALOGY????\



Book:


The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

 

How about you deal with the inconsistencies with your "theory" in the thread I provided for you?

 

As I’ve been trying to point out to elijah: Obviously God is not as obsessed with the written word as evangelical fundamentalists are and obviously He’s quite happy to let the original Bible-authors and subsequent generations of scribes/translators err here and there. If you are after verbal inspiration you'll have to convert to Islam. It's what Muslims traditionally claim for the Qu'ran, which is why it ought to be read in the original Arab.

Did you even read the link I gave you? Are you acquainted with the methods of textual criticism? Have you ever had to work yourself through the critical apparatus of the “Novum Testamentum Graece”? Well I once had to do that and spend nice sunny afternoons brooding over the question whether a "καὶ" ought to be in a verse or not and how it bloody got there when it did not even make a difference. Back then it was the 27th edition and I decided I was too lazy and not nerdy enough to specialize in this field. By now the 28th edition is out: http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/the-28-edition/. Presuming that civilization won’t be destroyed by then, that we’ll still have such marvelous things as the printing press and copy-paste in 2000 years time and that the scientific methods of textual research will improve rather than decline and that we'll probably find even more old manuscripts, I see no reason why the accuracy should go down rather than up.

 

No you can't interpret evolution into Genesis and you won't be able to interpret quantum physics into it either. However, Genesis does not contradict these modern scientific findings unless if you read it literally, which is a way of reading it that would have been alien to the early Christians and Jews. who thought poetically.
And I'm not surprised you never found a problem with passages in which scriptures of the Bible contradict each other. You don't want to see them, so you just make your blinkers a bit wider whenever you come across them. Sad, but if it floats your boat ...

 

There are none.

I have responded to all your criticism with facts and evidence.
You have elected to dismiss it which is your prerogative of course.
But I support what the metaphor says by the correspondences between the Facts and the story, not the technical difference which are part of the metaphorical simile.



1) The correspondence between the science facts and Genesis include the congruency between the 22 links to the ascent of the three racial stocks of Noah's three sons compare with the number of names in the Genesis genealogy against the recent paleontology of the 22 now extinct humans identified .

2) These three racial stocks are reported in Genesis as the stock that produced the Table of Nation enumerated in Genesis.

3) Prior to the flood, the now recognized hybridization with Neanderthals is accounted for in Gen 6:4.

4) The total extinction of all mankind except the modern people living today finds paleontological support as well.

5) That genetic evidence now confirms all people now living had a common ancestor, a man whose Y-chromosome we all carry today, supports a Noah, and coincidentally, dates to @40 thousand years of "days and nights" ago.

6) Another previous genetic discover of what was misnomered as "Mitochondria Eve" who lived 150-200,000 years ago supports Gen 5:31 which tells us that Noah had three sons 100,000 years before the "flood", the three racial stocks of Modern Homo sapiens.

7) These correspondences between the Science facts and Genesis are used to support the view that the Noah tale did happen, and was reported by divine revelation in Genesis. The validation of verses such as those which tell us that "a day is a thousand years to the lord," the genealogy of 22 links to modern man, and that the first man and woman were a species called Adam (Gen 5:2) give scriptural support to holding this view, regardless of the protest from those holding different opinions.

 

Yes, you hit the proverbial nail,...

The critics of Genesis who claim the way they read it contradicts science ignore that Genesis can be read to correspond with Science Fact.

The point then is mute, that Genesis is wrong.
It's a matter of how one elects to make it read right or wrong.

 

well, you can call it a mistranslation and I'll call it not a mistraslation. And there we have it.

Me and Juno have discussed this as well. If Juno is your authority, thats fine by me.

I'm still not getting the time issue.

 

I don't see contradictions in scripture, and the one that have been supposedly presented have been reconciled. If you choose to just go with your interpretation instead of considering the reconciliation, then just put your blinders on and remember you serve a God that claims to have created all we see, has supposedly raised a guy from the grave, but can't seem to keep scripture consistent. Sad.....but, whatever gets you through the night.

 

You have not done so at all. You've simply dismissed them and called your "theory" so obvious that you don't have to deal with the inconsistencies.

Good, so you admit that the facts and the story don't match up.

Which you have yet to name the genealogy that names 22 people. What verse of Genesis describes 22 links?

You're assuming that they are supposed to represent racial stocks.

Confirmation bias. You assume that the intermingling between the Sons of God and women is representative of Neanderthal and human hybridization. Why should anybody believe that?

Except Genesis never indicates that there was any difference between Noah and the rest of mankind beyond Noah's righteousness. You're assuming that the men, women, and children that were extinguished weren't apart of mankind at all.

And as I've pointed out, no, it doesn't. See? You simply ignore facts and make up whatever (*)(*)(*)(*) you want. Y Chromosomal Adam is not and never was dated to 40,000 years ago.

Except Genesis doesn't say 100,000 years, it says 100. And I thought your dating system was 1 day is equal to 1,000 years, not 1 year is equal to 1,000 years. Your "dating" isn't even consistent with what the text says, you're just multiplying everything by 1,000 simply to come up with a slight correspondence of numbers.

 

Erm, call me a nit-picker, but that is not what I said. I was talking about the transmission of the text. You shouldn’t fret too much about the 0,5%. Most textual variants are utterly insignificant, along the lines of the “καὶ“ I mentioned: it made absolutely no difference to the meaning of the text whether it was there or not and yet our Professor made a whole seminary of students sweat over it for a whole afternoon while everybody else was hanging out at the canal. As you can see, I’m still traumatized by that day . The variants that do make a significant difference, such as the longer ending of Mark or the Comma Johanneum can probably counted with one hand. None make a difference to Christian doctrine (you can get at the trinity even without the Comma Johanneum).
All in all the scriptures of the New Testament are by far the best documented texts of antiquity that we have. Their transmission has been amazingly accurate. One’s got to tip one’s hat to those thorough ancient scribes! If you find the NT textually untrustworthy, you may as well stop teaching Tacitus in Latin. In comparison the transmission of his and any other ancient texts don’t have a leg to stand on.

 

God could have done, but did not bother to keep scripture consistent. I suppose He had His reasons. The problem with your ‘reconciliation’ is that in your frantic attempt to harmonize scripture you are making up completely new stories that the original Bible just does not hold, such as Judas hanging himself, then rotting, falling of the noose and then splitting his guts open. You are basically inventing your own Bible. IMHO that is ridiculous and certainly not the way to duly respect scripture.

 

Seemingly you misunderstood what I said. If I put my mind to it I could read Shakespeare’s collected works to correspond with evolution/"Science Fact". And such an undertaking would be just as bogus and nonsensical as what you are trying to do with Genesis. Maybe this can help you see sense:

http://science.drvinson.net/gen1-intro

With all your pseudoscientific charts and pictures you fall in the second of Clark Pinnock’s categories (the bit I highlighted). Give it up, concordism - broad or narrow - is silly and does the text injustice. Instead, try to read Genesis for what it is: theology.

 

The celestial body filled up space.

 

Question.

Why do you refer to a GOD as He?

AboveAlpha

 

Convention. Might as well say "she", "it", whatever. God does not have a gender.

 

Exactly.

Thus it is obvious that Man was not made in GOD'S image.

AboveAlpha