Where To Begin Reading The Bible

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I don't really want this thread to turn into a discussion on evolution, but I would point out that Darwin pretty much put an end to the idea of an original sin. I see the ascent of Man as steady improvement from the state of our primate forbears. And, for what it's worth, I don't believe in speaking serpents. Do you?

That's a patently absurd thought and Darwin did no such of a thing. Man hasn't improved in any way- he just builds better toys.

And no, I do NOT believe in talking serpents ( defined as snakes)

 

[2ndRateMind]

And no, I do NOT believe in talking serpents ( defined as snakes)

So, you think the Bible is not all literally true, then? And requires interpretation? And that interpretation depends on the original context?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

So, you think the Bible is not all literally true, then? And requires interpretation? And that interpretation depends on the original context?

Scripture (as originally penned) is both true and correct. The specific subject will determine the application of the meaning and to what degree.

It does not require "interpretation" as much as it requires proper translation, application and proper vetting techniques. Context is a part of that.

All of the above being true is not a "license" of "justification" for every idiotic or agenda driven "interpretation" of scripture.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Scripture (as originally penned) is both true and correct.

I agree there are truths in scripture. I just don't think it all to be 'true and correct'. Meanwhile, it seems to me you need to decide whether you want a true and correct scripture, or non-existing speaking serpents.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I agree there are truths in scripture. I just don't think it all to be 'true and correct'. Meanwhile, it seems to me you need to decide whether you want a true and correct scripture, or non-existing speaking serpents.

Point out the "untruths". What you "think" really has no weight in anything anywhere.

I have already studied and decided.

 

[Cooper]

I don't really want this thread to turn into a discussion on evolution, but I would point out that Darwin pretty much put an end to the idea of an original sin. I see the ascent of Man as steady improvement from the state of our primate forbears. And, for what it's worth, I don't believe in speaking serpents. Do you?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Personally, I think it was an Old Testament parable. There are no trees of knowledge etc., either. The lessons to be learned are very true though.
.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Point out the "untruths". What you "think" really has no weight in anything anywhere.

I have already studied and decided.

Hmmm. Perhaps I was not making myself sufficiently clear. You can have a true and correct scripture, and speaking serpents, or no speaking serpents, in which case scripture is not (entirely) true and correct. Which do you want?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Personally, I think it was an Old Testament parable. There are no trees of knowledge etc., either. The lessons to be learned are very true though.
.

Agreed. That is a sensible point of view. The book of Genesis gives us a accurate portrayal of how the Jews of the time thought the world was created and populated, and why we need to work for our living. It is an early 'just so' story.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

Hmmm. Perhaps I was not making myself sufficiently clear. You can have a true and correct scripture, and speaking serpents, or no speaking serpents, in which case scripture is not (entirely) true and correct. Which do you want?

Again, another error on your part. The term translated to "serpent" is a metaphor based on an "attribute" of a serpent- it is NOT ( and never has been) the proper noun for "snake" (talking or otherwise)

Those trees are not made of "lumber' either.

 

[Cooper]

Agreed. That is a sensible point of view. The book of Genesis gives us a accurate portrayal of how the Jews of the time thought the world was created and populated, and why we need to work for our living. It is an early 'just so' story.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Just to add, but you probably already know, there are things that should not be taken literally. Like for example God can move mountains, not that he cannot, for with God all things are possible, but that particular saying was a Jewish idiom, the mountain being an insoluble problem, and I can testify that God has moved mountains in my life, that were totally beyond me as they required a change either in circumstances or for other people to change, both being outside my scope.
.

 

[Cooper]

Again, another error on your part. The term translated to "serpent" is a metaphor based on an "attribute" of a serpent- it is NOT ( and never has been) the proper noun for "snake" (talking or otherwise)

Those trees are not made of "lumber' either.

Have you two met before?

 

[2ndRateMind]

Have you two met before?

Not to my knowledge, but I enjoy a good discussion.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

Have you two met before?

Specific to the individual, I seriously doubt it

Specific to what he is up to and why, many times

We are not ignorant of his schemes.

He is not here to build or to learn or to grow

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

Not to my knowledge, but I enjoy a good discussion.

so do I

 

[2ndRateMind]

Again, another error on your part. The term translated to "serpent" is a metaphor based on an "attribute" of a serpent- it is NOT ( and never has been) the proper noun for "snake" (talking or otherwise)

Those trees are not made of "lumber' either.

Which attribute would that be then?

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

Which attribute would that be then?

deceptiveness based on the hissing and slithering

 

[2ndRateMind]

There is nothing deceptive about hissing and slithering. It's just the way serpents evolved to behave.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

There is nothing deceptive about hissing and slithering. It's just the way serpents evolved to behave.

You obviously have no knowledge whatsoever of the cultures those languages come from or you wouldn't have made such an idiotic statement in context to this discussion. Either that or you are deliberately proffering a point you know to be false.

Which one is it?

 

[2ndRateMind]

OK, let me rephrase that. What is deceptive about an animal behaving the way it evolved to behave? (And, presumably, the way God intended for it to evolve?)

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

OK, let me rephrase that. What is deceptive about an animal behaving the way it evolved to behave? (And, presumably, the way God intended for it to evolve?)

Nothing related to the animal proper but in context through cultural eyes over there- a great deal