ARCHIVE: The Mind of Bob Enyart

[Granite]

What was that supposed to mean?

Actually I was just being facetious after Jukia's latest post. Brother. Deep breath, people.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:ha: :BRAVO:

Through "The Plot" I learned there is a logical way to look at the Bible that doesn't require twisting your brain into knots to make it harmonize. You can read the Bible at face value. And just so I don't get too far off the recent topic, that includes the flood.

Through Bob's predestination series I learned that God is not the author of sin and cruel.

I'm now listening to his revelations series. Could DBC move to the north end of Denver and maybe I could attend?

Greg

Greg, Derby Bible Church is in Commerce City and it is an EXCELLENT church.

Actually, our church (Denver Bible Church) is a "spin off" church from Derby.

Bob Hill is an awesome Bible teacher. Go visit there some Sunday and tell 'em the folks at TheologyOnLine sent ya.

 

[GuySmiley]

Greg, Derby Bible Church is in Commerce City and it is an EXCELLENT church.

Actually, our church (Denver Bible Church) is a "spin off" church from Derby.

Bob Hill is an awesome Bible teacher. Go visit there some Sunday and tell 'em the folks at TheologyOnLine sent ya.

Thanks! I probably will visit sometime. I was hoping for more like Longmont. I live in the Ft Collins - Loveland area.

Greg

 

[The Berean]

So I am supposed to take the theology of someone who believes that dinosaurs walked with men?

I'll stay with my word--absurd.

And the overwhelming evidence is that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, there was no world wide flood, evolution happens. Get over it. Learn some science. Look at the world around you and try to figure it out. That is what God gave you brains for.

Jukia,

Juat curious, do you believe the Jesus Chirst died phyiscally and was resurrected from the dead?

 

[Jukia]

Jukia,

Juat curious, do you believe the Jesus Chirst died phyiscally and was resurrected from the dead?

Yep.

 

[Servo]

But when Jesus mentions the flood, it was a parable?

 

[Turbo]

Yep.

Why?

 

[The Berean]

Jukia,

Juat curious, do you believe the Jesus Chirst died phyiscally and was resurrected from the dead?

Yep.

Isn't it absurd to believe that a man can die and three days later come back to life? Jesus was brain dead, his heart had stopped and cellular breakdown had begun. Doesn't that violate basic biological principles?

 

[Jukia]

Isn't it absurd to believe that a man can die and three days later come back to life? Jesus was brain dead, his heart had stopped and cellular breakdown had begun. Doesn't that violate basic biological principles?

Yep

 

[The Berean]

Isn't it absurd to believe that a man can die and three days later come back to life? Jesus was brain dead, his heart had stopped and cellular breakdown had begun. Doesn't that violate basic biological principles?

Yep

So you consider Jesus' resurrection to be absurd yet you believe that it did happen?

 

[Jukia]

So you consider Jesus' resurrection to be absurd yet you believe that it did happen?

Guess so.

However there is a difference between this "belief" and my inability to believe in a 6000 year old universe, 6 day creation, the Flood, etc. There is substantial independent evidence that shows the universe & earth are far older etc. There is evidence and a mechanism for evolution, etc.
Belief in God goes beyond such substantial independent evidence and in my case is a function of early and continuous education (brain washing--perhaps), some thought, reflection, etc. Since I took that leap of faith the jump to belief in Christianity was not as long a jump.
There is no independent evidence (other than the fact that it is absurd/miraculous) for Jesus resurrection as there is independent evidence for the age of the universe, evolution, etc. Therefore, it is easier, and I think rational (once you get beyond the basic irrationality of "faith") to be able to say, I agree with the fact of the death and resurrection of Jesus about 2000 years ago but do not buy a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[The Berean]

Guess so.

However there is a difference between this "belief" and my inability to believe in a 6000 year old universe, 6 day creation, the Flood, etc. There is substantial independent evidence that shows the universe & earth are far older etc. There is evidence and a mechanism for evolution, etc.
Belief in God goes beyond such substantial independent evidence and in my case is a function of early and continuous education (brain washing--perhaps), some thought, reflection, etc. Since I took that leap of faith the jump to belief in Christianity was not as long a jump.
There is no independent evidence (other than the fact that it is absurd/miraculous) for Jesus resurrection as there is independent evidence for the age of the universe, evolution, etc. Therefore, it is easier, and I think rational (once you get beyond the basic irrationality of "faith") to be able to say, I agree with the fact of the death and resurrection of Jesus about 2000 years ago but do not buy a literal interpretation of Genesis.

So you state:

1) Jesus Christ's resurrection violates known biological principles
2) faith" is irrational

Yet you still believe that it happened. You believe it to be a fact. Is that is so, then faith plays not part in it. They must be some "evidence" that gave you cause to make the "leap of faith" to Christianity.

I do have one question. How do you "interpret" Genesis?

 

[Jukia]

. How do you "interpret" Genesis?

Not as literal, because all the objective evidence says it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Genesis is not to be taken as literal. It is a story of the beginning of God's relationship with man.

 

[The Berean]

Not as literal, because all the objective evidence says it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Genesis is not to be taken as literal. It is a story of the beginning of God's relationship with man.

So science dictates how the Bible is supposed to be interpreted?

 

[Jukia]

So science dictates how the Bible is supposed to be interpreted?

When the objective evidence indicates that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story makes no sense then my vote is to go with science. God gave me a brain to try to understand the world around me.

 

[The Berean]

When the objective evidence indicates that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story makes no sense then my vote is to go with science. God gave me a brain to try to understand the world around me.

Yes God gaves us all brains to think. So by your position your "interpretation" scripture will change based on what modern science tells you. Assuming you position is true that would mean that all Christians who lived before evolution and modern geology existed had a false belief of Genesis. The poor Christians had to wait until Darwin was born to "know" the truth.

Now, if the Bible is indeed the word of God then wouldn't that mean that God spoke to us through His Word plainly, right? If as person had no knowledge of evolution, geology, and astronomy would that person, just by reading Scipture, come to the conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old and that man evolved from simplier life forms? Since you believe that the Earth is ancient and that man evolved that "forces" you have apply an allegorical meaning to Genesis 1. However using basic hermenuetical principles, it is clear that Genesis was written as a historical narative. It's "plain sense" reading is that of historical narrative.

Let me ask you one last question. Who is suppsoed to guide one in "interpreting" the Bible? According to Scripture, the Holy Spirit will guide us in understanding God's Word. So is it better to have the Holy Spirit guide us or science guide us?

 

[Jukia]

Yes God gaves us all brains to think. So by your position your "interpretation" scripture will change based on what modern science tells you. Assuming you position is true that would mean that all Christians who lived before evolution and modern geology existed had a false belief of Genesis. The poor Christians had to wait until Darwin was born to "know" the truth.

Now, if the Bible is indeed the word of God then wouldn't that mean that God spoke to us through His Word plainly, right? If as person had no knowledge of evolution, geology, and astronomy would that person, just by reading Scipture, come to the conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old and that man evolved from simplier life forms? Since you believe that the Earth is ancient and that man evolved that "forces" you have apply an allegorical meaning to Genesis 1. However using basic hermenuetical principles, it is clear that Genesis was written as a historical narative. It's "plain sense" reading is that of historical narrative.

Let me ask you one last question. Who is suppsoed to guide one in "interpreting" the Bible? According to Scripture, the Holy Spirit will guide us in understanding God's Word. So is it better to have the Holy Spirit guide us or science guide us?

In response to your first paragraph. If I am correct then those who believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis creation account prior to the advances in science, Darwin, red shift, etc., were simply wrong, as are those who still believe in a literal interpretation.

And perhaps the Holy Spirit works through the advances in science.

You cannot get away from the underlying fact. Science tells us one thing about the age of the universe for example, but a literal interpretation of Genesis another. They both cannot be correct. The evidence lands on the science side. Perhaps it is the Holy Spirit aiding us in understanding the universe.

 

[The Berean]

In response to your first paragraph. If I am correct then those who believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis creation account prior to the advances in science, Darwin, red shift, etc., were simply wrong, as are those who still believe in a literal interpretation.

And perhaps the Holy Spirit works through the advances in science.

You cannot get away from the underlying fact. Science tells us one thing about the age of the universe for example, but a literal interpretation of Genesis another. They both cannot be correct. The evidence lands on the science side. Perhaps it is the Holy Spirit aiding us in understanding the universe.

If this true then the Holy Spirit misled people for 1800 years. Is the Holy Spirit a liar?

 

[Jukia]

If this true then the Holy Spirit misled people for 1800 years. Is the Holy Spirit a liar?

Well, gee, maybe. Or maybe He just had to wait for better technology. Or maybe people misinterpreted Him and it took technology to help us to understand better.

 

[Turbo]

Well, gee, maybe. Or maybe He just had to wait for better technology. Or maybe people misinterpreted Him and it took technology to help us to understand better.

Is God the author of confusion? Do you think God was incapable of communicating effectively regarding origins?



Does being an evolutionist help you to understand Genesis? A little while ago the Berean asked you:

How do you "interpret" Genesis?

You responded:

Not as literal, because all the objective evidence says it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Genesis is not to be taken as literal. It is a story of the beginning of God's relationship with man.

"Not as literal." The Berean asked how you interpret Genesis, and you told him how you don't interpret Genesis.
But how do you interpret Genesis?
Is it all figurative? If so, what do the figures mean?
What do the detailed, dated genealogies symbolize?
Was Adam an actual man?
Was Noah?
Is there any truth at all in their stories?
Were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob real men? The Jews believe they are all actual descendants of these men. Are they?
Did the twelve tribes really start with Jacob's twelve sons?
Is the story of Joseph and Pharaoh true?

How about Exodus:
True story? Myth? A mixture of both?

These questions aren't meant to be rhetorical; I'd really like answers to them, please.