ARCHIVE: The Mind of Bob Enyart

[Jukia]

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:



You responded:

"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 to 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.

I am sure that God is capable of communicating reagarding whatever He wishes to communicate. However, I suspect that he recognizes the state of human technology and science in relation to such communication. Would have been rather silly for Him to suggest to the writers of the Bible that the universe came into being 15 billion or so years ago, that there are these things called atoms, made of smaller pieces. Physics works in a certain way now but did not then, etc.

I suspect that many of the people named in Genesis were real people. But suspect some where not. Since I consider the Noah story to be, well, pick a word--inaccurate, myth, absurd, etc. I don't know nor care if he was real. It is the point of the story that is important, the "truth" is not in the specific but in the generality, in the relationship. Was Adam an actual man? Probably not. to the extent it is figurative the point is to represent the relationship between God and man. What do the genealogies mean? I suspect they are meant to show a connection over time with God. I do not believe them to be accurate (sorry, no human has lived, what 900 years--never happened).
I have seen conflicting info on Exodus, again, whether it is absolutely true makes no difference to me.


Hope that answered your questions. Bottom line seems to be that you are willing to use Genesis to interpret science, while I would rather use science to interpret Genesis.

 

[Vaquero45]

Jukia, let me get this straight. Genesis is a fairy tale, but the resurrection of Christ is fact.

Seems like believing in the Easter Bunny but rejecting Santa Claus, by your logic.

Jeff

 

[Jukia]

Jukia, let me get this straight. Genesis is a fairy tale, but the resurrection of Christ is fact.

Seems like believing in the Easter Bunny but rejecting Santa Claus, by your logic.

Jeff

Try to understand my post. I did not use the words you used. But if you want to push it, lets just say that Genesis is inaccurate.

 

[Turbo]

Also if I understand you correctly Jukia you believe that:

God would never mislead mankind by making the Earth/universe appear (from your perspective) to be billions of years old when it is in fact only several thousands of years old...

But God had no problem with actually telling mankind a bunch of whoppers, without any indication to His audience that He wasn't describing and referring to events that actually took place as described.

 

[Jukia]

Also if I understand you correctly Jukia you believe that:

God would never mislead mankind by making the Earth/universe appear (from your perspective) to be billions of years old when it is in fact only several thousands of years old...

But God had no problem with actually telling mankind a bunch of whoppers, without any indication to His audience that He wasn't describing and referring to events that actually took place as described.

Lets cut to the chase. A literal reading of creation ala Genesis makes no sense in the real world. I dont care if you want me to blame God for "lying" (a lovely fundamentalist word game), call it whatever you want. Obviously you believe Genesis is meant as a totally accurate history and science text. You are deluded. If you think God deluded you, blame Him. More likely Pastor Enyart, etc., has deluded you, blame him. To believe in the literal reading of Genesis is just plain ignorant and a total misuse of whatever God-given talents or intelligence you may have.

 

[Vaquero45]

If I didnt believe Genesis, I would have to consider it a fairy tale on par with Alice in Wonderland, and the fact that Jesus quoted from it would compromise Him and his story greatly in my mind. Seems logical to me, but so far, your logic and mine do not have much in common.

I believed Genesis long before I heard of Bob Enyart, but he has helped bring out many details I would have had to study for years to figure out, and probably never would have. For that I am thankful.

I have never heard evidence for evolution that held a drop of water in my mind, if you can point me somewhere that has good evidence, I promise to check it out. The young Earth science always makes more sense to me than the "throw time at it" explanation. Again, point me to some good evidence.

Jeff

 

[Turbo]

You are deluded.

...said the guy who admits his belief in God may be the result of "brain washing."

You claim that evolutionary science has helped you to understand the Bible more clearly, but when you are asked some very basic questions you evade them for the most part and quickly get rattled. It should be clear to anyone reading this thread that you can't make heads or tails out of Genesis let alone the rest of the Bible.

While you routinely blast Creationists Christians who testify that they have been persuaded to believe in Biblical account of Creation, the Flood, the resurrection of Christ, etc. on substantive evidence, what little from the Bible you accept as true you attribute not to persuasive evidence but to your upbringing and possible brain washing.

I suspect that it's only a matter of time before you stop identifying yourself as a Christian.

 

[Jukia]

I have never heard evidence for evolution that held a drop of water in my mind, if you can point me somewhere that has good evidence, I promise to check it out. The young Earth science always makes more sense to me than the "throw time at it" explanation. Again, point me to some good evidence.

Jeff

Get Darylmple's (sp?) book, "The Age of the Earth" for starters. Read some John McPhee, "Assembling California", "Basin and Range" for some non-technical general geology (He is one of my favorites, try "The Curve of Binding Energy" for info not related to this topic, but about nuclear physics--amazing fact, the amount of mass turned to energy in A-bomb dropped on Japan--1/4 of the weight of a penny). Those should make you question the young earth position.

As far as evidence for evolution--take a good biology course.

 

[Jukia]

...said the guy who admits his belief in God may be the result of "brain washing."

rattled. It should be clear to anyone reading this thread that you can't make heads or tails out of Genesis let alone the rest of the Bible.

Rattled? I think not, I try to give honest answers, sorry if I don't cave in to your position.

It should be clear to anyone reading this thread that you can't make heads or tails out of current science.

 

[Turbo]

Rattled? I think not, I try to give honest answers...

To your credit, you have given frank answers to many questions on this thread. :up:

In post 27 I asked: "Do you agree that Christ's Jewish contemporaries recognized the story of Noah and the worldwide flood as historical?" Would you please answering that question?

It should be clear to anyone reading this thread that you can't make heads or tails out of current science.

That hasn't clear to any of my former science teachers, professors, or current collegues.

We haven't really been discussing "current science" on this thread; we've mainly been discussing how your worldview is inconsistent. So what would you expect readers of this thread base such a conclusion upon? That I'm a Creationist? If that's the case, so be it.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:5-7​

 

[The Berean]

I am sure that God is capable of communicating reagarding whatever He wishes to communicate. However, I suspect that he recognizes the state of human technology and science in relation to such communication. Would have been rather silly for Him to suggest to the writers of the Bible that the universe came into being 15 billion or so years ago, that there are these things called atoms, made of smaller pieces. Physics works in a certain way now but did not then, etc.

Why would God have to speak about atoms to describe His creation? God doesn't "need" human technology to speak to mankind. Did Moses, Abraham, and Joseph need special stereo equipment to hear from God. God made it simple for us, "In the beginning, God created..."

I suspect that many of the people named in Genesis were real people. But suspect some where not. Since I consider the Noah story to be, well, pick a word--inaccurate, myth, absurd, etc. I don't know nor care if he was real. It is the point of the story that is important, the "truth" is not in the specific but in the generality, in the relationship. Was Adam an actual man? Probably not. to the extent it is figurative the point is to represent the relationship between God and man.

How did you reach these conclusions? How did you determine that Adam was never a real person?

What do the genealogies mean? I suspect they are meant to show a connection over time with God. I do not believe them to be accurate (sorry, no human has lived, what 900 years--never happened).
I have seen conflicting info on Exodus, again, whether it is absolutely true makes no difference to me.

So God wanted to show His conection to mankind through a fictional person?

Hope that answered your questions. Bottom line seems to be that you are willing to use Genesis to interpret science, while I would rather use science to interpret Genesis.

At no point did I claim this. I interpret Scripture using basic hermenuetic principles to interpret Scripture. Using hermenuetical principles, it is clear that Genesis 1 was written as a historical narrative. I could go on an on about the Hebrew word "yom" for day and how in the context on Genesis 1 this refers to an ordinary day but I doubt you would listen. You call youself a Catholic but your perspective is more in line with secular rationalism.

 

[Jukia]

In post 27 I asked: "Do you agree that Christ's Jewish contemporaries recognized the story of Noah and the worldwide flood as historical?" Would you please answering that question?

]

I have no idea if they thought it historical. If they did think Noah and the worldwide flood were historical--to paraphrase Rick in Casablanca, "They were misinformed"

 

[Jukia]

Why would God have to speak about atoms to describe His creation? God doesn't "need" human technology to speak to mankind. Did Moses, Abraham, and Joseph need special stereo equipment to hear from God. God made it simple for us, "In the beginning, God created..."


How did you reach these conclusions? How did you determine that Adam was never a real person?


So God wanted to show His conection to mankind through a fictional person?



At no point did I claim this. I interpret Scripture using basic hermenuetic principles to interpret Scripture. Using hermenuetical principles, it is clear that Genesis 1 was written as a historical narrative. I could go on an on about the Hebrew word "yom" for day and how in the context on Genesis 1 this refers to an ordinary day but I doubt you would listen. You call youself a Catholic but your perspective is more in line with secular rationalism.

God would not "need" atoms to speak to man. My point is that the Genesis story as literal flies in the face of evidence. My point is that if perhaps God were speaking to us today via new scripture, He would use different language conistent with our technology.

As far as Adam being a real person, since I think the 6000 year old earth is just plain silly, I think "Adam" is just plain silly. There was no Garden of Eden, carnivores did not munch grass, a snake did not offer Eve the fruit etc.

If Genesis 1 was written as a historical narrative, about which I have little information, then so be it. Perhaps it was written historically so that the first people reading it would have a stronger connection with this Person dragging them out of pantheism or whatever the belief system was prior.

 

[Granite]

God would not "need" atoms to speak to man. My point is that the Genesis story as literal flies in the face of evidence. My point is that if perhaps God were speaking to us today via new scripture, He would use different language conistent with our technology.

As far as Adam being a real person, since I think the 6000 year old earth is just plain silly, I think "Adam" is just plain silly. There was no Garden of Eden, carnivores did not munch grass, a snake did not offer Eve the fruit etc.

If Genesis 1 was written as a historical narrative, about which I have little information, then so be it. Perhaps it was written historically so that the first people reading it would have a stronger connection with this Person dragging them out of pantheism or whatever the belief system was prior.

It is myth and as such it's a good story; a good telling of a very old tale.

 

[Servo]

I am not sure this was answered before.

So Jukia,
When Jesus mentions the flood, do you consider that to be a parable?

If so, were there other instances where Jesus tells a parable that was mentioned before in the OT?

 

[Granite]

I am not sure this was answered before.

So Jukia,
When Jesus mentions the flood, do you consider that to be a parable?

If so, were there other instances where Jesus tells a parable that was mentioned before in the OT?

He may have just been referencing a very old story that was part of his religion as a Jew.

Not a "parable" per se but he did mention Nineveh's conversion and Jonah's sea-faring experiences...

 

[The Berean]

God would not "need" atoms to speak to man. My point is that the Genesis story as literal flies in the face of evidence. My point is that if perhaps God were speaking to us today via new scripture, He would use different language conistent with our technology.

As far as Adam being a real person, since I think the 6000 year old earth is just plain silly, I think "Adam" is just plain silly. There was no Garden of Eden, carnivores did not munch grass, a snake did not offer Eve the fruit etc.

If Genesis 1 was written as a historical narrative, about which I have little information, then so be it. Perhaps it was written historically so that the first people reading it would have a stronger connection with this Person dragging them out of pantheism or whatever the belief system was prior.

Where in the Bible does it say specifically that the Earth his 6000 years old? Please cite Scriptures. Where in the Bible does it say "carnivores" eat grass? Please specific Scriptures. Also, if an animal eats grass why would it be called a "carnivore"? Wouldn't it be a "herbivore". It's obvious you have a very low view of Scripture.

5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

9 "How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.

10 "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things?

11 I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.

12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

I still do not understand how you consider Genesis to be "silly" but the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ as a historical fact? Do you accept Jesus's testimony about the creation?

from Matthew 19:1-6

1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan.

2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?

6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

And from Luke 17: 22-27

22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.

23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.

24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.

25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Jukia,

You can reject any Scripture you like. That is your perogative of course. Either Scripture is inspired by God or it isn't. Do you believe the Bible is inspired by God? Do you believe that God inpsired the the Bible as a way to communicate with mankind? Or do you believe it is mearly a religious book, full of historical and "scientific" errors? If so, how do you determine what part the Bible is correct and what is error?

 

[Jukia]

Where in the Bible does it say specifically that the Earth his 6000 years old? Please cite Scriptures. Where in the Bible does it say "carnivores" eat grass? Please specific Scriptures. Also, if an animal eats grass why would it be called a "carnivore"? Wouldn't it be a "herbivore". It's obvious you have a very low view of Scripture.

My reference to 6000 years is based on numerous comments by Young Earth Creationists and Genesis litereralist I have seen here. I think based on Bishop Ussher's geneological calculations. The reference to carnivores eating grass is to other comments indicating a belief that today's carnivores only became so after The Fall.

I still do not understand how you consider Genesis to be "silly" but the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ as a historical fact? Do you accept Jesus's testimony about the creation?from Matthew 19:1-6

I thought Matthew 19:1-6 dealt mostly with marriage and divorce?

And from Luke 17: 22-27

I think He is telling a story/teaching and using a reference his listeners will understand.

JukiaYou can reject any Scripture you like. That is your perogative of course. Either Scripture is inspired by God or it isn't. Do you believe the Bible is inspired by God? Do you believe that God inpsired the the Bible as a way to communicate with mankind? Or do you believe it is mearly a religious book, full of historical and "scientific" errors? If so, how do you determine what part the Bible is correct and what is error?

I believe it is inspired by God but do not believe it is a science text. It is not a question of determining what part is correct and what part is error. Just because the Bible is neither scientifically accurate nor historically accurate does not detract from its message--at least to me.

And thanks for the info on how to separate these quotes.