Our Christian foundation is what makes our university unique. This is the place to bring prayer requests, discuss theological issues and how to become better Champions for Christ.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke

By ALUmnus
Registration Days Posts
#484077
ATrain wrote:
Purple Haize wrote:I'm not sure Moses actually said 6 Days.
I believe he counted out 7. However, keep in mind he was also relying on a several-centuries/millenia old game of telephone between the time the events in Genesis occurred and when he put words to paper/parchment/papyrus/stone/whatever the substance was.
So I take it you don't believe in the inspiration of Scripture.

And NotAJerry, I was answering your comment about the literal-day creation being a modern invention. It's not, actually quite the reverse.
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#484078
Scripture was written by men and in the context of the time periods of the authors and has been interpreted and re-interpreted over time by humans. That is a fact, whether it was divinely inspired or not. It used to be that claiming the sun went around the earth was derived from "Divinely Inspired Scripture."

So yes, I do question what is and what isn't divinely inspired and if we are applying it correctly.
By Yacht Rock
Registration Days Posts
#484079
NotAJerry wrote:
ALUmnus wrote:
NotAJerry wrote:Random appearance just to suggest a couple of things for people to read.

The Lost World of Genesis One -- John Walton
Genesis Unbound -- John Sailhamer

Two guys who do a pretty good job of showing that the Hebrew in Genesis 1 is nowhere near as definite as the current YEC position posits it to be. Another thing you may want to do is try to find someone prior to Ellen G White who claimed the six literal day viewpoint.
Most of the Reformers, actually. And there was this dude named Moses....if you wanted to go waaaayyy back.
And here's the typical arrogant, condescending, YEC tripe. I'm guessing you haven't read a word of either book listed above.
Image
By ALUmnus
Registration Days Posts
#484083
ATrain wrote:Scripture was written by men and in the context of the time periods of the authors
True
ATrain wrote:and has been interpreted and re-interpreted over time by humans.
Eh, not so true
ATrain wrote:That is a fact, whether it was divinely inspired or not.
Sort of a contradiction there, no?
ATrain wrote:It used to be that claiming the sun went around the earth was derived from "Divinely Inspired Scripture."
Red herring, straw man, whatever you want to call it. I call it a poor attempt at a bad argument.
ATrain wrote:So yes, I do question what is and what isn't divinely inspired and if we are applying it correctly.
So do you get to pick and choose? Is all of Scripture subjective? I know most people treat it that way, but it sort of makes the whole thing crumble, doesn't it? Basically following the religion of me when you take this approach.
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#484089
ALUmnus wrote:
ATrain wrote:Scripture was written by men and in the context of the time periods of the authors
True
ATrain wrote:and has been interpreted and re-interpreted over time by humans.
Eh, not so true
ATrain wrote:That is a fact, whether it was divinely inspired or not.
Sort of a contradiction there, no?
ATrain wrote:It used to be that claiming the sun went around the earth was derived from "Divinely Inspired Scripture."
Red herring, straw man, whatever you want to call it. I call it a poor attempt at a bad argument.
ATrain wrote:So yes, I do question what is and what isn't divinely inspired and if we are applying it correctly.
So do you get to pick and choose? Is all of Scripture subjective? I know most people treat it that way, but it sort of makes the whole thing crumble, doesn't it? Basically following the religion of me when you take this approach.
No, the persecution of Galileo by the Catholic church is a GREAT example of getting the application of scriptures wrong. It is also not a contradiction to say that even though Scripture is divinely inspired, it was still written by the hands of humans. Plus divine inspiration is separate from divine instruction.

I don't get why you have a problem with just even asking the question "If the spiritual authorities got it wrong about the earth being the center of the physical universe, what else could they have gotten wrong?"

Yes, Scripture has been interpreted and re-interpreted over time to justify many things. Don't forget, the Southern Baptists were founded on the idea that slavery was scriptural and the debate goes far beyong just the story of the earth's/our physical universe's beginnings. It ranges from our issues today over homosexuality, the end times, the role of women in the church, baptism by immersion v. sprinkling, the Apocrypha, etc...

To say the Southern Baptist church of today is the only church that has it all correct is rather myopic IMO.
User avatar
By thepostman
Registration Days Posts
#484093
the southern baptists were not founded on that idea. Some subscribed to it but it is not what it was founded on. I'm not sure where you got that.

Southern baptists have a checkered past but there is no need to make it sound worse then it is they did a good job of making themselves look bad throughout their short history.
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#484094
thepostman wrote:the southern baptists were not founded on that idea. Some subscribed to it but it is not what it was founded on. I'm not sure where you got that.

Southern baptists have a checkered past but there is no need to make it sound worse then it is they did a good job of making themselves look bad throughout their short history.
It wasn't the only idea they were founded on, but it was one of the reasons why they were formed following a split from the northern Baptists in 1845.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#484109
ALUmnus wrote:
ATrain wrote:
Purple Haize wrote:I'm not sure Moses actually said 6 Days.
I believe he counted out 7. However, keep in mind he was also relying on a several-centuries/millenia old game of telephone between the time the events in Genesis occurred and when he put words to paper/parchment/papyrus/stone/whatever the substance was.
So I take it you don't believe in the inspiration of Scripture.

And NotAJerry, I was answering your comment about the literal-day creation being a modern invention. It's not, actually quite the reverse.
You can believe in Divine Inspiration of Scripture and not believe in a literal 6 day Creation. 7 if you count PTO.
By ALUmnus
Registration Days Posts
#484117
Purple Haize wrote: You can believe in Divine Inspiration of Scripture and not believe in a literal 6 day Creation. 7 if you count PTO.
Take out his first sentence. My comment was in response to him suggesting that Moses was just writing down poorly remembered campfire stories.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#484118
ALUmnus wrote:
Purple Haize wrote: You can believe in Divine Inspiration of Scripture and not believe in a literal 6 day Creation. 7 if you count PTO.
Take out his first sentence. My comment was in response to him suggesting that Moses was just writing down poorly remembered campfire stories.
Did they HAVE campfires back then? Or fire? :lol:
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#484119
Purple Haize wrote:
ALUmnus wrote:
Purple Haize wrote: You can believe in Divine Inspiration of Scripture and not believe in a literal 6 day Creation. 7 if you count PTO.
Take out his first sentence. My comment was in response to him suggesting that Moses was just writing down poorly remembered campfire stories.
Did they HAVE campfires back then? Or fire? :I chortle audibly.:
Well, there was the whole burning bush thing. Notice how he didn't agree or disagree with you.
By ALUmnus
Registration Days Posts
#484149
ATrain wrote: No, the persecution of Galileo by the Catholic church is a GREAT example of getting the application of scriptures wrong. It is also not a contradiction to say that even though Scripture is divinely inspired, it was still written by the hands of humans. Plus divine inspiration is separate from divine instruction.

I don't get why you have a problem with just even asking the question "If the spiritual authorities got it wrong about the earth being the center of the physical universe, what else could they have gotten wrong?"
I get why you used Galileo, because it's a popular trope amongst the atheists to portray Christians as backwards and anti-science. But the modern-day narrative of Galileo is mostly myth. Galileo was actually at odds with the other scientists of the day, who were almost unanimously Aristotelian. The concept of a geocentric universe was a Greek concept, not Hebrew, not Christian. The Catholic church made this fit into their Biblical narrative, while at the same time taking interest in Galileo's writings. The "persecution" of Galileo was mostly political, not theological (something you run into quite a bit in the history of the Catholic church), and was ultimately about Galileo's challenge to the Catholic church's authority.

The earth being the center of the universe is not a Biblical principle. But, this example can go in way too many directions because of the Catholic church being a main character.
ATrain wrote: Yes, Scripture has been interpreted and re-interpreted over time to justify many things. Don't forget, the Southern Baptists were founded on the idea that slavery was scriptural and the debate goes far beyond just the story of the earth's/our physical universe's beginnings. It ranges from our issues today over homosexuality, the end times, the role of women in the church, baptism by immersion v. sprinkling, the Apocrypha, etc...

To say the Southern Baptist church of today is the only church that has it all correct is rather myopic IMO.
I don't recall ever bringing up Southern Baptists. But remember also that the abolitionists were led by Christians. It's easy to ignore that bit.
I think you are too often confusing interpretation with understanding. Yes, Scripture has nefariously been used to justify many things, but that can be said of anything. This is problem of understanding. The interpretation of Scripture has been remarkably consistent throughout history. But you can't use the occasional pockets of error to define and therefore disregard Christianity. There has been a long and consistent history of church and doctrine since Christ came and then sent His Spirit. This is called Orthodoxy. Within orthodoxy are many issues that we can disagree on, and are not of first importance. However, other issues are of first importance, and are outside of orthodoxy. We call this heterodoxy or heresy. It's what puts you outside of the church. Al Mohler explains this way better than me with his theological triage.
ATrain wrote: I don't get why you have a problem with just even asking the question "If the spiritual authorities got it wrong about the earth being the center of the physical universe, what else could they have gotten wrong?"
I don't have a problem with asking questions. Ask away. I wish you could see that you've gotten to the point that, if it's in the Bible, it can't be trusted. I don't know how you can trust anything in that book with as much as you've already disregarded.

And PH, I never said that if you don't believe in literal 24-hour days for creation you're a heretic. In fact, I don't believe that. But I do think that it leaves you with some problems logically and theologically. It does make it easier on you with a lot of the scientific community, though.
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#484156
You may not have brought up the Southern Baptist Convention's theology, but you very much subscribe to it.

Its not that I don't trust the Bible, or that I disregard it or Christianity entirely. Maybe I am confusing interpretation with understanding (although I've been using interpretation in the simiilar vein that the Supreme Court "interprets," the Constitution), but man's understandings and applications of Scripture have changed throughout history and Christianity has adapted as events have changed the world. When reading the Bible, it is important to remember that you have to take not just the text, but the context, the author and the audience into account as well.
By Humble_Opinion
Registration Days Posts
#484161
ATrain - many of the issues you bring up regarding egregious actions being undertaken by "The Church" against others are not proof positive that the Bible is full of errors and is outdated. The issues you bring up only serve as a reminder of man's sinful, selfish nature. Conflating the many atrocities committed by MEN acting under the guise of Christianity throughout history with the actual text of the Bible is clouding your judgment and probably your faith. Is it true that the Catholic Church perverted a lot of Biblical texts to exploit people and commit actions that in today's age would have been equal to crimes against humanity? Absolutely. But, don't forget that the Church was challenged and reformed from within and the actions of those men were exposed. Such has always been the case even throughout Biblical times. Don't forget, even the Devil himself used and perverted the Bible to try and justify the actions he was trying to get Jesus to take. The difference there is that Jesus understood the context and refused to give in to the selfish nature of the flesh, because he understood the context and knew why it was that He had come to the Earth to walk amongst us.

As far as the creation debate goes... it's all fun and games, but once the issue delves into questioning the legitimacy of one's beliefs and standing with God, I bow out. From what I understand, no where in the Bible, does Jesus nor any of the apostles state that you must believe in a Young Earth theory of creation to have a relationship with the Savior. If Hamm, or anyone else calls other people "heretics" then shame on them.
By ALUmnus
Registration Days Posts
#484162
ATrain wrote:When reading the Bible, it is important to remember that you have to take not just the text, but the context, the author and the audience into account as well.
I completely agree.
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#484166
Humble_Opinion wrote:ATrain - many of the issues you bring up regarding egregious actions being undertaken by "The Church" against others are not proof positive that the Bible is full of errors and is outdated. The issues you bring up only serve as a reminder of man's sinful, selfish nature. Conflating the many atrocities committed by MEN acting under the guise of Christianity throughout history with the actual text of the Bible is clouding your judgment and probably your faith. Is it true that the Catholic Church perverted a lot of Biblical texts to exploit people and commit actions that in today's age would have been equal to crimes against humanity? Absolutely. But, don't forget that the Church was challenged and reformed from within and the actions of those men were exposed. Such has always been the case even throughout Biblical times. Don't forget, even the Devil himself used and perverted the Bible to try and justify the actions he was trying to get Jesus to take. The difference there is that Jesus understood the context and refused to give in to the selfish nature of the flesh, because he understood the context and knew why it was that He had come to the Earth to walk amongst us.

As far as the creation debate goes... it's all fun and games, but once the issue delves into questioning the legitimacy of one's beliefs and standing with God, I bow out. From what I understand, no where in the Bible, does Jesus nor any of the apostles state that you must believe in a Young Earth theory of creation to have a relationship with the Savior. If Hamm, or anyone else calls other people "heretics" then shame on them.
I merely point to those examples not to say that the Bible is outdated, but to state that history has shown us you can "interpret," or "understand," it to justify many things. God Himself is beyond all human understanding, so I question the Catholic or any denomination/sect's or any one person's ability to really "understand," everything in the Bible.
By Humble_Opinion
Registration Days Posts
#484172
ATrain wrote:I merely point to those examples not to say that the Bible is outdated, but to state that history has shown us you can "interpret," or "understand," it to justify many things. God Himself is beyond all human understanding, so I question the Catholic or any denomination/sect's or any one person's ability to really "understand," everything in the Bible.
I understand what you're saying, but again think you are overly conflating issues here. What the Catholics did in particular, was flat out against the texts you and I read in our Bibles. We are spoiled in our time because technology allows us to access our Bibles and to study the writings of theologians anytime we want in virtually any language we need. Don't forget that the Catholics required that all Bibles be written and read in Latin during the times you wrote of in your earlier posts. This, along with many other strict regulations, were used to control the Church and allow them to institute all matter and forms of perversions (indulgences, etc.) on the masses without having to worry about an uprising. The Church did what they did not because they could justify it using actual Biblical texts, but because the thirst for hunger and power inherent in our nature took over.
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#484197
Humble_Opinion wrote:
ATrain wrote:I merely point to those examples not to say that the Bible is outdated, but to state that history has shown us you can "interpret," or "understand," it to justify many things. God Himself is beyond all human understanding, so I question the Catholic or any denomination/sect's or any one person's ability to really "understand," everything in the Bible.
I understand what you're saying, but again think you are overly conflating issues here. What the Catholics did in particular, was flat out against the texts you and I read in our Bibles. We are spoiled in our time because technology allows us to access our Bibles and to study the writings of theologians anytime we want in virtually any language we need. Don't forget that the Catholics required that all Bibles be written and read in Latin during the times you wrote of in your earlier posts. This, along with many other strict regulations, were used to control the Church and allow them to institute all matter and forms of perversions (indulgences, etc.) on the masses without having to worry about an uprising. The Church did what they did not because they could justify it using actual Biblical texts, but because the thirst for hunger and power inherent in our nature took over.
Yes, I agree that more was going on, but even beyond the Catholic Church and the Middle Ages, where else have we been misinterpreting/misunderstanding/misapplying Scripture?
Dondi Costin - LU President

Ive gone there a few times since moving to texas b[…]

There’s a cerebral side to the game, which M[…]

NCAA Realignment Megathread

Duke Gonzaga B12? https://larrybrownsports.com/co[…]

FlameFans Fantasy Baseball

We are on!!! Hope to see everyone tonight at 9:30[…]