The Ascension

[Derby]

Over the years, there has been one thing in the Bible which I cannot fully digest – the account of the Ascension of our Lord.
He had a Resurrection body – OK.
But he had drunk and eaten.
He went to be with His Father – OK
But he was seen in the air getting higher and higher, until a cloud spoilt their view of Him.
It seems to be a picture in the mind of someone who, as they did in those days, believed in a three-storey universe – OK.
Is it OK if I believe something different to what those disciples believed and conveyed to us?

There is a most beautiful poem by William Drummond, born 1585, ‘An Hymn of the Ascension’; It is full of notes of praise and he speaks of Jesus reaching the moon, the Milky Way and finally Paradise, ending

‘From top of Olivet such notes did rise
When man’s Redeemer did transcend the skies!’

I would be interested in knowing if anyone else has a particular thing in the Bible which they have a problem with.

[Ransom v. Unman]

Hmm... The Ascension never seemed a problem to me. For example, if one takes the cosmology of C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy literally, it makes perfect sense. It makes sense to if this is the God who meets us at our level, and will use signs and properties that we are culturally familiar with in order to show us the truth of the matter.

*Ahem*

For my part though, I must say there are a few rather troubling sections of the Bible to me. Namely, I have trouble reconciling the nearly-Qumranic terminology and thought of Paul with the more Rabbinic thought of Jesus. I also have issues with religious origins and similarities – why are there so many parallels with the Jerusalem Temple and other temples dedicated to the Near-Eastern Pantheon, notably Ba'al and Yám?

But by far the most difficult thing for me to deal with is the enigma of the Gospel of John. How much is literal and how much is theological exposition? Who was the original author, and what were his intentions? How did the early church understand the text? Did Gnostic glosses actually make it into the received transmission? I have found satisfactory answers to all these questions regarding just about everything else in the NT corpus – but John still leaves me hanging. I don't know what to do with it. I believe it's inspired. I believe it's God's word. I believe that it's true, in a sense, but which sense that is I'm still unsure of.

/sigh

[Ransom v. Unman]

Is it OK if I believe something different to what those disciples believed and conveyed to us?

Ah, after re-reading this, I get the meaning of what you're asking.

And to be honest, all I'll say is that they probably wouldn't think so...

[Derby]

You seem to be saying that, yes, it is Ok if I don't accept the account of the Ascension literally; because I am in a different culture and if the Ascension happened yesterday the newspaper report would be in different words.

I love John, I think he gives the best picture of the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Spirit.

I will have to come back on the other points.

[Derby]

Quite.
They wouldn't think so
but perhaps God's intention is met with both situations
Them believing their revelation
and me mine

[kshsj777]

To be honest, I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand. I'm guessing after the cloud obscured Jesus that He was transported to Heaven, but that's only a guess, how should I know?

As for the gospel of John, what's the problem? Is there a specific passage or teaching you don't get?

[lynnmosher]

One of the things I want to ask the Lord when I get to heaven is a question that many others are puzzled over as well...who did Cain marry? I know, this isn't a deep search of the Word but most have said that he married his sister, which may be true. But it still puzzles me. And the other, without starting a huge discussion or argument, is how long did it really take for God to create everything? This is merely mentioned as another puzzlement; we don't have to delve into it.

[Derby]

Paul was an academic, years of deep study of books
I see Jesus as an intuitive learned person, who knew the Scriptures and their real meanings ; and he was much more of course
This may be part of the reason for the different cultural stances of the two men.
Nevertheless Jesus had a culture - for instance he cured a person with epilepsy but said it was an evil spirit.
Did he know what epilepsy was?
Was he purposely presenting what the people would understand?

[Ransom v. Unman]

You seem to be saying that, yes, it is Ok if I don't accept the account of the Ascension literally; because I am in a different culture and if the Ascension happened yesterday the newspaper report would be in different words.

No, I don't think it would be reported differently, or even necessarily that it would happen differently. I think the raising of Christ to the "Heavens" was a divine gesture symbolic of Christ's ascension to the right-hand of the Father. If He just dissipated, after all, they might have thought He was a ghost? I think even nowadays the same thing would happen. It's a sign of triumph. A reminder to look at the skies. And it's something that the people upon whom we must rely upon concerning accounts of Christ's life took both literally and seriously.

Quite.
They wouldn't think so
but perhaps God's intention is met with both situations
Them believing their revelation
and me mine
Well, this opens another can of worms about what constitutes authoritative revelation...

[Derby]

I think that the garden of Eden is a parable and that the man and the woman were not the Adam and Eve mentioned in the genealogy. Genesis just calls them the man and a woman. It can be calculated that Adam lived about 4000 ago.

[Ransom v. Unman]

As for the gospel of John, what's the problem? Is there a specific passage or teaching you don't get?
It's on an academic level. It jars greatly with the accounts of Jesus' life in presented in the Synoptic Gospels. The Jewish "presence" of the Synoptics is distinctly lacking. It was, by all accounts, the last Gospel to be written - why?

There are a lot of questions I have about it on those levels alone. I don't reject it by any means, but I honestly submit that I don't know what to do with it.
Paul was an academic, years of deep study of books
I see Jesus as an intuitive learned person, who knew the Scriptures and their real meanings ; and he was much more of course
I vehemently disagree with this, and I think anyone familiar with Second Temple Judaism, its practises and culture would do likewise. Jesus, as presented in the Synoptics, would have been considered amazingly booksmart by the standards of the time. He was familiar with a wide swath of Jewish literature, and there are good indications He was very familiar with Greek literature as well. He speaks to issues contentious in Judaism of the time. People called Him "Rabbi", which was, *gasp*, a Pharisaical term.

Jesus probably spent just as much time in books as Paul did, just from a different end of the social spectrum. Mind you too, Jesus grew up in Eretz Yisrael, Paul originally hailed from the Diaspora.

Nevertheless Jesus had a culture - for instance he cured a person with epilepsy but said it was an evil spirit.
Did he know what epilepsy was?
Was he purposely presenting what the people would understand?
Do we know that a demon wasn't afflicting the kid with epileptic seizures?

[ProfessorAlan]

Was he purposely presenting what the people would understand?

To me, this is a foundational point of biblical interpretation. God (before and through Jesus) was communicating to a specific people at a specific time, and used language, imagery, ideas, concepts that they could best understand -- speaking their language, as it were.

But I've never had a particular problem with the Ascension.

[Derby]

Professor Alan

Thanks for your important input, very helpful to me personally.

You say
But I've never had a particular problem with the Ascension.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean that you accept the account literally please?

Derby

[Derby]

Ransom

I generally accept your comments - you know much more about the area you speak than I do - I certainly know nothing about the Second Temple Judaism - where would I find an account of this?

It is possible that the person with epilepsy also had an evil spirit

[Derby]

kshsj777

The problem with the Ascension for me is that God is Spirit and they say they saw a body go into the sky, a body with food in him, and that he is now sitting at God's right hand, and has been there for 2000 years. It implies that Jesus can be geographically located somewhere. Could you see him from a spaceship?

I don't mean to be irreverent

[Derby]

Lynn

You say
how long did it really take for God to create everything?

I don't know if you are just being naughty
That may need a new thread

Derby

[lynnmosher]

Derby, God is Spirit but Jesus had a human body and received a resurrected body. So, if Jesus sits on the right hand of the Father, that's His location...in heaven, on His throne, next to the Father. Right?

[lynnmosher]

Whoops! Our paths crossed. Why would you think I was being naughty? There has always been discussion as to whether or not the seven days were literal days. And that's why I didn't really want to mention it but I did because of your original question at the end of your post.

[Derby]

Lynn

I think the week of creation is another parable - the beginning of Genesis tells us so many important things about God and about life -

The Lord wants us to have a rest day each week.
His ideal is that we have a life partner.
He created the world and everything in it - I don't know how he did it
Humankind was created innocent but now we are moral creatures with responsibility for our actions
We are in God's image and wonderfully formed

I have probably missed some more, Love

Derby

[Ransom v. Unman]

Re: Second Temple Judaism

I would reccomend looking into N.T. Wright's commentaries for an easily accessible introduction to the subject. There are other authors of weightier scholarly import that are worth looking into, albeit, much more difficult to find.

See also the work of...

Brad Young
David Bivins
David Flusser
R. Steven Notley
Shmuel Saffrai

Also visit this site:

http://www.jerusalemperspective.org

Geza Vermes also has some great analyses of Jesus' words in context, but mind you, he isn't Christian, so take that in stride. J.D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright and Mark Nanos have some incredible and enlightening tomes on the nature of a good deal of St. Paul's work. I'm sure someone has also done some work on St. Paul and his connexions to the Qumran sect (Paul's writings are rife with references to concepts and phrases in the Dead Sea Scrolls) but I can't off the top of my head think of any comprehensive volume that treats this. I'll lay wager that James VanderKam and Laurence Schiffman have treated that topic at some point.

Anyway...


The problem with the Ascension for me is that God is Spirit and they say they saw a body go into the sky, a body with food in him, and that he is now sitting at God's right hand, and has been there for 2000 years. It implies that Jesus can be geographically located somewhere. Could you see him from a spaceship?
I don't know if you could, but that would totally freakin' rock!

Maybe Jesus is hiding out in a singularity somewhere?

[jacks girl]

Lynn

I think the week of creation is another parable - the beginning of Genesis tells us so many important things about God and about life -
Derby

I'm not smart enough to address this. But it's not a parable it really happened. i don't understand how you can think this part of the Bible the very first part we get to read didn't really happen. Am i misunderstanding something that you meant to say.

jacks

[ProfessorAlan]

I believe that Creation happened, and that it happened at the will and direction of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But I don't think that Genesis 1 and 2 represent the literal manner in which that Creation occurred -- because I don't believe they were intended by God to be read in a literal manner.

The Bible contains an enormous variety of literary styles, a fact that shows God's character as a creative being: law, history, poetry, parable, letter, prophecy, etc ... these are simply not the same things, and I choose not to interpret them the same way. This is because of the high esteem in which I hold the scriptures -- I want fervently to read them correctly.

Most religions have a creation myth, some of which are quite bizarre. I believe the Genesis account is the One True God's version of this common myth, told in the same form as those other accounts, but with the major distinction of being penned by the actual Creator of the universe. And as Derby pointed out, this account resonates because it reveals so much about the priorities and personality (and power) of the one God above all other gods.

[kshsj777]

Nevertheless Jesus had a culture - for instance he cured a person with epilepsy but said it was an evil spirit.
Did he know what epilepsy was?
Was he purposely presenting what the people would understand?

Perhaps the epilepsy was caused by the evil spirit. Diseases can have supernatural origins as well as natural ones.

[kshsj777]

I think that the garden of Eden is a parable and that the man and the woman were not the Adam and Eve mentioned in the genealogy. Genesis just calls them the man and a woman. It can be calculated that Adam lived about 4000 ago.

Actually Adam lived around 6,000 years ago. The flood was about 4,000 years ago give or take. And the man was referred to as Adam towards the beginning of chapter 2 in Genesis.

[kshsj777]

kshsj777

The problem with the Ascension for me is that God is Spirit and they say they saw a body go into the sky, a body with food in him, and that he is now sitting at God's right hand, and has been there for 2000 years. It implies that Jesus can be geographically located somewhere. Could you see him from a spaceship?

I don't mean to be irreverent


I'm not really sure. I do know that Heaven is a real physical place, since Isaiah and Paul both visited Heaven. Isaiah 62? and Romans sorry don't remember which chapter.

My guess is that Heaven is another dimension or something, but I have no idea about that. Yes, Jesus can and is located geographically somewhere. Once He took on human form, He will have it forever. I believe Hebrews says that somewhere, I'm sorry, I'm not sure where.

And as for a spaceship, I think you're asking in it's possible to reach Heaven in this physical universe and I'm pretty sure the answer is no, since we can only reach Heaven by trusting in Jesus. And yet if it's a physical place... that's why I guess it's in another dimension.

[kshsj777]

Lynn

You say
how long did it really take for God to create everything?

I don't know if you are just being naughty
That may need a new thread

Derby

Read Exodus 20:11, and that will tell you the answer.

[PattyU]

I'm not smart enough to address this. But it's not a parable it really happened. i don't understand how you can think this part of the Bible the very first part we get to read didn't really happen. Am i misunderstanding something that you meant to say.

jacks

I would never dream of speaking for Derby or Lynn. I can speak for myself, though. I do not believe Genesis is a parable. It happened. God is the Creator of the universe. However, I am not sure it took Him a literal 7 days because I am not convinced the Bible say it does. God could have made the earth and the entire universe in seven 24 hour days about 6000 years ago. He is certainly capable. I do believe the Bible is God's word and should be taken seriously. But we need to remember the Bible wasn't first written in English. The Hebrew word yom, which is translated as day in Genesis, can be interpreted as a 24 hour day or as a general vague concept of time. This is the cause of the confusion. King James says day, so people think it means 24 hours. Maybe it does, but my faith in Christ is not dependent on a seven day week. I know He made us. I'm here.

Here are a couple websites with differing views. Both suppose that God created everything, but they interpret the length of time differently. I am not saying either is correct. I'm just offering them for perusal since you seemed surprised that a Christian would question a seven day creation week.

http://incolor.inetnebr.com/gaskell/genesis.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/i1/semantic.asp

[kshsj777]

I would never dream of speaking for Derby or Lynn. I can speak for myself, though. I do not believe Genesis is a parable. It happened. God is the Creator of the universe. However, I am not sure it took Him a literal 7 days because I am not convinced the Bible say it does. God could have made the earth and the entire universe in seven 24 hour days about 6000 years ago. He is certainly capable. I do believe the Bible is God's word and should be taken seriously. But we need to remember the Bible wasn't first written in English. The Hebrew word yom, which is translated as day in Genesis, can be interpreted as a 24 hour day or as a general vague concept of time. This is the cause of the confusion. King James says day, so people think it means 24 hours. Maybe it does, but my faith in Christ is not dependent on a seven day week. I know He made us. I'm here.

Here are a couple websites with differing views. Both suppose that God created everything, but they interpret the length of time differently. I am not saying either is correct. I'm just offering them for perusal since you seemed surprised that a Christian would question a seven day creation week.

The word "yom" with a number, (and there is a number) ALWAYS means a 24 hour period.

[kshsj777]

By the way Exodus 20:11 states very clearly that God did make the universe in six days.

[PattyU]

The word "yom" with a number, (and there is a number) ALWAYS means a 24 hour period.

Yes, I have heard. One of the articles I linked contains this statement. I have also read reasonable Christian theology that contradicts this statement. I'm still not convinced, but that doesn't mean I think you are wrong. I will have to study it further.

Based on my internet experience, your response looks like you are shouting at me. I'm not use to that, and really don't appreciate it. I'm not one to get in arguments on the internet. I am sorry if I came across like I was or if you thought I did not respect you. I respect your opinion and your views may be absolutely right. My posts were not an attempt to argue with you. I had not even noticed your posts when I posted mine. Maybe I took too long in posting or I had not scrolled down far enough, but my response to Jack's Girl was in no way directed at you. It really wasn't. I was not trying to talk her out of a 24 hour day. She seemed surprised that anyone even debated the interpretation of Genesis. She seemed to be questioning where the debate came, so I posted the 2 different views.

[kshsj777]

Sorry, Patty. I capped "always" for emphasis, not for shouting. I cap things, cause it's easier than bolding or italicizing sometimes. In no way do I mean to be offensive or hurtful. I just cap some words here and there to show emotion, not to be obnoxious. And I know you were responding to Jacks girl, I'm just putting my two cents in.

You're not mad at me right?

[PattyU]

You're not mad at me right?

No, I'm not mad at you. I wasn't really angry before, but I thought you were upset with me. I try to stay out of internet brawls and felt that I had stepped into one, sort of. I'm glad you explained. It was the caps that really made me think you were shouting at me. I was logged off and trying to sleep, but I'm glad I came back. I'm going to go to bed now. I don't know what time zone you are in, but it is past my bed time.

[kshsj777]

It's 1:30 am here. I go to bed late when I don't have school. Once again, sorry the caps bothered you.

[Derby]

Jacks Girl

No, you read me right - I suggest that the account of Creation is a parable!
But I say it because I am not smart - probably rather naive.
There are massive problems arising in this scientific age, the Faith is made to look ridiculous and this damages the chances of successful evangelism.
Why not look at our assumptions on which we base our faith?
They had to do it when some bloke said the earth wasn't the centre of the universe and wasn't flat.

[Derby]

kshsj777

Yes, I go along with that.
And some problems are psycho-somatic.

[Derby]

kshsj777

Sorry, I should have said 4000 BC

[Derby]

kshsj777

Good to hear from you, hope you are well.

I go along with ‘another dimension’
‘or something’ – quite: we don’t know and perhaps don’t need to
But Jesus ascended with a resurrection body, it was no longer a physical body to my thinking. I don’t think Paul went to heaven physically, or Isaiah.

Are you referring to Isaiah 6.1 ‘I saw the Lord…’?
And 2 Cor 12.1 ‘visions and revelations…’?

[kshsj777]

Yes to Isaiah 6:1 and I think yes to 2Cor 12:1. Even if they didn't go to Heaven physically, and it was just a vision, Heaven would still have to be some physical place in order for them to even see it. How can you see something that isn't physical? And what about Revelation? There's a lot of visions about Heaven there.

And Jesus' resurrection body IS a physical body. How else could He eat and drink with the disciples? How could He tell Thomas, to touch His hands and His feet, if His body wasn't physical? And as for going through walls, you'd seen a lot of sci-fi where people have real bodies but go through walls.

And of course, if there WAS another dimension, who's to say Jesus didn't use that dimension to go through the wall? I mean, if there was a 2D world populated of 2D beings, a 3D object could seem pretty magical by teleporting everywhere, just using the 3rd dimension. Of course, this is all speculation. I mean Jesus also walked on water, but even so, His body was physical. Yes, His resurrection body is a never to die again body, but it's very real.

We were created with both a physical aspect and a spritual aspect. We know from John that "we will be like Him, because we shall see Him as He is." We aren't going to be disembodied spirits. God promises to resurrect us, but how can we really be resurrected if we didn't have a body too?

[Derby]

Ransom

Thanks for going to the trouble of giving me the Reading references

[Ransom v. Unman]

Always a pleasure. I know as a Christian it seems I spent half my life looking for insights to the Jewishness of the NT, and couldn't really find them anywhere. I'm always glad to pass on the favour. It's enriched my relationship with God like few things have.

[lynnmosher]

So you, too, enjoy discovering all our Jewish roots?

[Derby]

Ransom

Yes, there are treasures to be found.

As Protestants, I assume we both are, we may be tempted to give inadequate thought to two things-
What we owe to the Jewish Faith
What we owe to the Roman and Eastern churches
We act as though we re-invented Christianity in the 16th century.
Christ existed before the Creation

I am also trying to put together a positive profile on The God of the Old Testament. He has a pretty grim image. How can this be done?

Lastly, how do we present the matter of Truth by Revelation in this scientific age?

[Derby]

kshsj777

It is a new experience, speaking to you, my friend.
I don’t mean to do it, but it is like hitting a gorgeous crystal and seeing all the beautiful fragments exploding out!

1 John 3.2 is one of my favourite verses.
If I understand you aright, you take this verse as meaning that we will have a resurrection body like that of Jesus. I think this is implied elsewhere in Scripture but I can’t name the reference off hand. But this passage actually says ‘what we will be has not yet been made known’!
On reading the whole section, 1 John 2.28 to 3.3 NIV [the chapter break is a poor choice] I take the meaning that in life we are to do what is right and that when Christ appears [or, footnote,’ when he is made known’] we will be purified and so we shall then be pure like him.
Praise the Lord for this verse!!
To me, amongst other wonderful things, it says that Purgatory is a load of rubbish.
What translation are you using – does it say something materially different?

I think that when Jesus was on earth the good and evil spirits knew him automatically. That he performed miracles partly to convince us lot.

Are there grades of ‘physical’?
-The human body
-The resurrection body
-a vision
I can’t define in detail the middle one – no one can
You can see all three, all three are very real
Is heaven ‘more physical’ than the resurrection body is ‘physical’? I don’t know

You mention visions in Revelation and tempt me to append one of my poems and I succumb: Best wishes, Derby


JOHN SAW A MAN

John, on Patmos, saw a man
With angel stars in his hand

His pure hair was as white as snow
His shining face left no shadow

His voice was thunder, halting the blood
It swept lies away, like chaff in a flood

Out of his eyes came a seeing fire
Consuming sin, which built his ire

Out of his mouth, keen blades of words
Dissecting souls, making two herds

Am I a sheep or are am I a goat?
Is there love or fear in my throat?

The life is naked, the soul is bare
Our partner in life, he is also there
Is it Jesus our Saviour or Satan our snare?

A word to the wise, a word to the wicked
There is no fear, if God you fear
If you do not, then fear

[Ransom v. Unman]

Ransom

Yes, there are treasures to be found.

As Protestants, I assume we both are, we may be tempted to give inadequate thought to two things-
What we owe to the Jewish Faith
What we owe to the Roman and Eastern churches
We act as though we re-invented Christianity in the 16th century.
Christ existed before the Creation
Ah, that's a whole other issue with Trinitarian theology that most people don't even want to step on.

I'll just say that if nothing else, Christ technically existed in the Father before creation. Paul makes a good deal about Christ's relationship to creation (in and before it) in Colossians.

I am also trying to put together a positive profile on The God of the Old Testament. He has a pretty grim image. How can this be done?
By understanding reality. This is a grim world, mate. The Jews were in the midst of some grim cultures. Read the prophets though, there we have insight and understanding into God's very heart. The God of the Old is the same as the God of the New, and He is also Jesus when he comes incarnate. Jesus was not so "meek and mild" as we often conceive of Him, and the Father in the OT is not so "bloodthirsty and terrible" as many make him out to be. The concepts of grace, forgiveness, mercy, love – all of these are vital components of God's character, and they are established within the Torah.

We live in a situation greatly divorced from those brutal times, and in that comfort, I think we forget what God and the Jews had to contend with. A cursory reading of ancient history and its pantheons will quickly, however, show Adonai as always having been a veritable fount of enlightenment, wisdom, and kindness.

Lastly, how do we present the matter of Truth by Revelation in this scientific age?
This deserves its own thread...

[ProfessorAlan]

What we owe to the Roman and Eastern churches

We act as though we re-invented Christianity in the 16th century.

Yes, many I know are drawn to the Jewish roots of the faith, but I find myself drawn more and more the last few years to the Early (first 5 centuries or so) Church -- our Roman roots, if you will. Talk about some eye-opening, mind-bending reading.

I stopped calling myself Protestant about 5 years ago. That is just not my fight.

[Ransom v. Unman]

Mm... The Rome issue...

Again, this probably deserves its own thread...

[kshsj777]

1 John 3.2 is one of my favourite verses.
If I understand you aright, you take this verse as meaning that we will have a resurrection body like that of Jesus. I think this is implied elsewhere in Scripture but I can’t name the reference off hand. But this passage actually says ‘what we will be has not yet been made known’!
On reading the whole section, 1 John 2.28 to 3.3 NIV [the chapter break is a poor choice] I take the meaning that in life we are to do what is right and that when Christ appears [or, footnote,’ when he is made known’] we will be purified and so we shall then be pure like him.
Praise the Lord for this verse!!
To me, amongst other wonderful things, it says that Purgatory is a load of rubbish.
What translation are you using – does it say something materially different?

I think that when Jesus was on earth the good and evil spirits knew him automatically. That he performed miracles partly to convince us lot.

Are there grades of ‘physical’?
-The human body
-The resurrection body
-a vision
I can’t define in detail the middle one – no one can
You can see all three, all three are very real
Is heaven ‘more physical’ than the resurrection body is ‘physical’? I don’t know

I use the NASB version, which shouldn't be drastically different from the NIV. (None of them SHOULD be drastically different anyway!)

I'm not sure what you mean by grades of physical. Either something is physical or it's not.

Yes, you are right. The main focus is on the fact that we will be holy and perfect like He is. But we are also promised a resurrection body, and Christ was called the firstfruits of mankind. He got the resurrection body first!

Yes, the miracles were to convince us. Also to help us, I'm sure!!!

Yes, the doctrine of Purgatory is rubbish. No Scriptural support for that.

I enjoy talking with you, too, Derby.

Did I miss anything? If so, please point it out.

[kshsj777]

Read the prophets though, there we have insight and understanding into God's very heart. The God of the Old is the same as the God of the New, and He is also Jesus when he comes incarnate. Jesus was not so "meek and mild" as we often conceive of Him, and the Father in the OT is not so "bloodthirsty and terrible" as many make him out to be. The concepts of grace, forgiveness, mercy, love – all of these are vital components of God's character, and they are established within the Torah.

I agree, Ransom!

[Ransom v. Unman]

I use the NASB version, which shouldn't be drastically different from the NIV. (None of them SHOULD be drastically different anyway!)
But the subtle differences in translation do make the NASB a far superior translation in my esteem...

Yes, the doctrine of Purgatory is rubbish. No Scriptural support for that.
It depends on what one considers Scripture. There is support for it in the Apocrypha.

[kshsj777]

Yes, my dad believes that the NASB is better, and I like it better myself. My point was that the translations shouldn't contradict either or teach radically different things, since they are all translations of the same Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek manuscripts.

[kshsj777]

As for the Apocrypha, I don't believe that is part of Scripture. There have been errors found in these manuscripts, and there haven't been any eyewitness who could authenticate it.

When the Bible was put together, people judged it based on whether it was written by a prophet/apostle/teacher or someone, like Luke, who carefully gathered eyewitness accounts of what happend. At that time, the people had known the apostles, and could testify that so and so wrote it etc.

[Ransom v. Unman]

Yes, my dad believes that the NASB is better, and I like it better myself. My point was that the translations shouldn't contradict either or teach radically different things, since they are all translations of the same Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek manuscripts.

You'd be amazed how little twists in getting from A to Z can make for very radical distinctions.

[Ransom v. Unman]

As for the Apocrypha, I don't believe that is part of Scripture. There have been errors found in these manuscripts, and there haven't been any eyewitness who could authenticate it.



Errors? Define this please...

There have been "errors" found in the canonical Bible too. :-/

[kshsj777]

What do you mean, Ransom? I mean, I know that there some passages where the precise meaning is unclear in the Greek, but that's only a handful...

[kshsj777]

Okay, Ransom, what books are you referring to, when you say the Apocrypha?

[Ransom v. Unman]

Differences between manuscripts
Historical errors (e.g. the procession of emperors described in Ezra is incorrect)
NT misquoting of the OT
Historical figures who didn't exist (ex. Artaxerxes) or who were given incorrect titles (e.g. "King" Belshazzar – according to Babylonian records, he was only a prince and was not in any line for succession.)


Now mind you, I've found satisfactory reasons for all these "errors," but it has also substantially challenged the way I view and understand Scripture, and a lot of it was not easy.

Anyway, the point being, I do not accept the canonicity of the Aporcypha gainsay, but we can find quotes from Aporcyphal books on the lips of New Testament writers, and Jesus Himself! Obviously they had a high view of it, so we have to keep that in consideration as we read the Apocrypha. It might not be canon, but it does provide insight into what the biblical writers were getting at in certain areas, and also perhaps what they believed in their hearts.

[kshsj777]

Artaxerxes? Isn't that the king who was Esther's husband?

And NT writers did quote things word for word like we do. They just quoted the general idea. There aren't any quote marks in Greek anyway.

For the emperor's thing in Ezra, I have no idea what you by that, and this is the first I've heard of it, sorry.

And as for Belshazzar, I believe he was co-ruler with some other guy, sorry don't have time to look up his name.

[Ransom v. Unman]

Artaxerxes? Isn't that the king who was Esther's husband?
Yup, but she's never mentioned in any writings concerning any of the Artaxerxes... Sort of strange that someone who attained the queenhood would never make any historical records, or Mordecai or Hamman, or the attempted extermination of the Jews for that matter...

And NT writers did quote things word for word like we do. They just quoted the general idea. There aren't any quote marks in Greek anyway.
Sure about that? Paul has a rather interesting take on Psalm 68 at the beginning of Ephesians I'd say...

For the emperor's thing in Ezra, I have no idea what you by that, and this is the first I've heard of it, sorry.
Ezra starts in the reign of Cyrus II, who reigned from 550–529 BCE.
Then in chapter 4, it describes opposition to the rebuilding of the Temple under Xerxes and Artaxerxes I, who ruled in total from 486-424.
Then in verse 4:24, it says that building was stopped until the reign of Darius – but Darius reigned from 521–486, before Xerxes!

Outside resources confirm that the Temple indeed started rebuilding during Cyrus II's reign, and it was finished in the reign of Darius I, but the inclusion of Xerxes and Artaxerxes in the history is an interesting note.

And as for Belshazzar, I believe he was co-ruler with some other guy, sorry don't have time to look up his name.

That's certainly a possiblity, but still no one has found any records saying that he ever ruled Persia as King.

[lynnmosher]

Ransom, on a side note...were you born reading a book? LOL! Your IQ must be way up there! Sorry...hijacking...back to topic!

[Ransom v. Unman]

@ Lynne - I doubt that my IQ is all that high. I just try to find out what I can about subjects that interest me. The Bible is chief among these...

[lynnmosher]

I love studying about the OT...I think I said that somewhere already. My problem is I have a learning disability AND a physical condition that causes short-term memory loss. So half the time, I can't remember what I've read! Sheesh! I hate it! My brain is left devoid to converse with anyone about much of anything! But I do love studying the OT...I said that, right? LOL!

[Derby]

Professor Alan

'some eye-opening, mind-bending reading'

I would love you to expand on that a bit

[Derby]

Lynn

Ah! We of a certain age -

My short term memory, memory - sorry - my stm is poor as well
my children say I have a 30 second time delay, I am several steps behind others in a conversation
I depend on making notes and a decent retrieval system
My wife complains that I say something 'out of the blue' - she has no idea what I am on about
My short term memory is very poor

[Ransom v. Unman]

Professor Alan

'some eye-opening, mind-bending reading'

I would love you to expand on that a bit

In the Second Scroll of Wen the Eternally Surprised a story is written concerning one day when the apprentice Clodpool, in a rebellious mood, approached Wen and spake thusly:

"Master, what is the difference between a humanistic, monastic system of belief in which wisdom is sought by means of an apparently nonsensical system of questions and answers, and a lot of mystic gibberish made up on the spur of the moment?"

Wen considered this for some time, and at last said: "A fish!"

And Clodpool went away, satisfied.
-Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

/runs!

[lynnmosher]

Ah, Derby, sounds like me! Okay...carry on!

[ProfessorAlan]

Professor Alan

'some eye-opening, mind-bending reading'

I would love you to expand on that a bit

very liturgical, very sacramental ... not very "evangelical" in the US cultural sense of the word.

[ProfessorAlan]

The canon was not formally agreed upon until the late 300s (and only informally decided upon by about 200), and what writings we have comes from these early church leaders, many of whom can trace a lineage of directly learning from the apostles, and whose orthodoxy was measured against the teaching of the disciples -- as Scripture was not formally canonized at this point.

For example, John personally discipled Polycarp, who personally discipled Irenaeus, who wrote Against Heresies in about 190, and died probably in the early 200's. That is 150+ years into the life of the church, but only 2 generations removed from an apostle. I trust that the writings of these early leaders reflect orthodox, apostolic teaching, and I find their takes on issues quite valuable, and informative.

Ransom -- My take on John's disctinctive style is that it was specifically writen as a anti-gnostic take on Jesus' life and teaching, and was written for a more distinctly "theological" purpose than the other gospels.

[Ransom v. Unman]

and was written for a more distinctly "theological" purpose than the other gospels.
Yeah, that much I had determined, but thank you! :)

[Derby]

Ransom

'Maybe Jesus is hiding out in a singularity somewhere?'

I'm not into sci-fi or science of the cosmos but my son in Germany was just on the phone and I asked him what you meant - a fold in the universe.
He said another possible location was the Event Horizon of a black hole [collapsed star] - the first point where light cannot escape without actually being in the crushing of the hole. What do you think?

He writes computer games and 'serious' games [commercial application].

[Ransom v. Unman]

Derby – I'm writing a story in which I get to muse a great deal on what might be behind an event horizon. This kind of science really does open up the floodgates for all kinds of spec-fic stuff. It's even better than time travel.

That said, I do think there is a whole world of possibiliities relating to theological implications of cosmology. Who are we to say that at if we broke through the very edge of the universe we wouldn't see Jesus sitting at the Right Hand?

Again, my issue is in dealing with the text, and if the text says that Jesus "ascended", and there is nothing otherwise relaible to build on to contradict that without seriously jeopardising the whole of our beliefs, I will take them for what they say, and let the tensions stand for another time when all things will be revealed.

[Derby]

Ransom

'Christ technically existed in the Father before creation'

This is intriguing - would you say more about it?

[Ransom v. Unman]

Ransom

'Christ technically existed in the Father before creation'

This is intriguing - would you say more about it?

Well, basic Trinitarianism states it... If the Incarnation is in fact God taking on flesh as the Bible seems to indicate, then Christ and the Father's oneness would have put Christ as existing before time began.

Also, Paul pretty clearly states in Colossians...

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.


Notes: While it says He is the "firstborn" of creation, it also says He is before all things, and that it was through Him that all things came into being. This notion of the "firstborn" is actually a reference to Messianic prophecy, namely a Psalm concerning the house of David, Psalm 89. This idea of Christ being "firstborn of creation" doesn't necessarily mean He exists after creation. Next, we have Christ being before "all things" (creation) adn holding them together.

This, it seems to me, pretty plainly explains that Christ was indeed a pre-existent "entity", if in no other way than because of His oneness with the Father.

[Derby]

Ransom

Thanks. That seems orthodox and sound.

I have a few thoughts from John’s Gospel:
-The Son was in the beginning with God
-The words of the Son are not just his own
they are of the Father living in him
-All come to the father through the Son
The Father gives them to the Son
-The Son sends the Spirit out from the Father
-The Spirit will take from the Son and be your Counsellor
He will testify about the Son
-The Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son

I know that you find John rather an enigma.

My little enigma is about the phrase ‘and the Son’ added to the Nicene Creed in the year 589 by the Western church – ‘The Holy Spirit…proceeds from the Father and the Son’.
The Eastern church believes that there must be a single Fount of Divinity in the Godhead and rejects the extra phrase.

I thought it would be interesting to put the two enigmas together plus Colossians and see what comes out. I realise that the Trinity is a holy mystery – I don’t like mysteries – but I would like to understand what can be understood. I would like a clearer picture of the relationship between Father, Son and Spirit.

If you consider the exercise not viable, please say so, I have no wish to waste your time, Derby.

[Ransom v. Unman]

Ah, you don't like mysteries... That stinks. Life's gonna' be pretty rough for ya', mate, it's replete with mysteries that'll never get solved.

The Trinity has never been such a conundrum to me as it has been to so many others. It seems pretty simple. We have God, omnipresent, all-powerful, blah, blah, blah. This general notion we have of the Grand Creator being everywhere and behind everything at the same time is what we more or less see as "The Father".

Now, the Holy Spirit represents the active presence of the Father. The Ancient Jews (who had the concept of the Holy Spirit nailed down before a Christian was ever to be found) realised that while God the Father was everywhere and always active, there were some places, like Sinai, or the Temple, or in the inspiration of the prophets, where He was really active. They called this presence the Ruach Ha'Kodesh, or "Spirit of the Holy One", which through a few jumps and skips from Hebrew to Greek to English means "Holy Spirit." So, there's two of 'em...

Now, the incarnate Deity – Jesus of Nazareth – is the closest thing I come to hitting a slippery banana peel in the Trinitarian dancefloor. But the way I figure, the Father sends the Holy Spirit to Mary, and through the Spirit's miraculous power causes her to bear the "enfleshment" of God, born from a divine union between man and God. Hence, Jesus, who is the answer to the question of "What if God was one of us?"

Anyway, that's my idea on it. I'm not so sure that too many strict theologians would appreciate it, but that's the easiest way for me to get a grasp on the whole thing.

[ProfessorAlan]

This was one of the conundrums the early church faced, and is known as Arianism. Arius did not believe in the Trinity, and instead taught that Father and Son did not exist together eternally. He taught that the pre-incarnate Jesus was a divine being created by the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist. Arians believe that Jesus was a "creature," and that the phrase "firstborn of Creation" proves this.

The conflict between Arianism and Trinitarian beliefs was the first major doctrinal confrontation in the Church after the legalization of Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine I. The Council of Nicea denounced the teaching as "heresy" and the wording of the Nicene Creed (that the Son was "one in being with the Father" by use of the Greek word "homoousius") reflects an orthodox, non-Arianistic belief in the Trinity.

[Katibriah]

The Trinity has never been such a conundrum to me as it has been to so many others. It seems pretty simple. We have God, omnipresent, all-powerful, blah, blah, blah. This general notion we have of the Grand Creator being everywhere and behind everything at the same time is what we more or less see as "The Father".

Now, the Holy Spirit represents the active presence of the Father. The Ancient Jews (who had the concept of the Holy Spirit nailed down before a Christian was ever to be found) realised that while God the Father was everywhere and always active, there were some places, like Sinai, or the Temple, or in the inspiration of the prophets, where He was really active. They called this presence the Ruach Ha'Kodesh, or "Spirit of the Holy One", which through a few jumps and skips from Hebrew to Greek to English means "Holy Spirit." So, there's two of 'em...

Now, the incarnate Deity – Jesus of Nazareth – is the closest thing I come to hitting a slippery banana peel in the Trinitarian dancefloor. But the way I figure, the Father sends the Holy Spirit to Mary, and through the Spirit's miraculous power causes her to bear the "enfleshment" of God, born from a divine union between man and God. Hence, Jesus, who is the answer to the question of "What if God was one of us?"

Anyway, that's my idea on it. I'm not so sure that too many strict theologians would appreciate it, but that's the easiest way for me to get a grasp on the whole thing.

Wow Ransom. That is the clearest I've ever heard it explained before. I've heard many different explanations, but yours actually fits the way I think. That's awesome. Thanks for sharing. :)

[Derby]

Ransom

Thanks, as usual, your reply is excellent.

But, one little point:

'Ah, you don't like mysteries... That stinks. Life's gonna' be pretty rough for ya', mate, it's replete with mysteries that'll never get solved.'

You have diligently studied the mystery and reached a rational conclusion incorporating both Faith and Reason - which I think is where a Christian should be.

But it is possible to get into the habit of taking the easy way out on a point and say - It's in the Bible so I accept it - I think this is an attitude which weakens our influence on people who do not presently believe but are thinking about Christian things.

[Colin]

This is an amazing debate and I have enjoyed reading all the posts. I am not as learned as you my good friends in here but I was always convinced of a six day..twenty four hour day creation. I also have my views on all the rest you have been debating but everytime I get something settled in my mind..someone comes up with another theory!

[lynnmosher]

I know, Colin, it is sometimes confusing. It has taken me several years to find that point of comfort and assurance on a few matters. So glad to see you here, my friend!

[Ransom v. Unman]

Wow Ransom. That is the clearest I've ever heard it explained before. I've heard many different explanations, but yours actually fits the way I think. That's awesome. Thanks for sharing. :)
It's amazing how much confusing doctrines suddenly clear up when you do this astounding thing and study the New Testament and early "Christianity" as naught more than a work of Second Temple Jewish literature written by a bunch of Second Temple Period Jews. :rolleyes:
Ransom

Thanks, as usual, your reply is excellent.

But, one little point:

'Ah, you don't like mysteries... That stinks. Life's gonna' be pretty rough for ya', mate, it's replete with mysteries that'll never get solved.'

You have diligently studied the mystery and reached a rational conclusion incorporating both Faith and Reason - which I think is where a Christian should be.

But it is possible to get into the habit of taking the easy way out on a point and say - It's in the Bible so I accept it - I think this is an attitude which weakens our influence on people who do not presently believe but are thinking about Christian things.
Derby, I understand you very well. Indeed, some things are very much worth investigating! Certainly, things like inerrancy, the Trinity, creation, etc., etc. should not be locked away in a theological vault with an imprimatur and a "DO NOT TOUCH" sign on them. What I'm simply saying is that in the end, all our understanding is finite, whether we're talking about issues of theology, biblical research, science and cosmology, or even self awareness.

I've taken an approach of accepting for face value reliable observations, and seeking understanding when available, and resting content (momentarily) when explanations are lacking.

I've learned through many years to grow comfortable with mysteries, but this hasn't dampened my desire to learn and understand – it's just made it a lot easier for me when I can't. It takes out a lot of frustration. Stangely, it has also allowed me to draw much, much closer to God and others. I think contentment with regards to the mysteries is a part of what faith is all about – "the substantiation of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

[Tommie Lyn]

It is my belief that God created everything. That it is not a parable, it is reality.

Whether He did it in six 24-hour days or in six eras of undetermined length is not a matter of concern to me.

And how Christ ascended into heaven is also nothing I concern myself about -- what matters to me is that He did.

God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. He can do things that I, as a finite being, inhabiting a created world of three dimensions, cannot understand, can only perceive a glimmering of.

As far as the Biblical account being problematic where science is concerned, that is not accurate. The contradictions occur between it and the scientific theories, which theories have not been proven, by the way, and remain only theories. And, as held by some in the scientific community, those theories and the thought which have grown up around them constitute a religion of sorts. The actual difficulty is between the Biblical account and science religion. And that bothers me not one whit.

One scientist (who was once an atheist but is now a believer) told me that, from what God says about Himself in the Bible, he speculates that God is a six-dimensional Being. As such, there is no way for human beings, who are limited by their three-dimensional experience, to grasp Who God is, except by His relating Himself to things we can identify with.

So, I won't get hung up on things that God used to communicate to us on matters like the ascension, for example. I may or may not understand the exact concept He was revealing, but it doesn't matter.

What does matter is this -- I can believe and I can obey Him. Or, as Solomon said: "The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person." Ecclesiastes 12:13

[lynnmosher]

I'm right behind you, Tommie Lyn!

[Colin]

Where are you guys getting those avatars? I agree totally with Tommie Lynn as well. One thing that does amuse me about some Christians. They say...o yes Colin, we believe the God created all in six twenty four hour days and yes we believe that is how it all happened. Then the next thing they are nodding in agreement when you say...well sure wasn't the Giants Causeway formed by volcanoes erupting billions of years ago and the lava cooling down and forming the pillars. They cant have it both ways. If you believe in a six twentyfour day creation then you cant accept what the scientists say about the Giants Causeway. I have watched so many good videos of Christian scientist pulling the theory of evolution to threads and also proving that the earth is only about six to ten thousand years old which would fit in with the Biblical account.

[Ransom v. Unman]

Colin – How often have you read or watched rebuttals to most of those Young-Earth Creationist arguements?

[ProfessorAlan]

Christian scientist pulling the theory of evolution to threads ... earth is only about six to ten thousand years old which would fit in with the Biblical account.
Are those my only two options?

Because I pick "C."

[Cymrugirl]

*chuckles*

So clearly, this thread began with the ascension but descended into other topics....LOL

I had no idea.

I've always wondered if the saints that currently reside in their human bodily form in heaven, Elijah, Enoch...ya ya - well, I've always wondered.....ahem.....if they have ablutions, and if so, where?

Somebody has to ask.

There are multiple mysteries in the Word of God. I love them. Mystery makes for good marriages.

On the Gospel of John - the most fearsome wordstudy I ever did was on the opening chapters of John Chapter one - and with it I tried to outline the path of the Trinity in the narrative, etc, and do a parallel study on the opening verses in Genesis. I ended it with a raging headache and a small little laugh at the ceiling, knowing somehow that He was having a tiny laugh at me. Perhaps I'll give it a go again someday....seems clear as day, until you break it down line by line. I've not lingered in John for a while.

Whatever its eventual backstory, it has a poetry about it that I adore.

[Derby]

Tommie Lyn

'God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent'

I don't care for these words to be applied to God - to me they make him sound impregnable, detached. I think I know what you are getting at. I imagine they do not appear in the Bible.

If God knows how he is going to act in a matter, then he cannot change his mind - so this is something he can't do? - he is not omnipotent?
Can prayer make him change his mind? If he changes his mind he is not omniscient?

[ProfessorAlan]

derby, if you could understand Him, would He be much of a God?

[lynnmosher]

I don't think prayer changes God's mind; it just changes things.

[Cymrugirl]

I don't care for these words to be applied to God - to me they make him sound impregnable, detached. I think I know what you are getting at. I imagine they do not appear in the Bible.

If God knows how he is going to act in a matter, then he cannot change his mind - so this is something he can't do? - he is not omnipotent?
Can prayer make him change his mind? If he changes his mind he is not omniscient?

How does "all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present" make God sound detached? If anything it should make Him seem unshakable. Impregnable - to be sure. His nature cannot change. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

As to whether or not He changes his mind, the Scriptures do record accounts where He had made a decision and an intercessor prayed and He did something else. The idea that we have no participation in what He is doing seems flawed - however, we certainly have no participation in who He is. He is "I Am." He was and is and is to come. How can a finite being possibly form His character? His eternal Being which has no beginning? We cannot.

But truly, it seems that humans have participated in altering His course which is a separate thing from His Identity or His Power. God may alter His path without altering His attributes. A judge may retract a sentence, not because he steps down as a judge, but precisely because he is one in the first place.

Prayer for change, is above all, a relinquishing of one's own self. In saying "I need" we veto our own strengths - we do not alter anything about God, but ourselves. In His answering "yes, you do need and here you are" He is still God. There is nothing of Almighty submission in this exchange, but quite the opposite. The Almighty is the focus, the Hero, the Knight.

But the very proclamation of Christ "you have not, because you ask not" suggests there is a cause and effect at work within the realm of righteous prayer.

[Colin]

I have watched, read and heard both sides of arguments for young earth or old earth. For creation or evolution. I am convinced of creation and of a young earth but as God said to Job....where you there when I did all this? So I think I will just take God's word for it when He says He did such and such when and where. I dont have to understand but accept it by faith.

[lynnmosher]

How does "all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present" make God sound detached? If anything it should make Him seem unshakable. Impregnable - to be sure. His nature cannot change. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

As to whether or not He changes his mind, the Scriptures do record accounts where He had made a decision and an intercessor prayed and He did something else. The idea that we have no participation in what He is doing seems flawed - however, we certainly have no participation in who He is. He is "I Am." He was and is and is to come. How can a finite being possibly form His character? His eternal Being which has no beginning? We cannot.

But truly, it seems that humans have participated in altering His course which is a separate thing from His Identity or His Power. God may alter His path without altering His attributes. A judge may retract a sentence, not because he steps down as a judge, but precisely because he is one in the first place.

Prayer for change, is above all, a relinquishing of one's own self. In saying "I need" we veto our own strengths - we do not alter anything about God, but ourselves. In His answering "yes, you do need and here you are" He is still God. There is nothing of Almighty submission in this exchange, but quite the opposite. The Almighty is the focus, the Hero, the Knight.

But the very proclamation of Christ "you have not, because you ask not" suggests there is a cause and effect at work within the realm of righteous prayer.

I've just been reading and staying mainly in the background. You always state your thoughts so eloquently and I totally agree with you, even though my statement may have sounded otherwise. I did not mean to imply that we have no say. Oh, my, no. Quite the contrary.

I've always wondered about those passages in the OT that speak of God changing His mind. I've wondered whether He said what He said in order to evoke a response in a person to pray or do something in order to affect a change in some circumstance.

It reminds me of a parent/child situation. If my child is acting up and I give an ultimatum, knowing full well I won't impliment it because I am just trying to get my child to straighten up and know that he/she will act accordingly, not liking the scenario I've just set up. Okay, so maybe it's not a good analogy but I can't think of another one right now.

I know, someone will say that God was then lying, which He cannot do. I'm just thinking "out loud." I probably shouldn't even being posting this as I'm not feeling very well at the moment and don't think I'm making much sense. Okay, now take your potshots at me.

[Ransom v. Unman]

I have watched, read and heard both sides of arguments for young earth or old earth. For creation or evolution. I am convinced of creation and of a young earth but as God said to Job....where you there when I did all this? So I think I will just take God's word for it when He says He did such and such when and where. I dont have to understand but accept it by faith.

As long as your opinion's informed then... For my part, I really don't know where to stand, but it's not one of those issues I feel comfortable about being in the middle of, as there's a great weight of theological implications either way, I'm afraid.

/sigh

[Derby]

What does the Bible say?

The twentieth century theologian Rudolph Bultmann thought that
"the New Testament proclamation is stated and understood in mythological terms, which were perfectly legitimate and intelligible in the first century. He wanted to extract the truths which lie beneath. There is nothing specifically Christian about the mythical view of the world as such, it is simply from a pre-scientific age. Nobody can adopt a view of the world as a matter of choice; it has already been determined by our place in history. The purpose of myth is not to present an objective picture of the world as it is, but to express human understandings of themselves in the world in which they live. Myth needs 'interpreting'.
Some of the 'tools' of Bultmann were a study of apocalypticism, rabbinic literature, the Hellenistic age and the Qumran texts."

I don't like the word 'mythological' used in this context - 'only existing in the imagination'. It is the wrong word but it may be just someones' translation from the German. Perhaps there is a better word. Sometimes the appropriate word may be 'parable' but at times this does not seem correct either.

I am not a theologian; I have just read some of this stuff. I would reason that this need of 'translation' is also needed with the Old Testament and that because of its greater age there are extra difficulties. I suggest that some passages in the Bible need to be seen with the above in mind.

[ProfessorAlan]

There are myriad types of literature presented to us in Scripture: history, parable, law, poetry, letters, apocalypse, prophecy ... and they can't be interpreted as if these styles are all identical and meant to communicate the same things to the reader.

This is not because I put a low value of Scripture, but because I put an exceedingly high value on it -- I want desperately to read it right. And I think readig it right involves understanding the context in which the particular piece of Scripture was written.

I put Gen 1 & 2 as mostly in the "myth/parable/poetry" category, and interpret it as such.

[kshsj777]

If Genesis belongs in the myth/parable/poetry category, then you're implying that that the events in Genesis represent something else.

Most other times when we have parables in the Bible, it'll say what they mean afterwards. Like in the book of Daniel, he receives the vision of the statue, and is told what the different metals in the statue represent. In the vision of the ten horns, with another horn coming up to destroy three of them, it says that the ten horns are ten kings etc.

The parable that Jesus told, He told the disciples what it represented, like the parable of the sower and the four soils, representing four ways people respond the gospel. Or the parable of the ten virgins representing those that ready for Christ's coming, etc.

So where in Genesis does it say that what anything represents? Where do you read what the Fall represents or what the days of creation represent? What is there to figure out? It isn't cryptic. It isn't hard to understand.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." What's there to interpret?

Exodus 20:9-11

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

God commanded the ancient Israelites to keep the Sabbath, and the reason He provided for them obeying that commandment, was that He made the world in six days and rested on the seventh.

But if Genesis is a parable, if the six days of creation weren't literal, then why would God use that as reason for working for six literal days and resting on the seventh (a literal day).

If God meant the six days to represent millions of years, then why not just say that that is what the days represent? Why not say "These six days represent long periods of time"? If God wanted to tell us that He made everything in six literal days, how much more clearly could He have said it than in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20?

Paul apparently seemed to think that Genesis was a literal account. Romans 5: 17-19

"For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

If the Fall was a real event and Adam and Eve were real people, than it can't be a parable or a myth can it? If Adam didn't really sin, than how could Christ through act of righteousness really save us?

And how would the following passage make any since? 1 Cor 15: 42- 47

"So also is the resurrection of the dead It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL " The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.

What meaning does Last Adam have, if the first Adam didn't exist? Why does Paul use Adam's existence as the basis for his arguments?

Even Jesus Himself believed in a literal Genesis. Matthew 19:4-6

"And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Once again, the events in Genesis chapter 2 set the basis for marriage. Why would Jesus quote from it, expecting them to believe it, if it wasn't true?

If you don't take the six days of Genesis literally, then why do you take the three days Jesus spent in the tomb literally? Why believe in a literal resurrection?

Paul said in 1 Cor 15: 16-19

"For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. "

Paul believed that these passages were literal, and he built very important doctrines on those historical truths.

For centuries, Genesis has been accepted as literal truth. It wasn't until unbelievers came along and insisted that the Earth had to be millions of years ago, that we compromised and decided that Genesis couldn't be literal anymore. In another words, we took what scientists in white coats said and decided to re-interpret the Bible to fit what unbelievers proclaimed.

Not a single one of us was there when God made the universe. So why do we think that because scientists claim the universe is billions of years old, that we can't believe an Eyewitness that was there, the One who did what He said He did.

The issue isn't whether or not God could've made it in six days or millions of years. He certainly had capability to do it however He wanted. But He chose to tell us in His word how He did.

Evolution teaches that the sun formed before the earth, but Genesis teaches that the Sun was made on Day 4, after the Earth. Evolution teaches that we came from a common ancestor. But God says He made people, animals and plants after their own kind. Sure species change, but you'll never see one animal turn into another.

Evolution teaches that the canyons and other formations took millions of years to form. God says there was a worldwide catastrophe that only Noah and his family survived. This worldwide flood could easily explain what all the fossils we see and even explain it better than the evolutionary theory.

Evolution teaches that life came from single celled organisms, but God says that He created Man in His own image.

Evolution teaches that theory of the Big Bang, but God says He created the heavens and the earth and all that in them is.

Evolution teaches that death is a normal part of life, but God says that everything He made was good. Evolution requires millions of years of death and suffering before humans came along, but God says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--" (Romans 5:12)

Evolution tries to teach that man is constantly evolving and improving, but God says in Romans 3: 10-18:

10as it is written,
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
13"THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,"
"THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS";
14"WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS";
15"THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."

And what did God tell Job?

Job 38: 4-11

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
5Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
6"On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8"Or who enclosed the sea with doors
When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;
9When I made a cloud its garment
And thick darkness its swaddling band,
10And I placed boundaries on it
And set a bolt and doors,
11And I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther;
And here shall your proud waves stop'?


Who are we going to believe? Are we going to start believing the Bible at Genesis chapter 12? Or are we going to start from the very first verse?

We are believers. Shouldn't we believe what God has said? There cannot be errors in His Word, since it is His word. If we think the Bible is wrong, than the problem is with us, not with the Bible.

[ProfessorAlan]

I love God's word and don't believe in evolution.

Why do I get accused of that, if I don't take Gen 1 & 2 exactly literally?

I don't get that those are the only two choices.

[kshsj777]

Okay. If you don't believe in evolution, and you don't believe in a literal Genesis, then what do you believe in? Most people who don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis believe in evolution, since that's why they don't interpret Genesis literally.

[lynnmosher]

Everybody is doing pretty good...just a reminder to play nice!

[Ransom v. Unman]

Kellie – TL,DR

Look it up on google.

I'll still stand up and say that to handle every section of an entire book in the exact same way is misguided. Within a book of the Bible, there are a myriad of types of texts. Based on study of linguistic tradition and comparitive studies in Ancient Near Eastern literature, I firmly do not believe that the entire book of Genesis – or even any other book of the Torah – was written down, in order all at the same time. I don't think this undermines inspiration one little bit, nor do I think this should cause anyone to exclude the possibility that one section of one Scripture represents a pre-scientific understanding of a certain phenomenon, while within that same Scripture we are given historically reliable details about various facets of ancient life and history.

But I won't take it as far as Bultmann did either. I am a theologian (I've got a nifty little piece of paper in the other room that says so) and I will say that Bultmannianism is nothing more than misguided atheism bordering on double-think. ProfAlan is pointing out that there is a place for disagreeing with both Bultmann and the fundamentalists, and still be proper and orthodox adherents to Christian tradition, belief and practise.

Our salvation never hinged on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I feel insulted when people insist that it does.

[Colin]

I looked up your age kshsj777 and you have a lot more sense than some of our more learned friends. I have read your post and completely agree with everything you have written. I talked to a preacher of the Gospel and he said he had believed as I until these men in white coats started "proving" that Genisis was not totally correct. He sits on the radio every Sunday still preaching yet says such and such a thing has been found which is billions of years old. Carry on triple 7 and God bless.

[Derby]

Colin

What is your response to the idea of carbon-dating?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years.[1] Raw, i.e. uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as AD 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates.

The technique of radiocarbon dating was discovered by Willard Libby and his colleagues in 1949[2] during his tenure as a professor at the University of Chicago. Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work.

One of the frequent uses of the technique is to date organic remains from archaeological sites. Plants fix atmospheric carbon during photosynthesis, so the level of C14 in living plants and animals equals the level of C14 in the atmosphere.

[kshsj777]

Colin, thank you for your encouragement.

Derby and anyone else interested,

First of all, I will admit I am not an expert on carbon dating, but I do know this:

Scientists have not yet discovered anything that doesn't have carbon 14 in it, which means everything has to be less the 50,000 years (I believe it is 50,000 years, or somewhere close).

If you don't mind here is a link to a website by scientists that can explain it better than I can.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

I hope this will answer your question. If it doesn't, feel free to look around at other articles they have that might answer it and some others.

[Ransom v. Unman]

I'm familiar with AIG... and let me reassure you their science and reasoning can be just as spotty as any radical-atheist evolutionisnts', which is kind of my point...

I don't know where I stand in the whole scheme of things. I believe that if evolution is true, that this does not actually undermine the Bible one bit. If a literal account of creation is true, well, then there we have it obviously.

The rehtorical fallacies and decidedly un-scientific processes by which both sides have reached their conclusions cause me to be sceptical of everyone, though I think it says a great deal that even staunchly theistic scientists (even Christian ones) who are well-respected in their field give creedence to evolutionary processes (cf. Hugh Ross, Michael Behe.)

What I posit is that a literal, unbending reading of Genesis 1 may not only prove unfeasible in the eyes of reason and discourse, it may be inappropriate to take the text as such regardless. We as writers should not be satisfied with the surface-level answers given on either side. The book that describes our end is not a literal explanation of the Last Things, and I think it foolish to adamantly and without caveat say that the book describing our beginnings must subscribe to such scrutiny.

Boy have we hijacked the krap out of this thread in the meantime...

[Rebecca]

Evolution isn't true. Faith aside, and looking at it from a a purely scientific standpoint, there is a huge, glaring hole in the theory.

Where are the fossils?

We have tens of thousands (or more) fossils of every type of creature, from all over the earth. Among them, there are no fossils--not even one--of a creature in a transitional form. Everything is in its current form and stage (or stage when it became extinct).

That's the evolutionist's dirty little secret.

Whether God created the Earth and its inhabitants in seven literal days, I don't know. What I do know, simply by looking at the hard evidence, is that macro evolution was not involved.

[Ransom v. Unman]

Evolution isn't true. Faith aside, and looking at it from a a purely scientific standpoint, there is a huge, glaring hole in the theory.

Where are the fossils?

We have tens of thousands (or more) fossils of every type of creature, from all over the earth. Among them, there are no fossils--not even one--of a creature in a transitional form. Everything is in its current form and stage (or stage when it became extinct).

That's the evolutionist's dirty little secret.

Whether God created the Earth and its inhabitants in seven literal days, I don't know. What I do know, simply by looking at the hard evidence, is that macro evolution was not involved.

...or at the very least, evidence for it is glarlingly insufficient.

[Colin]

I can imagine God creating a rock then getting a scientist to date it. I can imaging that scientist coming up with a date millions of years ago and God turning round and saying...how so...sure I have only created it. In my own humble way...cos people in here bamboozle me with science... I am trying to say that God could create something and it could appear to be milllions of years old. He planted trees in the garden of Eden and if you counted the rings if they were cut down...they might appear to be hundreds of years old but only having been planted there by God. I reason to myself of the "thinking" behind everything. How did eveloution know how to make the worlds round. How did it know to set the earth the exact distance from the sun. How did it know plants would need this and that and there would be male and female of species. I could go on. I put it to you that only a great mind could have thought of everything and things are not the way they are by chance. I also say...prove to me that one part of the Bible is incorrect or full of fables and I will no longer remain a Christian. If it can't be trusted in one part then the Bible is not worth the paper it is written on. This is only a country gull arguing here and you can bamboozle me with science if you want but I have my faith and I thought this was 4believers site.

[Ransom v. Unman]

Who said I don't believe or that you don't believe? Again, this is the kind of insult that gets my dander up, as well as the dander of a great many informed individuals who do not see this gulf between science and belief the way many others do. I'm not implying that you're any less informed, but I do take offence at you being all the more ready to tell me I don't have faith because I put forth the possibility that Genesis 1 is not a literal account.

I affirm that God created this world, that God has His hand over this world, that this is indeed a creation and not an accident, that Genesis is God's word, and that God can do anything He wants to. All this time, I have never said anything going against that.

It does seem strange to me that God would try to purposefully mislead us as to the nature and age of the universe with rocks, but I certainly don't say it's impossible. It does seem a bit inconsistent...

You're positing a false dilemma, Colin. The choices are not simply "Evolution" or "God", just as much as your choices are not "faith" or "reason." God gave us faith and reason. Science only tells us about phenomena that happen, it is up to us to contend with the truths scientific inquiry has yielded. Since science was never made with the capability of measuring the supernatural, and its view of existence is finite, I do not see how it poses any real threat to believers unless we become like unbending trees that will snap when the world blows too hard against it. People who insist on a literal 6-day creation may have their faith troubled by evolution and science so that they would make such a gulf. I do not hold so radically to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, and feel quite secure in it. Historically, faith has never been measured by how literally people took the creation account, it has been taken by how literally we believe in the life and redeeming work of Jesus Christ, and I do not think the theory of evolution threatens a blessed thing that is truly essential to Christian belief, practise or spritituality. This is the kind of phoney reasoning charlatans and propagandists like Dawkins, Hitchens and Smith would have you believe – I find it strange how Dawkins and Hamm come in such close agreement over this subject.

Anyway, I think this thread has well served its purpose, and we've bounced back and forth on multiple sides of all kinds of issues. It seems like we quit discussing the Ascension ages ago. I'm pulling my moderator authority and I'm going ahead and closing this thread. Feel free to start a new one discussing moral and theological implications of evolution vs. design vs. young-Earth creation, or a new thread discussing whatever. I'm even giving you permission to continue this discussion in private-messages with me (you won't get a TOS bat for this!)

I think we're all beginning to lose the sense of civil discourse that's supposed to be present, and with that, I now bring down my moderator hammer.

/closed