I'm always wondering how one can really take Genesis literally when there are two Creation stories, one where God creates Man and Woman together and then the Adam and Eve story. Which one is right? Were there two creations? Or was the first story Adam and Lilith?

Now, I am sorry, evolution CAN be observed in some species--maybe not humans because of our lifespans--but DEFINITELY microbes, including viruses...

They are currently sequencing the DNA of the SARS virus... SARS is a Coxsackie virus that somehow was able to mutate and become transmissible into humans from chickens (mainly). And then there are strains of SARS--strains are marked by variation of it's genetic material--RNA or DNA...

Then you have Avian Flu. Now that Influenza virus is NOT a joke and WHEN it hits the United States, you had better hope to God that we have a way to fight it...

HIV has switched around genetically at least 4 times since its knowledge... How does it do it? The Reverse Transcriptase--the stuff that AZT inhibits as well as other NNRTI's, is not "faithful"--called infidelity (:D) in maintaining an EXACT copy of it's parent genetic material--so you get variation from virion particles to virion particles within the same cells that eventually HIV infection destroys... Besides the reverse transcriptase takes a couple of the "host cell's RNA" and incorporates that "information" when it become proliferative...

Then you have all the antibiotic resistant bacteria cropping up 'cuz folks take too many antibiotics rather than riding out the illness...

Where I live, Metrazin [sp?] resistant Staphylacoccus Aureas (MRSA) infection rates are up and it ain't coming from infections in the hospital...

Then E. coli is not a joke...

Then West Nile Virus ain't joking this year...

We are about to be hit with pestilence... And God forbid it will be from bioterrorism... Because even I can think up some crazy stuh...

All your points are well taken, but I wanted to clarify my stance on this one. I'm not saying that Genesis is myth. I'm saying that it is in mythic history meaning, from a literary point of view, the time frame cannot be determined and we have absolutely no literature from any person from the period. We have the result of oral tradition.

Scriptural origin (beginning) and eschatology (end) writings must be considered in the context in which they're written. We can neither prove nor disprove whether or not they are literal. So, believing that they are literal is just as accurate as believing that they are not (though many, I'm sure, will disagree). In fact, some of the writings could be both literal and metaphoric.

I think we're talking about two different areas of science? I know that microevolution/adaptation occurs. I don't dispute that. It's the macroevolution and life out of nothing that I can't agree with.

But, I can understand why someone would find truth in macroevolution (Darwinian style) where a creator provided the material and then nature took charge. I don't agree with it, but I do understand how such an idea could come about.

Thanks for the clarification. :)

I'd rather discuss this topic with you than with SOME folks around heerah because you and I would have some interesting discourse...

The "fact is" :rolleyes: that the way science is practiced today that we take EVERYTHING literally and not with belief... Maybe science practiced during Darwin's time was not practiced that way, for sure, but the way it is practiced to day, you cannot DO science with a grant or fellowship without PROOF... That's the way the game is played in our "corner of the Universe". ;)

See that's where you have gotten it wrong about science--there IS NO SUCH THING AS SPONTANEOUS PRODUCTION!!! That's why everyone HATED Pasteur because he said it was because microorganisms were causing these illnesses from the food and they did not come from out of nowwhere, they were already in the food--hence Pasteurization of milk is important...

The first thing you learn mainly in physics, then in chemistry is the LAWS of Thermodynamics... Now, you'd be a STOOPID biologist if you did not know those LAWS to it's exactitude... NO ONE would respect you if you didn't know these...

When you have a LAW in science, it is ABSOLUTE TRUTH, it has been held true for many years, there is no deviation from it, you cannot argue with it, these are proven mathematically...

(Not saying God can't bend the laws... But we are not talking about the 9th dimension here, we are talking about 4 dimensions: length, width, heigth and time).

First Law of Thermodynamics:

Matter is neither created or destroyed, it just changes from one form into another...

Second Law of Thermodynamics:

Matter is moving from a state of organization to disorganization or entropy (S)

We us the calculation is of the Gibbs' Free Energy to symbolize these processes:

DG = DH - TDS

Why is that important in biology--well that is how enzymatic processes work--basic biochemical reactions...

Mmmhmmm...:p

I really did want to find if you agree that we're talking about two different areas of science. I can see how - I don't know what to call it - active and testable science would require proof, but - again, don't know what to call it - origin science cannot be proved in the same sense.

Like I said, I can understand how people would believe in macroevolution. What I can't see is how people believe that existence came out of absolutely nothing. The process of macroevolution would demand matter, yes?

Where did the matter come from? It couldn't have always existed because where did "always" come from itself?

I'm much more inclined to back the ideas behind Darwinian macroevolution.


ETA: You must have been answering my question before I posted this one!!! My bad!

With that in mind, I don't dispute the Laws...my question is about where everything began in the first place. Things beget things. Nothing, it appears, would beget nothing.

Matter can't be created or destroyed - by us, though. Where did matter come from?

Isn't it Cartesian philosophy from Decartes, that "What was God doing before He made the Earth"???

I think he came up with that "God sees everything at once"... Forget the exact Bible verses: but from my summation you have John that brings forth: In the beginning, Word was with God, the Word was God; then you have the "God is Love" aspect--He surrounds with love... That is about the "only" definitive definition of God...

Most scientist do not think about what is happening with a start, middle, and end... We have this perpetual mentality... Who started it kind of thing is not a question we want to know about... We really do not care about that kind of question. We are more concerned about what it is now, how it is now, and can we change it?

Now human origins at least genetically have been unequivocally shown by comparing and contrasting DNA sequences from one human to another and doing time line of traceablility... We can go back in time with that--kinna like Madat begat Dadat, etc.

We, scientist in fact call it the mitochondial Eve hypothesis and the Y chromosome Adam hypothesis... Irony at your best...

As far as other Homo sapiens... We molecular geneticists have Neanderthal DNA--not in modern human beings genes... We have Cro Magnon DNA--not in our genes... Chimpanzee DNA is only 98% similar to our DNA--but some genes are in different chromosomal locations making them different from humans...

Was there a split--which folks have a problem with? I dunno...

Do I care about that? NO... Because, either way, there ain't gonna be too many Homo sapiens sapiens around if we keep doing evilness to each other, anyways...

Maybe God will wash His hands of us...

I tend to agree with you which makes this entire topic very interesting. Scientists who don't agree with each other still work together successfully, as I mentioned. You seem to be agreeing here!

Can anyone really dispute microevolution when the evidence is visible RIGHT NOW? No. But, we can dispute macroevolution - though, as you've said - that's not really an area where scientists waste much time.

I don't want to take this discussion in circles any more than I already have so I'll leave that alone for now.

Quote:

We, scientist in fact call it the mitochondial Eve hypothesis and the Y chromosome Adam hypothesis... Irony at your best...

Yes I know about mitochondrial DNA. I think the Adam and Eve might have been foolish choices for names!! I realize that they have absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. :) I probably need to go back and read more about the subject because it is fascinating. From what I know, (and I know much less about the Y side of it!), mitochondrial DNA - coming from the maternal side - indicates the most recent common female ancestor and points to a similar female ancestor for everyone on earth at any given time. The research lost me when the crazy folks started trying to explain how M.E. changes with different circumstances.

P.S. You went out of my range of education when you dipped into the world of Descartes! I'd have to do some more reading before I would venture a response.

You did get me thinking about this though:

Max Weber (from a 1958 translation of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - He's talking about human freedom and progress and the actual outcome of the two working together:

"No one knows who will live in this cage in the future, or whether at the end of this tremendous development entirely new prophets will arise, or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals, or if neither, mechanized petrification embellished with a sort of convulsive self-importance. For at the last stage of this cultural development, it might truly be said: 'Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved.'"

*Have we reached this point in the U.S.? I know it has nothing to do with the topic, but it popped into my head and I had to post it!! I just think it's really interesting.

DA
 

Once again, My adopted State of Kansas is the focal point of ----!

God Created The Earth and Heavens, He made Adam, Adam was lonely for a little Hoopty Do! Ergo Eve.

He made the world in 6 days and on the 7 th He Rested. Now, just how friggen long were days back then? Are The Jews correct about Sat. or the Gentiles, Sun.?

So, Darwin said We came from ombebias who learned to crawl on the dirt, grow legs and eventually walk upright.

So, who in the Hell really gives a shit?:rolleyes: I aint dragging my knuckles on the rug, well most of the time!:D

How can we dispute macroevolution? People can argue that it is because it is beyond the span of one life time it can't be effectively messured - but then thats the great thing about writing and the genetic record. Darwin based his arguements on macroevolution - botanical and biological... for example plants and/or animals that have been effectively changed into a new species through domestication. Darwin wrote about the origin of species through natural selection - not spontaneous appearance; but a gradual favouring of mutations/traits that eventually would lead to a great enough alteration of an organism that it must be classified as a seperate species.

My point on that was that Darwin started from the position that a creator initiated the process. Also, I'm not disputing microevolution/adaption which seems to be what you're describing.

So, between the both above posters, what the hell are you actually saying?

A new species of a big trysanoris Rex was found in Utah, of the USA!

Not a meat eater, but a veggie freak.

So, who among any of us have the power to actually figure out what the heck actually happened?

New Mummy was found, said to be beautiful and a male!:)

Actually, We were promagateted from Aliens who built all of the Pyramids. Check the measurements and the points of North!

Egypt, Peru, Mexico and other parts of the world.

God, I love this shit!:cool:

Darwin was wrong about quite a few things - similar to Freud, however, he is credited for a pattern of thought that led to innovation in the field.

Why do you dispute macroevolution? Are you saying that dinosaurs did not become birds? Or did monkeys just not become humans?

If we can make it happen on organisms with shorter lifespans . . . why would you think it doesn't happen to those with longer lifespans? Or do you not understand what macro/microevolution refer to?

You cede some points that confuse me, because you seemingly contradict yourself - I'm genuinely curious.

I think what might seem contradictory is the difference between 1) my personal opinion and 2) what I consider otherwise logical but do not believe.

Personally: I believe that God created the universe (of course including original flora and fauna) as whole and complete. I also believe that adaptations and mutations occur, but do not support the theory that dinosaurs became birds or monkeys became humans.

Otherwise logical: I understand how one would come to the conclusion that dinosaurs became birds and monkeys became humans; especially from Darwin's perspective that matter originated with an other creator. My question for those that ascribe to this view (creator or not) is this:

Where did original matter come from?

AKA_Monet posited that scientists are really not concerned with this area of study - instead they are most interested in what is occurring at the time of their research.

Regardless of the origin of the universe, we now have scientific principles by which to understand our world.

No, let me clarify myself on the "origin of matter"...

I think most hardcore physicists are interested in forming new matter--or anti-matter for that matter... (HaHa--play on words)

But I think we all agree there blocks that were built upon building blocks to form so on and so forth...

I think where you and others differ is who is the "Initiator" of this process...

For me, can I say within certainty it was a higher power as a scientist, not really...

For me, can I say within my heart it was a higher power as a spiritual being, probably so...

But that's just me...

Astronomers measure how "far" and the "density" of an object based on several parameters: such a light years away, spectra, gravitational pull--that can be measured, but I don't know how, sounds, electromagnetic resonance imaging and other things that go waaay over my head--interesting to me, but still go over my head...

So that's how they come up with their Big Bang Theory, String Theory, Charmed Quarks, etc. They are one looney bunch of nerdy geeks that are very sweet folks and party way too much to pass the days. But it hey, it works for them...

I only know because I was a wannabe math, physics, engineering major in college, but I passed with an A+ in Molecular Biology...

Also, Darwin may have had his "Origins..." but we neglect our little priest :rolleyes: (now that's funny in this discussion), Gregor Mendel who developed Mendalian Genetics with his pea pods flowers where we get Aa X AA and heterozygous dominant and homozygous dominant--and all the recessive stuff at a ratio of 9:3:3:1...

It is the manipulation he never fathomed... But it was his concepts that brought us functional genomics as we know it today...

Right Girl! I was trying to say that "Initiator" of this process" cannot be determined by science, so that is not an area where most scientists (save a few crazies, as you point out ;) ) do not spend valuable time trying to determine this.

So, "evolutionists" and I are debating from different perspectives. If you believe that there was an intelligent originator or not, and you believe that all things came about through macroevolution, I'm saying that I understand that belief and it makes sense outside the context of biblical Genesis.

And, I also understand that biblical Genesis can be interpreted to support macroevolution in this sense. It can be interpreted in different ways. The study of evolution does not disprove the existence of God - it only brings into question the participation of God in the development of the cosmos.

Personally, while I can see how logically one might come about the belief in macroevolution, that is not my heartfelt and logical understanding of how the universe came about.

Anyway, my question remains - regardless of one's belief in an active and personal God - where did original matter come from in order for everything to be formed?

The question doesn't attempt to discredit the findings of science, only to honestly try to discover where it all came from. And, AKA_Monet, you've put forth a sentiment that I think a lot of scientists have right now: personally, you believe in an intelligent originator; but, as a scientist, you MUST be skeptical, as skepticism/wonder is at the heart of productive study.

Re: Re: Re: This is very mean of me...
 

Especially since we had it at 8:00 a.m. every day. There was never enough caffeine.

If everything was created whole and complete, why do we have a record of human progression, up until the current homo sapiens sapiens? Why can we see birds moving through different forms, developing feathers and reducing size and bone density, until flight became the exclusive form of motion rather than an exception?

Are you just believing in this notion, in spite of evidence to the contrary, because it fits you spiritually? That's completely fine if you are, but you seem to be doing the "I know all the evidence points toward X, and I'm fine with you believing X, but I believe Y" dance, and I genuinely want to understand.

Note that almost every (non-evangelical) Christian denomination accepts macroevolution as correct, including the notoriously stodgy Vatican (this point is also geared toward your "plenty of non-Christians believe in intelligent design" comments earlier).

Where did homo erectus come from?

Personally, you're asking a question that has no 'correct' answer - our understanding of the nature of matter is still incomplete. This sets up a false analogy, set out by many, many intelligent design proponents - it goes something like:

If you walk through the woods and see a rock, it could have reached that point through any variety of methods. If you instead see a watch, you must assume that it was dropped or otherwise left there by another person, as no set of circumstances otherwise could result in that particular item existing.

You're making a version of this argument extensible to the existence of the universe - namely, if we can't explain it, it must be due to God.

Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with believing that God created the universe in order to set the process of life in motion - this would be akin to God creating the legos with which to build the space station and all that good stuff. However, it is patently incorrect to imply that since there's no other explanation, it must be God - it's a twisting of Occam's Razor to incorrect use.

The counter to that would be simply asking why it couldn't just exist? Can you see how strange that argument sounds? Can you apply that to any other arguments you've read in this thread?

Excellent, excellent book. Having been to Haiti, I found it particularly fascinating.

I think this may be a useful distinction. I would call Genesis myth, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's true.

Again, we have a conflict of meaning of words: in common parlance "myth" means a fabricated story, something that itsn't true. In this sense, myth = fiction.

But in a more traditional sense, and in the sense used in a religious and cultural context, this hardly conveys the meaning of myth. In this religious/cultural context, a myth is a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society. (Thanks dictionary.com for this good definition.) Whether a myth is factual or not is almost irrelevant -- what matters is what it means.

Understood this way, a myth can be very true without being factual. The truth is not found in the facts of the story but in the meaning of the story for those who hear it.

The meaning of Genesis? God created the world and all that is in it, and declared it good. Humanity rebelled against God, creating a rift that God nevertheless reached across to claim a people through whom the rift would be healed. Given this meaning, the actual facts of how God created the world, while interesting, are irrelevant to the truth that Genesis conveys.

Maybe we need to get people reading more Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. They understood the role of myth and its connection to Christiatinity quite well.

I'd also add Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn, although he doesn't so much 'connect' with Christianity as extract from it some commonalities with other cultures, as well as examining the bases for various creation mythology - he does some very interesting things, and all require the useful context of 'myth' (ie not 'fabricated').

Hmmm, that's interesting. Either I'm having a brain fart moment or I've just never heard of the one where man & woman were created together. Where can this be found?

I am, of course, assuming by Adam & Eve you mean that God created Adam, then used his rib to create Eve.

Genesis 1:24-28 described God creating humanity in his image -- "male and female he created them" -- on the 6th day of creation, after the plants and animals.

Genesis 2:4-24 describes God creating Adam (which simply means "human being") "when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up -- for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth and there was no one to till the field." God then plants the Garden of Eden and places Adam in it, but finds that he needs a helper, so he creates "Adamah" -- "formed of Adam" -- from Adam's side. (The implication being that completeness is found in the uniting of male and female.) "Adamah" is later called "Eve," which comes from the Semitic word meaning "life" or "living," suggesting that as mother she gives life to those who come after her.

Genesis 1.26-30, specifically, Genesis 1.27

""So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."



Yep.

Okay, I completely misinterpreted what you had written. I was racking my brain trying to recall my earliest days of Sunday school or Bible class when there were other Creation theories being discussed and I just couldn't come up w/ anything...LOL. Definitely a brain fart moment.

I don't want to hijack this thread further, so if you're interested in discussing/debating your thoughts on interpretation of those passages, feel free to PM me.

We have assumed a logical progression. On this point, I am not fully convinced that we aren't observing various extinct species (I don't want to argue the terminology because I'm not a practicing scientist - is species correct?) or even groups of humans. The only explanation for our findings does not lie in macroevolution.

Quote:

Are you just believing in this notion, in spite of evidence to the contrary, because it fits you spiritually? That's completely fine if you are, but you seem to be doing the "I know all the evidence points toward X, and I'm fine with you believing X, but I believe Y" dance, and I genuinely want to understand.

In a sense, I am. My worldview stems from my faith. However, I am not a proponent for completely unfounded belief. With regard to my understanding of origin, there is a genuine possibility that macroevolution is an inaccurate judgment of the data.

Quote:

Note that almost every (non-evangelical) Christian denomination accepts macroevolution as correct, including the notoriously stodgy Vatican (this point is also geared toward your "plenty of non-Christians believe in intelligent design" comments earlier).

You're getting into territory that is touchy - something I'd rather not get into right here, right now. ;)

Quote:

Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with believing that God created the universe in order to set the process of life in motion - this would be akin to God creating the legos with which to build the space station and all that good stuff. However, it is patently incorrect to imply that since there's no other explanation, it must be God - it's a twisting of Occam's Razor to incorrect use.

I don't disagree. My answer to the question is God. Your answer to the question is otherwise. I can't prove my opinion to you, so the question is unanswerable. However, it must be asked as it is the basis for my worldview. I ask it with the knowledge that you disagree, but with the hope that it will serve to further explain me.

For me, there is no other explanation. So, yes, "it must be God."

Where I am coming from the perspective that God is in charge, you are coming from the perspective that science has the answers (or rather potentially has the answers). What you seem to be perceiving as contradiction is my consideration of what you believe...I understand what you're saying and, coming from your starting point, it would make sense. But, I don't agree.

Thanks for the clarification, it's definitely been interesting. Now:

Honestly, let's get into it - which particular sect do you believe in? Why are these others wrong with regard to evolution? This is all about free exchange of ideas, and I'm extremely curious.

You're talking about theology and biblical interpretation. Suffice it to say, certain sects of Christianity take the Bible completely metaphorically and, often, pick and choose what to believe.

I am certainly willing to tell you my position. I follow the teachings of the early church which includes such things as:

1) God is triune - Father, Son, Spirit are three equal natures of the same being
2) Christians are responsible for being disciples - my favorite book on the subject is I Peter (it outlines what Christians are supposed to be)
3) Salvation is by grace through Jesus - only through the sacrifice of Jesus is one able to commune directly with the father
4) Salvation is not gained by works HOWEVER works are an outward showing of faith and are demanded by God
5) The Spirit is currently active in the church
6) Christians are in a personal relationship with God
7) Scriptural teachings are accurate and inspired by God

The Christians you have referred to are most often high church (more concerned with hierarchy/church government than the relationship with a personal God - and, no, I'm not making a determination on which is right) and take liberties in biblical interpretation.

ETA: On the other side, you have such denominations as pentecostal/charismatic/third wave who lean more toward the relational and reject structure. These people are often very literal in biblical interpretation.

If you want to label me anything, I'm a conservative evangelical who believes in an equal balance between religion (sacraments, church order, pastoring, etc.) and spirituality (personal relationship with God, worship, life change, etc.)

I am not a relativist nor am I a pluralist - by any means.


Edited because I can't count...

Is this unilateral for you?

I only ask because there are numerous contradictions and mathematical/historical inaccuracies within the bible - for instance, Genesis is most likely two different stories fused together, as there are completely different (and non-relational) aspects described. It would seem that completely literal interpretation of the bible would become arduous accounting for these - how do you do it?

But what about translations? There could be one meaning for a word in one language and several in another. Wouldn't accuracy be somewhat lost?

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I'm just curious as to where you get your information about contradictions in the bible. There are many things that seem to be contradictions, but if you study cross references and "rightly divide the word of truth" there are no mistakes.

You ask how we (those who take a completely literal interpretation of the bible) do it and the only answer I have is through faith. "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." I know to many of you that answer is not good enough and you want "proof" or otherwise it's not a good enough answer, but that's the only answer I have. If that "blind" faith makes me stupid, well then so be it, but I do have a faith and belief in something that I have based my entire life on.

An interesting side note:
There is a little known belief that the creation story in genesis was not in fact the original creation of species. In Genesis 1:28 God tells Adam to REPLENISH the earth, indicating that there was something here BEFORE. Interesting.

There are many who believe that there is one accurate translation of the bible. Also, the bible tells us that "God is not the author of confusion..."

I've got to quibble with this characterization a little, at least to the extent that it might imply there are only 2 kinds of Christians: those who interpret the Bible as literally inerrent and those take the Bible "completely metaphorically" (to use your words) and, "often, pick and choose what to believe."

I think there is at least one other group, which would probably include Catholicism, Orthodoxy and most of classical Protestantism: the Bible is composed of a variety books in a variety of literary styles. Some of its contents must be read literally or as history, while other portions are not to be read literally, but instead to be read metaphorically, poetically, etc. We cannot pick and choose what to believe, but we do have an obligation to try and understand how the different parts of the Bible are to be read, and we miss the point if we take literally something that is not meant to be taken literally.

The parables provide an excellent snapshot of this phenomenon. I will agree with you that "Scriptural teachings are accurate and inspired by God." But does that mean that the parable of the Good Samaritan is to be read literally? (I actually heard one preacher claim once that, because the Bible is literally inerrent, all of the parables are accounts of real events.) If we read it literally, we miss the point. The Church Fathers read it allegorically. Often today, it is read metaphorically. The point of the parable, the "teaching" simply will not be found in a literal reading.

THe Hebrew Scriptures were originally written in, well, Hebrew. Hebrew to English; Hebrew to French, etc can vary slightly because some words just don't translate very well.

ETA: A prof I had said that in the original Hebrew, God takes a "side of Adam" rather than one of his ribs.

ETA II: If God isn't an author of confusion, then why are there two Creation stories?

Yes. Which is why anyone who really wants to study Scriptural texts needs resources to understand the original Hebrew and Greek.

Because the confusion only comes if one insists on literal interpretation of the creation accounts. An indication, perhaps, that the point of the stories is not to be found in any historical accuracy they may have.

:) I wasn't ignoring the spectrum between the two. In fact, in studying scripture from a scholarly position I do realize that different genres are to be taken differently. In addition, each translation (into English) cannot be separated from the time in which it was produced. MANY translations commit eisegesis (reading meaning into the text) rather than performing exegesis (drawing meaning from the text).

So, in commenting that "Scriptural teachings are accurate and inspired by God," I in no way intended to suggest that I believe the Bible to be literal in all cases.

In my previous response, I was attempting to condense the extremes into as short a post as possible.

Often, people who claim contradictions are parroting what they've heard. But, it's obvious that your statement is the result of serious questioning.

To answer your question, the Genesis issue is a result of a lack of understanding mythic writing in the Jewish tradition. I have not found any contradiction in the Bible as I've studied. When I find something that doesn't make any sense, I note it. Most often, when I've finally taken in the larger message, the contradiction disappears as it was never a real issue, only my misunderstanding.

*I also wanted to note that when I say that scripture is accurate and God inspired, I'm referring to the message and the lessons. I will be the first to point out some shaky grammar in the NT - at this point, I can only intelligently comment on the Greek since that's what I've studied thus far. Human error does not undermine the authority of the message - in fact, I believe that through some of the human errors, the Holy Spirit has actually been able to convey an even deeper meaning to some passages.

Again, my faith in the God inspired scripture is based on my complete and utter faith in God.


ETA: There is another element to biblical study that you most certainly will not accept: direction of the Holy Spirit. There are so many interpretations of the Bible because people are intelligent and inventive. They have genuine questions and make profound statements.

But, in order to glean the message of the Bible, from my basis of belief, one must submit to the direction of the Holy Spirit along with serious critical study.

I doubted you were, but I just didn't want to leave the inference out there.

Enjoying your posts.