Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Prompted by Note 23.77:

>For those of you foolish enough to contest this,
>it's not worthwhile going into details and/or discussions.
>Can't you see?!  Are you so blind?!

I got the impression that some wanted to go into detail and/or discussion
concerning the creation story.

So, here it is.  Have at it.

Peace,
Richard

In Note 23.68 I said:

>The Bible says the earth is flat and has a solid dome above it that is to
>keep back the chaotic waters above that dome. (Genesis 1:6-7)

Now I took this statement verbatim from a sermon I'd read by a pastor of
a mainline church (not my own).  I can't really say where this particular
preacher got the concept of chaotic waters, but I would guess it might be this:

"The raging ocean that covered everything was..."

It sounds pretty choatic to me.

About the flat earth:

"Then God commanded, 'Let there be a dome to divide the water and...'"

"So God made a dome, and it separated the water under it from the water
above it."

Again I dont know for certain what the preacher had in mind.  However,
these phrases, and others in Genesis 1, imply the person who set down the
account thought the earth to be other than spherical in shape.  A dome is
less likely to provide a barrier against a spherical earth.

Peace,
Richard

Interesting that the light of day and the darkness of night was created
before the sun and the moon and the stars.

Peace,
Richard

I think that "let there be light" was when God created the Schroedinger
time independent wave equation and Maxwell's equations and the rest of
the theory of wave mechanics that we haven't figured out yet.

/john

    .4
    
    Thanks, /john!  Hadn't considered that.
    
    %-}
    
    Richard

   I like genisis as a story that links creation with God and
   what man did with itself after emerging from the ooze.

   However if asked for specific details I feel the scientific
   explanations are the expansions to the creation story.

   Just my opinion, science was also the work of God.

   Peace,
   Allison

>   Just my opinion, science was also the work of God.

That's the Christian Perspective.  :-)

This thing that impressed me as I was typing in .0 is that God was pleased
with Creation; pleased repeatedly with Creation.

Buckminster Fuller has said:  "On spaceship Earth there are no passengers,
only crew."

God was pleased with Creation.  We have no right to abuse and squander the
environment we've been commissioned to have stewardship over.  Life's not a
free ride.  We have a responsibility to keep the sanctity of creation intact
and in a condition pleasing to the Creator.

Peace,
Richard

    
    
    I believe in the Big Bang theory.
    
    God spoke it and BANG there it was.
    
    As for science.  I believe that anything that is supposed to expand
    on biblical truth must not contradict that same truth and if it does,
    it's false.  
    
    Jill

I'm among the first to admit that science isn't perfect and that science has
made errors.

At the same time, for as much hardware as this country has shot off into
space, I think it's kind of strange that nothing has run into that dome 
mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis yet.  Now maybe we've just not
gone far enough into space - I don't know.  And I seem to recall that Einstein
did believe that space curved (a dome?).

I do know that the church tried to stifle Copernicus and Galileo because
their declarations were contrary to doctrine based on the same Holy Scripture
we use today.

Peace,
Richard

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 re:Note 522.10    CSC32::J_CHRISTIE
    >At the same time, for as much hardware as this country has shot off into
>space, I think it's kind of strange that nothing has run into that dome 
>mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis yet.  Now maybe we've just not
>gone far enough into space - I don't know.  And I seem to recall that Einstein
>did believe that space curved (a dome?).

    Are you refering to a water expanse above the earth that was used in
    the deluge?
    
>I do know that the church tried to stifle Copernicus and Galileo because
>their declarations were contrary to doctrine based on the same Holy Scripture
>we use today.

    Galileo wrote a work "Letters on Sunspots." It presented evidence that
    the Earth rotated around the sun rather then the other way around. He
    was under suspicion of heresy and recanted. But because he was accused
    doesn't mean it was contrary to what the Bible says; only what those
    accusers believed. Look at Job 26:7 and Isa 40:22. These verses portray
    a round earth in space; not a flat earth, or one that sits on the
    back of a turtle or held up by Atlas etc. As regards the sun and earth;
    Ecc 1:5 Jerusalem Bible says " The sun rises, the sun sets; then to
    it's place it speeds and there it rises. According to the Church's argument 
    a verse like this shows the sun moves not the earth. However, we know
    better. The Bible writer was simply describing what the apparent motion 
    of the sun was to a person on Earth. Another verse was Psalm 104:5 that
    spoke of the earth being fixed, unshakeable. In reality this is not
    stateing the earth doesn't move, rather it's permanent, it will never
    be destroyed. This true understanding of Psalm 104:5 is supported by
    Psalm 37:29 which talks of people forever residing on thhe earth and
    Ecc 1:4 which states the earth will stand (exist) to time indefinite.
     So it wasn't the Bible that was wrong, or Galileo, it was the Church's
    understanding of scripture at that time (I would hope they've changed 
    at least that understanding by now).
    
     Robin                        
    

    What??  Are you saying the church misunderstood Scripture??
    
    Why, if that's so, then it might be so even now!!  We can't have that!!
    
    
    
    
    ;-)
    
    Richard

    Re: .9
    
    Which is false? The so called 'biblical-truth' or science?

    Copernicus was a Roman Catholic theologian-astronomer and his ideas
    were not suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church.

    The Church committed errors in the case of Galileo, but Galileo is not
    blameless and any biography will demonstrate that, as .13 does as well.

    "False" has a obvious meaning in ordinary conversion.  What's false is
    what is knowingly contradictory to fact.  The definition rests on the
    foundation of what is knowledge and what is fact.  Knowledge and fact 
    are different for science and theology.

    Science comes from observation and experiment.  If it can't be observed
    or measured, it isn't science.

    Theology comes from revelation: God revealing his word and his will to
    humans.  The Roman Catholic Church, and indeed most churches, speak to
    matters of faith and morals.

    Theology and science are only in conflict when one misunderstands what
    is theology and what is science.

    re: .11
    
    >Are you refering to a water expanse above the earth that was used in
    >the deluge?
    
    This is a new one on me.  What water expanse or you talking about?  Is
    this something that is different than our normal everyday clouds?
    
    Mike

re Note 522.9 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     As for science.  I believe that anything that is supposed to expand
>     on biblical truth must not contradict that same truth and if it does,
>     it's false.  
  
        Yes, Jill, but doesn't that beg the question "exactly what is
        biblical truth ?"

        Bob

re Note 522.11 by SALEM::RUSSO:

>     As regards the sun and earth;
>     Ecc 1:5 Jerusalem Bible says " The sun rises, the sun sets; then to
>     it's place it speeds and there it rises. According to the Church's argument 
>     a verse like this shows the sun moves not the earth. However, we know
>     better. The Bible writer was simply describing what the apparent motion 
>     of the sun was to a person on Earth. 
    
        Robin,

        This perfectly illustrates what I was trying to say to Jill: 
        how does one decide whether a verse like Ecc 1:5 is
        describing an appearance, a metaphor, or an objective physical
        truth?  As you apparently did above, you used our knowledge
        of science to help settle such an ambiguity.

        As you wrote, "we know better".  The Church of Galileo's time
        did not know better (or denied that such knowledge was true).

        Bob

Note 9.436

>I thought the readership of this conference was too educated to
>take seriously Richard's "dome" arguments.  I honestly mean that.
>It wasn't even worth effort refuting - but I guess it is.

>Where has Richard shown that the Hebrew word in Genesis means
>exactly what you and I think of when we hear the word "dome"?  And
>must this be interpreted as a dome in the sense of a dome on a
>domed stadium?  Does the atmosphere provide a "dome" around the
>earth?  I hear that spaceships returning to earth have to enter
>at a specific angle.  I still don't know if this is true or not
>(although I think it is).  If it is (and they could bounce away
>if entering at the wrong angle), could we then say that there is
>a "dome" around the earth - even if Richard can't see it?

Collis,

	You may be right.  Perhaps after many generations of the oral
tradition, and then when Genesis was finally committed to writing, the word
that translates to "dome" in the TEV actually meant something else than it
does now.  Perhaps the ancients understood the things which were said and
written at the time very differently than we do now.  Perhaps the ancients
had a better grasp of the nature of the cosmos than we do.

	You're not a biblical literalist.  Neither am I.  But would you believe
that biblical literalists *do* exist?  And that these folks *do* take the
Genesis story quite literally as it is understood in ordinary English?

Richard

PS  I wouldn't call what I presented an argument.  But that's a nit.

>Perhaps the ancients had a better grasp of the nature of the cosmos than we do.

One thing is certain:  the ancients had a better grasp of the nature of the
cosmos than Christianity's detractors are willing to give them credit for.

RELIGION AND SCIENCE by C.S. Lewis, 3 January 1945

`Miracles', said my friend.  `Oh, come.  Science has knocked the bottom out
of all that.  WE know that Nature is governed by fixed laws.'

`Didn't people always know that?' said I.

`Good Lord, no,' said he.  `For instance, take a story like the Virgin
Birth.  We know now that such a thing couldn't happen.  We know there
_must_ be a male spermatozoon.'

`But look here', said I, `St. Joseph --'

`Who's he?' asked my friend.

`He was the husband of the Virgin Mary.  If you'll read the story in the
Bible you'll find that when he saw his fianc�e was going to have a baby he
decided to cry off the marriage.  Why did he do that?'

`Wouldn't most men?'

`Any man would', said I, `provided he knew the laws of Nature -- in other
words, provided he knew that a girl doesn't ordinarily have a baby unless
she's been sleeping with a man.  But according to your theory people in the
old days didn't know that Nature was governed by fixed laws.  I'm pointing
out that the story shows that St. Joseph knew _that_ law just as well as
you do.'

`But he came to believe in the Virgin Birth afterwards, didn't he?'

`Quite.  But he didn't do so because he was under any illusion as to where
babies came from in the ordinary course of Nature.  He believed in the Virgin
Birth as something _super_natural.  He knew Nature works in fixed, regular
ways:  but he also believed that there existed something _beyond_ Nature
which could interfere with her workings -- from outside, so to speak.'

`But modern science has shown there's no such thing.'

`Really,' said I.  `Which of the sciences?'

`Oh, well, that's a matter of detail,' said my friend.  `I can't give you
chapter and verse from memory.'

`But don't you see', said I, `that science never could show anything of the
sort?'

`Why on earth not?'

`Because science studies Nature.  And the question is whether anything
_besides_ Nature exists -- anything "outside".  How could you find that
out by studying simply Nature?'

`But don't we find out that Nature _must_ work in an absolutely fixed
way?  I mean, the laws of Nature tell us not merely how things _do_
happen, but how they _must_ happen.  No power could possibly alter
them.'

`How do you mean?' said I.

`Look here,' said he.  `Could this "something outside" that you talk about
make two and two five?'

`Well, no,' said I.

`All right,' said he.  `Well, I think the laws of Nature are really like
two and two making four.  The idea of their being altered is as absurd as
the idea of altering the laws of arithmetic.'

`Half a moment,' said I.  `Suppose you put sixpence into a drawer today,
and sixpence into the same drawer tomorrow.  Do the laws of arithmetic
make it certain you'll find a shilling's worth there the day after?'

`Of course', said he, `provided no one's been tampering with your drawer.'

`Ah, but that's the whole point,' said I.  `The laws of arithmetic can tell
you what you'll find, with absolute certainty, _provided_that_ there's no
interference.  If a thief has been at the drawer of course you'll get a
different result.  But the thief won't have broken the laws of arithmetic
-- only the laws of England.  Now, aren't the laws of Nature much in the
same boat?  Don't they all tell you what will happen _provided_ there's
no interference?'

`How do you mean?'

`Well, the laws will tell you how a billiard ball will travel on a smooth
surface if you hit it in particular way -- but only provided no one
interferes.  If, after it's already in motion, someone snatches up a cue
and gives it a biff on one side -- why, then, you won't get what the
scientist predicted.'

`No, of course not.  He can't allow for monkey-tricks like that.'

`Quite, and in the same way, if there was anything outside Nature, and
if it interfered -- then the events which the scientist expected wouldn't
follow.  That would be what we call a miracle.  In one sense it wouldn't
break the laws of Nature.  The laws tell you what will happen if nothing
interferes.  They can't tell you whether something _is_ going to interfere.
I mean, it's not the expert at arithmetic who can tell you how likely someone
is to interfere with the pennies in my drawer; a detective would be more use.
It isn't the physicist who can tell you how likely I am to catch up a cue
and spoil his experiment with the billiard ball; you'd better ask a
psychologist.  And it isn't the scientist who can tell you how likely Nature
is to be interfered with from outside.  You must go to the metaphysician.'

`These are rather niggling points,' said my friend.  `You see, the real
objection goes far deeper.  The whole picture of the universe which science
has given us makes it such rot to believe that the Power at the back of it
all could be interested in us tiny little creatures crawling about on an
unimportant planet!  It was all so obviously invented by people who believed
in a flat earth with the stars only a mile or two away.'

`When did people believe that?'

`Why, all those old Christian chaps you're always telling about did.  I
mean Boethius and Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and Dante.'

`Sorry', said I `but this is one of the few subjects I do know something
about.'

I reached out my hand to a bookshelf.  `You see this book', I said, `Ptolemy's
"Almagest".  You know what it is?'

`Yes,' said he.  `It's the standard astronomical handbook used all through
the Middle Ages.'   [written c. 151 A.D.]

`Well, just read that,' I said, pointing to Book I, chapter 5.

`The earth', read out my friend, hesitating a bit as he translated the
Latin, `the earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has
no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point!'

There was a moment's silence.

`Did they really know that then?' said my friend.  `But -- but none of
the histories of science -- none of the modern encyclop�dias -- ever mention
the fact.'

`Exactly,' said I.  `I'll leave you to think out the reason.  It almost
looks as if someone was anxious to hush it up, doesn't it?  I wonder why.'

There was another short silence.

`At any rate', said I, `we can now state the problem accurately.  People
usually think the problem is how to reconcile what we now know about the
size of the universe with our traditional ideas of religion.  That turns
out not to be the problem at all.  The real problem is this.  The enormous
size of the universe and the insignificance of the earth were known for
centuries, and no one ever dreamed that they had any bearing on the
religious question.  Then, less that a hundred years ago, they are
suddenly trotted out as an argument against Christianity.  And the people
who trot them out carefully hush up the fact that they were known long
ago.  Don't you think that you atheists are strangely unsuspicious people?'

    Can someone answer this for me?  I really would like to know what this
    means?
    
    Thank you.
    
    Mike
    
        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 522.15            In The Beginning: The Genesis Story              15 of 19
SOLVIT::MSMITH "So, what does it all mean?"           9 lines   2-OCT-1992 09:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re: .11
    
    >Are you refering to a water expanse above the earth that was used in
    >the deluge?
    
    This is a new one on me.  What water expanse or you talking about?  Is
    this something that is different than our normal everyday clouds?
    
    Mike
    

Re:  522.18

  >Perhaps after many generations of the oral tradition, and then 
  >when Genesis was finally committed to writing, the word that 
  >translates to "dome" in the TEV actually meant something else than it
  >does now.  

Perhaps the word "dome" in the TEV does not mean nor ever did mean
"solid dome".  Perhaps dome is a questionable chose of words for
the interpretation/translation.

But you need not question whether or not the original Hebrew that
Moses wrote was correct.  Indeed, we have the Bible's assurance that
it was and is.  :-)

  >But would you believe that biblical literalists *do* exist?  

I've heard that they do.

  >And that these folks *do* take the Genesis story quite literally as 
  >it is understood in ordinary English?

I believe that some do.  However, you're point that *this pastor*
took *this version* of the Bible and was sincerely and honestly teaching
*this truth* (solid dome, flat earth) is a point that you have not
come close to showing.

From .2

     >>The Bible says the earth is flat and has a solid dome above it that 
     >>is to keep back the chaotic waters above that dome. (Genesis 1:6-7)

  >Now I took this statement verbatim from a sermon I'd read by a pastor of
  >a mainline church (not my own).  

This statement by itself without the full context is very open to
misinterpretation, in my opinion.  What was the perspective of the
minister?  Was his goal (as is your goal at times as I perceive it) to bash
those who accept Scripture as containing inerrant truth?  When I read your
account, it certainly seemed that way to me.  It also seemed that you
jumped on the bandwagon in this ridiculous argument. 

Why was the TEV translation chosen?  I've heard about those who claim the
KJV is God's Word in English, but I've never heard this claim for the TEV. 
Why not choose the NIV which uses "expanse" and claim that "The Bible says
the earth is flat and has a solid expanse above it that is to keep back the
chaotic waters above that expanse"?  Of course, the word "solid" doesn't
seem to make much sense in this slightly revised sentence - since the word
"solid" is not in Scripture. 

Forgive me, but it is hard for me to believe that this pastor chose
a less common translation of the Bible, took one word that isn't found
in other translations, added an adjective "solid" which is neither
stated nor implied in the verse (as is obvious from other translations),
stated that "this" was truth (along with the other obvious "truth" that
the Bible stated that earth was flat - a claim that is a stretch by 
anyone's standards) - AND was doing this from the sincerest of motives for
the purpose of enlightening his congregation who do not know what
the Bible *really* says.

I would much more readily believe the sincerity of the pastor's
position and belief if you had provided ample support of it, particularly
if a denomination indicated that they believed the earth was flat, for
example.  The support you gave?  None.  The context you gave?  Essentially
none.

Collis

  >P.S.

  >I wouldn't call what I presented an argument.  But that's a nit.

Neither would I.  But that's a judgment.  :-)

Mike .20
    
>    This is a new one on me.  What water expanse or you talking about?  Is
>    this something that is different than our normal everyday clouds?

This is the part in Genesis I was refering to (from .0):

>	Then God commanded, "Let there be a dome to divide the water and
>to keep it in two separate places"- and it was done.  So God made a dome,
>and it separated the water under it from the water above it.

What one might understand this to mean apparently may vary.  I suppose one
could understand it to mean ordinary clouds or the source of deluge.  I
suspect Robin was relating it to the Great Flood.

Peace,
Richard

Note 522.21
> What was the perspective of the
> minister?

I don't know.  He said a lot of things, most of which I'm certain you'd be
in disagreement with.  Perhaps he is well-meaning, but misguided.  Perhaps he
is an unwitting instrument of Satan.  Perhaps he is one of those false
teachers I'm always hearing about.  Perhaps he is wicked.

But I have known Rev. Martz for a number of years now, and none of these
possibilities matches my perceptions of him.

>Why was the TEV translation chosen?

He didn't.  I did.  It's what I have here in my cubicle.  I like the TEV
because it is in modern English and it is inexpensive.
See Note 526.0.

Richard

    RE: .22
    
    Thank you Richard.  It's as clear as mud now!
    
    Mike

    
RE: .16 & .17

Hi Bob,

How foolish we are when we think we can figure everything out!  Did we not
learn anything from the Tower of Babel?  God allows only what he wishes.
We are not supposed to know all the wonders of the universe.  I'm not going 
to debate how God created the world...it's not without my grasp.  Who am I 
that I should know how God did all this?   

But I do know this.   Science is constantly contradicting itself.  
You don't just have atoms sitting still in space and all of a sudden
being set into motion.  It's against the laws of science.  To call the 
Big Bang a THEORY (something proven beyond contradiction) is hogwash.  
It has not been proven.  And there is no way that man came from apes.  Even
the evidence that Darwin presented about the Nebraska man turned out
to be false.  He created in the mind of the court a human-like skeleton
when all that was found was 1 tooth.  Years later than skeleton of a 
pig was discovered with the exact same teeth.  It was all...excuse the
pun...hogwash.  Science by it's very nature must be proven...and most of
the theories I've heard don't pan out.  Not that scientists haven't made
some wonderful discoveries.  Think of how much we know now, yet I know
I still say "Oh..look at the sun set."  I have the knowledge that the
earth rotates around the sun, but the perception my eye sees is that the
sun is setting.  I know better, but I choose how I will express what I see.  
Ecclesiates is a poetic book that expresses what Solomon saw and how he felt.  

I know God created the world and everything in it.  The sun rises in the
morning and the moon comes out at night because it's His created order.
Nothing on this earth happens without His knowledge and involvement.  I know
this because I have faith in God.  I simply believe.

The knowledge of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. 

The fool says in his heart there is no God.  

Are we wiser than the creator?   
    

    I think most cosmologists would agree that the the Big Bang theory has
    not yet been "proven" in the sense of being absolutely beyond all
    doubt.  Very little in science meets such a drastic criterion anyway.
    The fact that science does not claim finality does not abrogate its
    value to us, however, and it doesn't mean that we should simply doubt
    everything that science teaches us.  That kind of binary thinking gets
    you no where.  Science proceeds by a process of verisimilitude; not
    being 100% correct does not make it 100% wrong, nor does it mean that
    we can not be pretty darn sure about much of what science teaches.  In
    many cases, when an older theory is superseded by a newer one, the
    older one is still pretty close.  Einstein may have superseded Newton
    in certain ways, but in many ordinary circumstances the differences
    made no difference, and many older equations are still close enough to
    cover most ordinary situations.  And they could not have sent people to
    the moon if modern science had not been pretty darn good in
    understanding the orbits of the planets around the sun and the moon
    around the Earth.

    So when people attack science as having no credibility by pointing out
    that science fully admits the possibility of error, they really miss
    the point.  Unless your philosophy of science is one of total
    anarchism, where you would claim that science never advances knowledge
    but instead only proceeds in circles, then attacking the credibility of
    all science really misses the point.

    Regarding the Big Bang, regardless of any specific questions that
    cosmologists might have, the evidence for it these days appears
    overwhelming, and virtually all scientists now accept that the universe
    has an ancient origin.  Scientists have known since the early part of
    this century that the universe is expanding.  One can either assume
    that it has always expanded and always will--which was the essence of
    Hoyle's Steady State theory--or that the universe had a beginning. 
    Things like the background 3 degree Kelvin background radiation, which
    was probably residual radiation from the Big Bang, are clues to the
    origin of the universe, and serve as evidence in favor of the Big Bang.

    -- Mike

Re:  522.23

     >> What was the perspective of the minister?

  >I don't know.  

Do you know whether or not he honestly and sincerely believed the 
earth to be flat?  Do you know whether or not he honestly or
sincerely believed a solid dome to be in the sky?  Do you know
whether or not he was honestly and sincerely trying to teach
the people he was talking to the these beliefs were truth?  Given
these facts (or even your impressions), I believe that I can
tell you with fair certainty the perspective of the pastor.

I daresay that if you or others in attendance can't answer these
questions, then communication was not taking place.

  >He said a lot of things, most of which I'm certain you'd be
  >in disagreement with.  

This gives me a clue as to his perspective, but not quite enough
to go on.

  >But I have known Rev. Martz for a number of years now, and none of 
  >these possibilities matches my perceptions of him.

Personally, I find it interesting that you've known this man for
a number of years and yet apparently can't share the perspective
of this man on this issue after listening to him talk about it.
Hopefully, the questions I raised earlier will help you to focus
on what will give us the answer.

     >>Why was the TEV translation chosen?

  >He didn't.  I did.  

Oh, was this a personal conversation with him that you raised?

Collis

    

Mike, I'm not saying that science does not have it's merits.  I'm also
not saying that because it admits error that it's invalid.  However,
for an idea to become accepted as a "theory" it must have been proven
beyond doubt.  That's how something becomes a theory.  So I was picking
on the terminology that the scientific community has used to describe
the Big Bang.  By their own standards...it is not a theory plus it
contradicts several other theories.  So if it can't even pass the 
theories that have been tested time and time again to be true, then
it's ridiculous.

It's funny.  I think it actually takes less faith to believe that there
is a Creator who some ~6000 years ago created the universe out of nothing
than to believe some of the incredulous scientific speculation about the
universe being here for billions of years.  I've seen alot of explosion
over the years...and not one of them created an environment that was
nice and orderly...they always created a mess.  Yet you believe that this
explosion created planets that aligned and rotated in a specific order
instead of pieces of rock and mortar just being hurled in every direction
like every other explosion ever witnessed.  Amazing!   And that you believe
that we started out being apes.  Maybe you see the resemblance when you 
look in the mirror, but I don't.  ;^)   What a riot!  
    
    I think I'll just stick with an Awesome God who was a skillful 
    craftsman who created everything just the way He wanted to.  

Thanks anyway, Jill
    

Note 522.28

>Do you know whether or not he honestly and sincerely believed the 
>earth to be flat?  Do you know whether or not he honestly or
>sincerely believed a solid dome to be in the sky?  Do you know
>whether or not he was honestly and sincerely trying to teach
>the people he was talking to the these beliefs were truth?  Given
>these facts (or even your impressions), I believe that I can
>tell you with fair certainty the perspective of the pastor.

Oh, *that* perspective!!

He was saying that the picture presented in Genesis is - at face value -
incongruent with what we, through empirical proof, now know to be true.
Not only that, but there are other items in the Bible which are no longer,
by in large, embraced (Note 23.68).

>Oh, was this a personal conversation with him that you raised?

No, it was a published sermon.  I was not present when he originally delivered
it.  I do know the Scripture readings that morning did not include the reading
of Genesis, so I can't say which Bible(s) he used.  I regret to say that I have
discarded it since my original entry (Note 23.68).

I've told you my source.  I cannot tell you all of what my source's source
might include.

Any criticism concerning the Bible will likely be construed by conservatives
and perhaps some moderates as an attempt to undermine Christianity.  I do not
believe this to be the case at all.

Peace,
Richard

Oh, Jill, I had so much hope for you until you went literal creationist on us.

Science explains how; religion explains why.  Who is to say that God did
not cause the Big Bang when he created everything out of nothing?

Consider this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God makes the world make itself

When we contemplate the physical creation, we see an unimaginable complex,
organized on many planes one above another; atomic, molecular, cellular;
vegetable, animal, social.  And the marvel of it is that at every level
the constituent elements run themselves, and by their mutual interaction,
run the world.  God not only makes the world, he makes it make itself; or
rather, he causes its innumerable constituents to make it.  And this in
spite of the fact that the constituents are not for the most part intelligent.
They cannot enter into the creative purposes they serve.  They cannot see
beyond the tips of their noses; they have, indeed, no noses not to see
beyond, nor any eyes with which to fail in the attempt.  All they can do
is blind away at being themselves, and fulfil the repetitive pattern of
their existence.  When you contemplate this amazing structure, do you wonder
that it should be full of flaws, breaks, accidents, collisions, and disasters?
Will you not be more inclined to wonder why chaos does not triumph; how higher
forms of organization should ever arise, or having arisen, maintain and
perpetuate themselves?

Though a thousand species have perished with the mammoth and the dodo, and
though all species, perhaps, must perish at the last, it is a sort of miracle
that the species there are should have established themselves.  And how have
they established themselves?  Science studies the pattern, but theology
assigns the cause: that imperceptible persuasion exercised by creative Will
on the chaos of natural forces, setting a bias on the positive and achieving
the creatures.

					-- Austin Farrer

   John,

   I enjoyed reading that, it was inspired.  Thank you for finding it and
   entering it.

   Peace,
   Allison

    Jill, what other theories does the Big Bang contradict?
    
    -- Mike

    re: .29
    
    Interestingly enough, the scientific method does not insist that an
    hypothesis be "proven beyond doubt" before it attains the status of 
    "theory".  
    
    And of course, as regards the Big Bang, it had nothing to do with
    "pieces of rock and mortar just being hurled in every direction..."
    One simply cannot equate a large explosion on a planet, complete with 
    gravity, winds, and other external forces working on the explosion
    ejecta with super-compressed bit of matter sitting in the void of
    space, suddenly exploding.  The fact is, there are observable analogs  
    within space that shows what happens to such matter; they are the
    remains of stars that have gone nova.
    
    Mike

    I think Mike explained it very well.  A little knowlege can often be
    dangerous, and I think this is an example of this; it is not correct to
    draw an analogy with the universe as we know it today.  Physicists have
    actually been able to draw some very interesting models of what the
    universe was probably like in the first few seconds after the Big Bang. 
    Matter as we know it did not exist in those first few seconds.  The
    conditions of the universe were so radically different from what we
    experience around us now that the constituents of the universe were not
    even able to settle down into the normaly operating processes of
    physics that exist under more normal conditions.  Atoms did not even
    exist under those conditions.
    
    As I mentioned before, we know that the universe is expanding. 
    Depending on how much matter exists in the universe, this expansion can
    either continue indefinitely, or it may eventually stop and the process
    reverse itself ("the Big Crunch").  Coming up with the idea of a Big
    Bang is not all that bizarre once you realize this; simply
    extrapolating backwards from the current expansion, you eventually get
    back to some origin point from which the universe began its expansion. 
    This is the Big Bang.
    
    -- Mike

Lady Julian of Norwich, and English mystic in the fourteenth and early
fifteenth century, describes a vision when Christ appeared to her holding
in His hand a little thing like a hazel nut and saying, `This is all that
is created.'  (Sixteen Revelations of Divine Love, ch. 5, p. 9)

This is almost exactly how current scientists describe the instant before
the Big Bang.

/john

    
That's okay John.  I still have hope for you.  I really don't care if we 
totally agree on every minute detail or not.  If you know Jesus as you're
personal Lord and Savior that's all that matters.  But I will say this, while
I can understand what you're saying, I just believe God is a Creator who
is intimately involved with His creation.  I believe that's where our
ability to nurture comes from.  The Bible talks about God taking care
of the needs of the lilies of the field and the birds of the fields.
Now maybe that was just in the way He designed it or maybe it's a deeper
involvement.  I guess it doesn't matter that much, it's just nice that
He does it.  I'm fine with the idea that science explains how, but I believe
we know so little of how because God's greatness is so beyond our 
understanding.  

Mike, you're right.  A little knowledge it's a dangerous thing.  I'm trying
to speak intelligently about science which I know little about like you try
to speak intelligently about Christianity.  ;^)  It's been awhile since
I've been to a class on this stuff.  I don't remember the names of the 
theories.  But for instance....things don't all of a sudden start moving when
they've been still....something has to set them in motion.  And something
has to cause that energy or "super-compressed bit of matter" to suddenly
explode...something has to cause it.   Cause and effect, right?   Things
just don't happen without something setting them in motion.   Right?  
These are basic theories of science...they've got names for them.  I
just forget them.  I could find out, but quite frankly I don't care so
I probably won't put the effort into calling up the guy from my old
church who is a science prof. to find out.  Now for John....God was the
cause for the effect.   Me...I kind of like how it's told in Genesis.  I like 
the intimacy of a Creator who cares about His creation in the smallest detail. 
I like to think He played a while and made the leaves purple just for a laugh 
and then changed them to green and then decided that they should change colors 
all the time.  I like to think that we exhibit alot of the same traits as
God since we are created in His image.  It makes me happy.  I guess I have
what they call simple faith.  I simply believe...I don't need an explanation.

Jill
    

    Okay, Jill, no problem.  However, as long as we are setting records
    straight, while my knowledge of how Christianity runs itself these days
    is admittedly limited, I certainly did have a rather extensive
    knowledge of Christianity (at least for a teenager) that dates back to
    pre-Vatican II days.

    In any case, as Mike Valenza indicated, current theories about the
    universe show that it is still expanding from the Big Bang explosion.
    What is less clear is if there is enough matter in the universe to
    eventually force the expansion to slow down, stop, and then compress on
    itself again through gravity, or if there is insufficient matter to
    stop the expansion so that it will expand indefinitely, and therefore
    eventually die out.  If the first of these two possibilities is true,
    then what we may be talking about is a universe that continually
    expands and contracts in an ongoing cycle, thereby eliminating the need
    for the "Starter Force" kind of God that quite a few people believe in.

    Sort of an interesting juxtaposition of science and religion, isn't it?

    Mike 

    Jill, your questions about what caused the Big Bang might very well
    have interesting theological implications.  Since you believe in God,
    perhaps you can provide your answers as to where the universe came from
    or what initiated its origin--since those are basically the questions
    you are posing.  If the Big Bang theory contradicts physics in the way
    you propose, then so does any other proposed origin of the universe. 
    Science deals with knowlege about the univese that we exist in; it is
    in position to address that which preceded or exists outside of the
    universe.  Where the universe came from, or what caused its initiation,
    are possibly questions that science can never answer.  But those are
    metaphysical questions anyway, and the Big Bang theory itself is
    generally consistent with modern physics, although certain questions
    (such as the non-uniform distribution of matter within the universe
    after its creation) may be problematic.
    
    -- Mike

Ah, good, Jill.  You're not a literal creationist, then.

BTW, the hope I had, thought was lost, and is now regained was not actually
hope for you w.r.t. your relationship with God.  It was hope for your role
in this conference.

I have hope, no, I'm sure! that you will be a good witness here for the truth;
a literal creationist would probably have a hard time dealing with the
liberals here.

/john

    Reply (.40) makes me feel like we're in the playground and people are being
    chosen to be on one side or the other?  It is about separation, them
    vs. us.  Yuck!!!  That's not why I note here.  I came to share my
    perspective with others and for others to share their's with me.  To
    see my neighbor as a unique creation of God, to honor and learn from
    that.  It is easy to get caught up in sides, but it is acting out of
    fear not love.  Sorry to rathole this note, but I needed to express
    what I was feeling.
    
    Ro
    

    
    
    

Oops...Mike S. you weren't the Mike I was referring to.  I was referring
to Mike V.  Sorry, I should have specified.  Although, I'll add that
book knowledge did nothing for the Pharisees and Sadducees.  However,
I'll comment on your reply anyway...If the universe is expanding, perhaps 
you would entertain the idea that it's God doing?  Of course, I do believe 
in Revelation so maybe I don't believe that the universe started with a Big 
Bang, but I certainly think it will end that way.  Boy, you sure have alot 
of "if"s in there.  I'm glad I don't base my hope on something so iffy.  
Interesting juxtaposition, perhaps, but true...that's another matter entirely. 

As for Mike V....I didn't say there was a Big Bang.  I was asking that since
you believe there was...how do you believe it got started.  My answer as
to where the universe came from is easy...God created it.  He created
all the physics you know about and more.  (Sorry John, I call them as I 
see them.)  It's that easy.  Excuse the simplicity of this analogy, but
It's like when I turn the key in the ignition of my car...it starts.  
I don't care how.  If it's broke, I take it to a mechanic.  Which brings
up a really interesting question...suppose one day the world doesn't start...
things just stop...whose going to fix it?  The scientists who have this 
great understanding of why things happen?  I mean a mechanic has usually built 
an engine, so they know how it works.  Do scientist build universes?  I don't 
mean just toy models.  I mean a working universe.  Of course not!  Don't be 
ridiculous Jill.  It's all theory.  Well then, if it's all theory and none 
if it's got to be proved...why do you bother?  If there is the chance 
like Mike Smith said of it compressing or expanding into non-existence and 
we can't do anything to stop it.  Who really cares?  I realize that science 
has found cures for illness and it believes it's got a fix for the depleting 
ozone, but are they actually trying to find a way to stop the pending
doom and destruction that faces our universe?  It's like playing beat the 
clock and God is in control of the clock.  Beeep!  Times up.  Who loses?   
And what do you think the consolation prize is?

Forgive my laughing in the face of science.  I know you guys take this very
seriously.  I will be solemn from now on.  Not!  ;^)  

Okay John.  I might fit your label of literal creationist.  As you can
see...I don't really let liberal interpretations bother me a whole lot.  
All I can do is present the biblical truth and it's up to the Holy Spirit
to take it from there.  I'm good-natured, yet I'm serious when I feel the
subject requires it.  My ribbing above is just my way of saying...hey
it's all going to end...and to try to get people thinking about what they
can do about it.  You know as well as I that there is only one thing
to do because we're all going to be asked on that day of judgement "Who
did you say My Son was?"

Jill
    

Several years ago I read Mortimer Adler's book _How to Think About God_.

His approach was basically to say 
		1) the universe exists
		2) the universe continues to exist

So by whatever definition you like, the universe was created and is sustained.
Let's call that creative and sustaining force "god".  But this "god" force is 
not necessarily loving and caring.  It could be as simple as Planck's 
constant, Gauss' Law, and the charge on an electron.  That's how far 
philosophy and science can take you.  (All articles in the tabloids aside. .-) 
Questions about God, with a capital "G" are not scientific or philosophical
questions, but theological questions. 

For some people, the scientific exploration of Creation is simply one more way 
to learn about God.  Jill, you asked about why bothering to discover whether 
the universe will eventually collapse or not.  What benefit can come from the 
answer?  That's an interesting question. I remember reading an essay on the
United States' space program, and what return we got on our investment.  Sure,
a lot of good science was done and engineering technology was boosted; we
reaped the benefits of TTL logic, mylar plastic, and Tang(tm) breakfast drink.

But the essayist put forth that the single most important thing that came out
of the space program was the image of looking not to the stars, but back to
earth.  To see it isolated against infinity, and to realize that it's the only
place we have in this lifetime, and we're all together on it.  (Sure, we knew 
that intellectually before, but the force of those photographs had an impact 
on our understanding that went far deeper than mere intellect.)  The fact that
our viewpoint changed radically, as radically as understanding that the cosmos
does not revolve around the earth, is the primary benefit of the space race. 
It changed the way we think about who we are and where we are forever. 

Certainly not all science is as dramatic as that, but it's all part of the 
tapestry we weave with God to know ourselves, the universe, and God.

Sure, there might not be any great material benefit from learning whether the 
universe will continue to expand or not, but there's similarly little material 
benefit in seeing van Gogh's _Sunflowers_, Di Vinci's _Mona Lisa_, or 
Michelangelo's _David_.  However, viewing such works of art can change your 
perspective forever.  It's a dangerous ride; since seeing some of Rodin's 
sculptures, I've never been able to look at hands the same way again.

In the same way, coming to know God is a dangerous ride.  
It changes you forever.

Peace,

Jim

    
    		It is interesting to note that in the Biblical story of 
    creation that the ancient Hebrew word used for a 24 hour day (on the 
    first day he did...) has in every instence meant a literal 24 hour day.  
    FWIW.
    
    
    Dave

    Jill, you are asking rhetorical questions about how science can explain
    how the universe came to be, and I agree with you that science can't
    answer those questions.  I don't think scientists claim that their work
    offers explanations of *why* things happen.  Science offers an
    explanation of *what* has happened, not why it happened; among the
    things that science has discovered is that the universe is expanding,
    and that if you extrapolate that process backwards you have a
    beginning.
    
    It would surprise me that one might have any theological objections to
    a scientific discovery that the universe has an origin; on the
    contrary, that would seem to be *consistent* with a belief that the
    universe was created.  I certainly don't have a problem with the
    process of drawing theological implications that you might make from
    scientific knowledge about the universe; in fact, I undergo theological
    considerations of this nature myself all the time.  I believe that it
    enhances our understanding of the "why" of creation when we have a
    better scientific understanding of the "what" of creation.

    -- Mike

    RE: .42
    
    Oh, I'm sorry, Jill.  I thought you were talking to me. 
    
    Anyway, I agree that what I had to say had a lot of "if's" and
    "maybe's" in it.  But, like I said, I was only hypothesizing. I do not
    place any particular hope or faith in the notion. It's simply a matter
    of curious interest to me, and I though it might be likewise to you and
    other readers.
    
    I am a bit disturbed about your reference to the Pharisees and
    Sadducees, though.  Was that meant to be a shot at me?
    
    Mike

    .43 Jim,
    
    	Thank you!  I got a lot out of your entry.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
Hi Mike S,  

No, it wasn't a slam.  I meant it sincerely.  You had stated while 
your knowledge of Christianity today is limited, you had extensive
knowledge of Christianity that dates back to pre-Vatican II days.  
That statement just concerned me.  It gave me the impression that 
your relationship with God either isn't what it used to be and/or 
never has been personal.  Knowledge is okay, but it won't save you.  
I think from your last message you know that.  I do hope that your 
faith is founded on Jesus Christ.  I was just worried about ya.

Jill
    

    Well, thank you for your concern, Jill.  However, in all honesty, I
    must report that I became an apostate many years ago (mid 60's), hence
    the reason why much of my knowledge of Christianity in general and the
    Catholic Church in particular is somewhat dated.  Although, since I
    started participating in some of the religion oriented notes
    conferences, my knowledge has been updated somewhat.  Darned
    contentious places to learn, I must say!
    
    I also hope that this news will not turn you against me too much,
    though.  I know that many people here seem to ignore those like
    myself who contribute here, I imagine because they probably think that 
    I couldn't possibly have a perspective that would be of interest to a
    Christian.  If this view is correct, I can't say as I blame anyone
    too much for feeling that way, I guess.  After all, they didn't leave
    me, I left them, in a manner of speaking.
    
    Mike

    

Oh Mike, no, it wouldn't turn me against you.  Through a good many years
of my 20's I pulled away from church because I was disenchanted with 
something that happened in the church.  I never abandoned my belief in
God, but I just wasn't willing to be an active part of the body of Christ.
I was a hurting unit.  But God kept working in my life and gently calling
me back.  I'd been going to a big church since February, but just wasn't
being reached and I kind of fizzled out again.  I wanted for it to be 
special again, to have the joy of my salvation restored to me.  In June
of this year I found a church on fire for God.  It has restored that joy.
I prayed alot before I actually joined the church because I realized that
my commitment to being an active part of the body of Christ was to God
and not to man and that whether there is a circumstance that comes up 
that shakes this church, I need to remain and to pray for that church.
My commitment is stronger than ever.  My compassion has grown.   I'll 
pray for you Mike.  I've been there.  But Mike, let me tell you in all
honesty.  I know alot of people who grew up in the Catholic Church and
other very traditional churches where traditions and going through the
motions were the norm.  Those kinds of churches have turned people away
from finding the true message they are supposed to be about.  It's 
interesting that you've gotten back involved in religion-oriented notes.
Don't make the same mistake of those churches though and mistake religion
for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  Perhaps God is calling
you back.  

You know, I haven't seen this before but I'd like to ask for
the others in this file who have that relationship with Christ to
keep lifting Mike up in prayer.  Thanks.

Jill
    

    Well, thank you for your kind and gentle words, Jill.  In an age when
    so many of us, myself included, spend so much time contending with one
    another over this and that, it is refreshing to see someone respond
    such as you just did.
    
    I must say, though, while I appreciate your thoughts, I am hardly a fit
    subject for prayers, being somewhat of an incorrigible reprobate as
    regards things spiritual.  And even if there is a God somewhere, He has
    long since written me off.  So you see, you would probably have a
    better chance of having them answered were you to pray for someone
    else.
    
    Mike

    RE: .52
    
    Wrong....God hasn't written you off, Mike. There is always hope.
    
    Marc H.

>he has long since written me off...

That is one thing he never does.  Consider the parable of the lost sheep,
how the shepherd searches and searches diligently for just one out of 100
sheep, and rejoices when it is found.

I was on vacation in St. Barths on the Sunday on which that particular
Gospel reading is appointed.  My French is not good enough to have been
able to completely follow the pastor's sermon, but I did pick out an
amusing part...

He asked his congregation, most of whom earn their living from tourism,
"And why do you think God came to earth?  Not to make a tourist trip!
 No, he came to look for and find his lost sheep and bring them back
 to his kingdom!"

/john

RE:  522.30

  >He was saying that the picture presented in Genesis is - at face value -
  >incongruent with what we, through empirical proof, now know to be true.
  >Not only that, but there are other items in the Bible which are no longer,
  >by in large, embraced (Note 23.68).

Thank you, Richard.

In other words, we have here someone who

 - chose some Scripture
 - used a translation which supported what he wanted to say (ignoring
   the fact that other translations would make what he wanted to
   say look foolish.  Not exactly the height of scholarship in my
   opinion.)
 - Interpreted this translation in a way that I, for one, have never
   heard interpreted before.
 - Ignored the ways that this interpretation could possibly be
   considered accurate.
 - Based on the above, concluded that the Bible is - "at face value" -
   incongruent with what we know (and presumably goes on to state that
   we can't trust what it says - possibly just in this area or possibly
   in any area depending on what his particular mindframe is)

Now, Richard, I know that I have a mindset that searches hard and
deep to find the flaws in the arguments of those who question the
Bible's reliability.  (It may help to remember that this brain used
to have a mindset that searched the other side of the argument just
as hard and deep.)  But really.  Based on the above, can you see why
this person's claims would look foolish not only to an inerrantist
to me, but also to someone who is simply a logical thinker?  The
flaws are *so* deep and the conclusion *so* biased from the data
presented, I am hard pressed to seriously consider this a logical
conclusion based on the evidence.  Do you think this is a logical
conclusion based on the evidence (keeping in mind the points above
as well as any other points you know from your greater knowledge of
the situation - not allowing any bias you may have regarding Scripture
to influence you, of course)?

BTW, thanks for entering all you have entered.

Collis

Re:  522.45
    
  >It is interesting to note that in the Biblical story of creation that
  >the ancient Hebrew word used for a 24 hour day (on the first day he
  >did...) has in every instence meant a literal 24 hour day. FWIW.

This is contradicted by someone very knowledgable in Hebrew in
the corresponding discussion in CHRISTIAN.  (He explicitly claims
that it can mean "a period of time" and that he believes that this
is the better interpretation.)  What is your source?
    
Collis

    
    Well Mike S,
    
    There's a line in a song I like by Rich Mullins that says "ain't nobody
    so bad that the Lord can't save them, ain't nobody so good that they 
    don't need God's love."
    
    Also, think about the cross that Jesus died on.  Beside Him were 2
    thieves (incorrigible reprobates) and the one realized that Jesus 
    didn't deserve this punishment and ask that Jesus remember him.
    Jesus said this very day you'll be with Me in heaven.  It just goes
    to show, it's never too late to turn it around.
    
    Still praying,
    
    Jill

    RE: .45  Collis,
    
    			Actually from two different sources.  Mr. John
    McArthur  and from a Mr. David Turintine.  The later is considered as
    one of the most knowledgable people in the world on word meanings.  I
    was priveledged to have had him for a short time in my Sunday School 
    class....one in which he should have been teaching by the way. :-}
    This is a man that reads from the ancient text in both Hebrew and
    Greek.  Its kinda freaky to watch him preach.  He intreprets as he
    goes....he's *THAT* good.  I will qualify what I said though by saying 
    that the word is intrepreted as it is used in the old Testament.  Local
    translations and usage might have been different.
    
    Dave

Thanks Dave.

Note 522.55

>  >He was saying that the picture presented in Genesis is - at face value -
    
>In other words, we have here someone who....

Interesting speculations, but really overly simplistic.

You see, we've zeroed in on one line out of an entire sermon and picked it
apart.  The focus of the sermon was not the Genesis story.  It was on
Colorado Amendment 2 (Note 91.844).  In the sermon, Rev. Martz made the
remarks itemized in Note 23.68.  Out of all those biblical references, only
one was singled out for scrutiny - the one having to do with the Genesis story.

>Do you think this is a logical
>conclusion based on the evidence (keeping in mind the points above
>as well as any other points you know from your greater knowledge of
>the situation - not allowing any bias you may have regarding Scripture
>to influence you, of course)?

Here's the thing.  I think the person(s) who set down the Genesis story
understood the part about the dome, etc., exactly as Rev. Martz summarized it:

>The Bible says the earth is flat and has a solid dome above it that is to
>keep back the chaotic waters above that dome. (Genesis 1:6-7)

No matter how well we can explain it away now, I think that that's the way
they originally understood it during the oral tradition, when it was put
into written form (Scripture), and for a long time after that.

Not being a biblical inerrantist, I really have no stake in the details of
the Genesis story.  My faith is not founded in whether it is inerrant or
not.  And because of this, I'm having trouble relating to your question.

However, I can understand your feeling a need to "rescue" the Bible from
viewpoints which might be construed an attempt to malign the integrity of
the Bible.

Peace,
Richard

>The focus of the sermon was not the Genesis story.  It was on
>Colorado Amendment 2 (Note 91.844).

Should sermons be on politics or on the Gospel?

    .61
    
    Topic 533, "The Pulpit and Politics" has been created to address
    the question.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

Re:  522.60

Thank you, Richard, for continuing to explore this with me.

       >>>He was saying that the picture presented in Genesis is - at face...
    
     >>In other words, we have here someone who....

  >Interesting speculations, but really overly simplistic.

Actually, I was not trying to be simplistic at all, but was trying
to be very comprehensive.  Indeed, it is difficult based on the
little information I've been given.  But I do the best I can.

The real point, however, is that you have not denied the accuracy
or refuted the conclusions that have been drawn (even if they are
overly simplistic).  Although you (apparently) disagree with the 
conclusions, you've presented no logical basis why they are invalid.

  >In the sermon, Rev. Martz made the remarks itemized in Note 23.68.  
  >Out of all those biblical references, only one was singled out 
  >for scrutiny - the one having to do with the Genesis story.

Indeed, many of the same conclusions can be derived from his other
remarks.  Some of these discussions have already appeared in this
forum.

  >Here's the thing.  I think the person(s) who set down the Genesis story
  >understood the part about the dome, etc., exactly as Rev. Martz 
  >summarized it:

So, 
  - without relying on the Hebrew
  - ignoring translations which would disagree with your conclusion

the reason we should accept this understanding of the Bible (which,
by the way, neither you nor Rev. Martz think is a reasonable belief)
is because you know the mind of the individual(s) who set down the 
Genesis story based on tradition.

I think I understand perfectly, even if my understanding is
simplistic.

I'm reminded of the show I saw where a character says, "Well, when
you put it that way it sounds ridiculous."  Indeed, it does sound
ridiculous and I would argue that without more FACTS, it is
ridiculous.

  >Not being a biblical inerrantist, I really have no stake in the details of
  >the Genesis story.  My faith is not founded in whether it is inerrant or
  >not.  And because of this, I'm having trouble relating to your question.

We all have a stake in whether or not the Bible is accurate.  Indeed,
the problems you encounter because of your faith in its inaccuracy
far transcend (in my opinion) the problems that I encounter because
of my acceptance of its self-proclaimed inerrancy.

  >However, I can understand your feeling a need to "rescue" the Bible from
  >viewpoints which might be construed an attempt to malign the integrity of
  >the Bible.

Let me see if I get this straight.

We have a present day minister who

 - does not accept the inerrancy of the Bible
 - takes a given English translation of the Bible
 - interpolates from that translation what the author of the
   statement believed about the earth 3500 or so years ago
   (inerrantist dating :-) )
 - declares those beliefs foolish
 - declares that part of the Bible inaccurate and not applicable to today
 - expands this belief to many other parts of the Bible

Indeed, it seems to me that there is a very real and serious attempt
by those who do not accept inerrancy to question the authority of the
Bible.  Based on this, I can understand your feeling a need to "rescue"
yourself and Rev. Martz from the morals and the principles that the
Bible present.  :-)

Indeed, we all have our agendas.  Mine is taken from God and His Word.

Collis

Note 522.63 Collis,

>Let me see if I get this straight.

>We have a present day minister who

> - does not accept the inerrancy of the Bible

	Does not accept the Bible as flawless and forever applicable in its
	entirety.

> - takes a given English translation of the Bible

	Do not know for certain, but doubt that a single translation was
	considered.  Both he and his congregration are too savvy for that.

 - interpolates from that translation what the author of the
   statement believed about the earth 3500 or so years ago

	Do not know if this is the position of the preacher, but it is mine.

 - declares those beliefs foolish

	Foolish?  No.  Not wholly accurate?  Yes.

 - declares that part of the Bible inaccurate and not applicable to today

	Yes and no.  Not a binary question.

 - expands this belief to many other parts of the Bible

	Expands that possibility, anyway.

>Indeed, it seems to me that there is a very real and serious attempt
>by those who do not accept inerrancy to question the authority of the
>Bible.

	Not really.  But it is not an uncommon fear.  But it's a fear based on
the idea of the Bible as a binary unit.  0 or 1.  Wholly right or wholly wrong.

>Based on this, I can understand your feeling a need to "rescue"
>yourself and Rev. Martz from the morals and the principles that the
>Bible present.  :-)

	At this point I must terminate further discussion on Rev. Martz, his
	perspective, and what he meant by what he said in a single sentence in
	a sermon.  If I choose to answer further I will only answer on my own
	behalf, and not some third party.

>Indeed, we all have our agendas.  Mine is taken from God and His Word.

	Mine, too.  Only, to me, the Word is Jesus Christ and not the canon.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  522.64

     >> - does not accept the inerrancy of the Bible

  >Does not accept the Bible as flawless and forever applicable in its
  >entirety.

Neither does he accept the inerrancy of the Bible.

     >> - takes a given English translation of the Bible

  >Do not know for certain, but doubt that a single translation was
  >considered.  Both he and his congregration are too savvy for that.

He got "solid dome" from someplace.  It sure wasn't in the NIV.  I'd
never heard it before.  Again, his "interpretation" is foolishness
when we use the NIV wording.

     >> - interpolates from that translation what the author of the
     >>   statement believed about the earth 3500 or so years ago

  >Do not know if this is the position of the preacher, but it is mine.

Close enough.

    >> - declares those beliefs foolish

  >Foolish?  No.  Not wholly accurate?  Yes.

I think Rev. Mertz would believe someone who believes this today
to be foolish.  I know I would (at least as he intends it to be
meant).

    >> - declares that part of the Bible inaccurate and not applicable to 
    >>   today

  >Yes and no.  Not a binary question.

As I phrased it, it is a binary question.  Either the entire Bible is
accurate or it (the entire Bible) is not (which is not at all to say
that the entire Bible is inaccurate).  If there is a third
alternative, I'm not familiar with it.  If the entire Bible is not
accurate, then at least part of the Bible is inaccurate. 

     >> - expands this belief to many other parts of the Bible

  >Expands that possibility, anyway.

I believe, based on my intense study of Rev. Mertz's writings, to 
know the mind of Rev. Mertz.  I can assure you that he believes
that other parts of the Bible are just as misleading and inaccurate
as the Gen 1 reference.

If you question my ability to know his thoughts, just ask my good
friend Richard Jones-Christie who reaches back through time to do the
very same thing.  :-)

     >>Indeed, it seems to me that there is a very real and serious attempt
     >>by those who do not accept inerrancy to question the authority of the
     >>Bible.

  >Not really.  

You've got to be kidding.  Those who question the inerrancy of the 
Bible hold to their beliefs with the same tenacity as those who accept it.

  >But it's a fear based on the idea of the Bible as a binary unit.  
  >0 or 1.  Wholly right or wholly wrong.

Actually, it need not have anything to do with fear.  For me, the
decision to accept the Bible's claim (as well as my previous decision
to reject it) had essentially nothing to do with fear.  It had to
do with logic.  I do admit, however, that this does not fit your
stereotype of why someone would actually believe the Bible's claim
in this area.

     >>Based on this, I can understand your feeling a need to "rescue"
     >>yourself and Rev. Martz from the morals and the principles that the
     >>Bible present.  :-)

  >At this point I must terminate further discussion on Rev. Martz, his
  >perspective, and what he meant by what he said in a single sentence in
  >a sermon.  

I knew I was treading on thin ice when I used the same logic and
words to respond to your stereotypical view of inerrantist driven by
fear.  Indeed, I do not believe that this "rescue" of yours is driven 
by what I said (which is why I followed it with a smiley).  

Seriously however, if you wish to question my motives using your
analysis of me which I have previously refuted, you are inviting
a corresponding analysis of liberal motives, whether accurate or
not.  

Collis

re: Note 522.65 by Collis "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you" 

>As I phrased it, it is a binary question.  Either the entire Bible is
>accurate or it (the entire Bible) is not (which is not at all to say
>that the entire Bible is inaccurate).  If there is a third
>alternative, I'm not familiar with it.  If the entire Bible is not
>accurate, then at least part of the Bible is inaccurate. 

John Rohmer, in his televised archaeological series _Testament_ continually 
stated that in exploring the history and artifacts of Biblical times

"the question is not *whether* the Bible is correct, but *how* it is correct."

His archaeological studies convinced him that the authors of the Bible (Old
and New Testaments) had an intimate knowledge of what they were writing about.
Local geographical comments, customs, culture...they were certainly there,
writing about what they know, *from their perspective*. 

(And I'm personally thankful they have shared that perspective with me.)

Peace,

Jim

Collis .65,

	I have determined that your idea of "foolish" is different from my idea
of "foolish."

	Though inspired as a whole, I do not see the canon as a binary unit.

	I do believe that the people who wrote down the Genesis story did
believe the Earth to be flat, as opposed to spherical, and that the sky was
an actual dome; that is to say, that there was something on the other side
of it.

	I have seen no evidence that these people believed anything else.

	To me, the details of the Genesis story are unimportant.  To me, the
truly important things in the Genesis story are that God is the Creator and
that God was pleased with Creation.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  .67

Indeed, when Moses wrote Genesis he may have believed the
Earth to be flat and he may have believed that the sky was
an actual dome (i.e. something on the other side of it).
From the wording in Genesis, however, it is not clear whether
or not he believed this.  This is where you and Rev. Mertz
are led astray, in my opinion.  The grammar does not support
the pre-conceived belief!  True, it may not deny it either,
but Rev. Mertz is stating as fact something for which he does
not have convincing support - and then using this fact to
question the accuracy of the Bible.

The other very relevant point here is whether or not God,
the author, believed the Earth to be flat and the sky a
solid dome.  Based on His claims of being omniscient, I would
say that He did not.  Based on our current knowledge of the
earth and sky, I believe that the better interpretation of
Genesis would conform with God's understanding of the universe
rather than Moses' hypothetical understanding.

BTW, even if Moses did believe what you suggest, it is by no
means certain that he wrote simply from his perspective.  There
are a number of instances in Scripture where the writer
apparently did not know the full impact or truth of what was
being written. 

Another possibility is that Moses wrote something which is
ambiguous, e.g. Isaiah 7:14 is in my opinion a classic example
of this.  The prophecy was true not only for the current situation
but for the coming Christ child.  The word selected in the Hebrew
means *either* a woman of marriagable age (which it meant during
the fulfillment of the prophecy in 732 a.d.) *or* a virgin (which
it meant in 5 b.c.).

Collis

    In .0, I reproduced the first story of creation to be found in
    Genesis.  In it, male and female were created simultaneously.
    In the second creation story, beginning with Genesis 2.4b, the
    woman was created out of the man.
    
    One of the reasons we know these are two distinct stories is
    because the name refering to God in the first story is Yahweh (or
    Jehovah), and in the second story, it is Elohim (which, incidently,
    is plural).
    
    Both stories are true.  Neither story is a factual account.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

	re.69 Richard

>   One of the reasons we know these are two distinct stories is
>    because the name refering to God in the first story is Yahweh (or
>    Jehovah), and in the second story, it is Elohim (which, incidently,
>    is plural).

	Which Gen 1 & 2 verses indicate which title?

Thanks,
Ace

    Anybody have a Bible written in Hebrew handy?
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .69

   >In .0, I reproduced the first story of creation to be found in
   >Genesis.  In it, male and female were created simultaneously.

Where does it say that they were created simultaneously?
This is strictly something that you have read into the
text errorneously - and *knowingly* errorneously since
the detail of this creation is given in Gen. 2.  Do you
really that you think that is the claim of the text?  I
find that very difficult to believe.

Collis

    .72 Genesis 2 is *not* a more detailed account of Genesis 1.
    You merely assume it is.  The twain come from two different
    traditions.
    
    By the way, moving a little further into Genesis, are snakes
    capable of speech?  Is this detail in the Bible something
    creationists want taught in schools along side Darwinian theory
    and the big bang?
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .73

   >.72 Genesis 2 is *not* a more detailed account of Genesis 1.
   >You merely assume it is.  The twain come from two different
   >traditions.

No, I'm not making assumptions.  I'm just believing what the
Bible says (about Mosaic authorship as well as trustworthiness
and all).

But enough of that.  The truly significant point of .72 is this
question which you chose to ignore:

  >>Where does it say that they were created simultaneously?

Perhaps upon reflection you now wish to provide an answer?

Collis

>>Where does it say that they were created simultaneously?

You know where it is, Collis.  See 522.0 - The sixth day.  Genesis 1
does not say that male and female were created any way other than
simultaneously.  Genesis 2 is a whole separate account, not an explanation
of Genesis 1.  Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 come from different traditions.
Didn't you take any courses on Old Testament history when you were in seminary?

You've already conceded that Moses (a murderer and a liar, incidentally)
could not have written the entire Pentateuch.

Now will you answer my question about the snake?

Richard

  >You know where it is, Collis.  See 522.0 - The sixth day.  Genesis 1
  >does not say that male and female were created any way other than
  >simultaneously. 

I do *not* know that.  You are quite correct in saying that Genesis 1 does
not say that male and female were created any way other than simultaneously.
In fact, Genesis 1 does not say anything at all about the timing of
the creation of Adam with respect to Eve.  All we know for sure from the
Genesis 1 account is that they were created male and female and that it
happened on day 6.  

Do you agree with this, Richard?  If not, please let me know where my
reading of the text has gone astray.

I'll be happy to deal with snakes after this is settled (even if the
settlement is simply that one or both of us can't seem to read a simple
text correctly and figure out what it does and does not say).

Collis

  >You've already conceded that Moses (a murderer and a liar, incidentally)
  >could not have written the entire Pentateuch.

A murderer and a liar, incidentally.  An interesting parenthetical
thought you chose to include.  You're right about Moses, however -
he failed in a lot of ways.

Just to set the record straight, what I said (I didn't know it was
a concession as I didn't know that there was anything to concede)
was that I (and most inerrantists to my knowledge) believe that Moses
did not write the ending part of Deuteronomy that describes events
after Moses' death.  I do not say that he *could* not have, just
that I don't believe that he did.  I also believe that this is
consistent with what the Bible says/means (which is one of the
reasons I believe it).

Collis

    It's futile for me to pursue with you precisely which gender was
    created first based on Genesis 1.  It simply doesn't provide that
    level of detail.  According to Genesis 1, male and female were created
    by Yahweh on the same day, that Yahweh made them to resemble Yahweh.
    
    In the second creation story, which is from another tradition, God is
    not Yahweh, but Elohim.
    
    You need not answer the question about the snake.  Snakes are incapable
    of human speech.  I hate to burst your bubble.  But the story, while
    meaningful and true, is no more a factual account than either Genesis 1
    or Genesis 2.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

  >It simply doesn't provide that level of detail. 

We are indeed in agreement.

  >According to Genesis 1, male and female were created by Yahweh 
  >on the same day, that Yahweh made them to resemble Yahweh.
    
More agreement!  When will it ever end?  :-)

  >In the second creation story, which is from another tradition, God is
  >not Yahweh, but Elohim.

The Bible is pretty clear that Yahweh is Elohim (and vice versa).  If
you mean to say that a different word to refer to God is used, then
indeed you are quite perceptive.  The "other tradition" line has been
gone down before.  

It does amaze me how little it takes for people to believe a theory if it
will refute that which they do not accept.  I'm talking not about you, but 
about the scholars who insisted that the prophets did NOT have accurate 
revelation from God and looked for more natural ways to explain the 
evolution of the Bible.  Indeed they have a theory which has changed
and evolved a lot over the decades and over which there is strong
disagreement about the details.  Life is much simpler (more accurate, too!)
if you can just believe that God is a God of miracles and communication
(JEDP presupposes that God is not a God who communicates - at least who
communicates correctly - since all those prophets who referred back to
the other prophets as being authors and whatever were simply dead wrong).

  >Snakes are incapable of human speech.

This is certainly true of a normal snake.  What about a demon-possessed
snake?  I met a man who, when performing an excorcism, claims that the
voice emanated from the stomach area of the person.  I'd have to say
that I really can't say with assurance that it is totally impossible for
a snake to talk.  My inclination is to believe the opposite - that God
who we know can make a donkey talk, could make a snake talk and that it
is likely that Satan could as well.

- if indeed it was a snake.  I believe that many translations prefer 
the word "serpant".  I don't know why this is.

  >But the story, while meaningful and true, is no more a factual account 
  >than either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2.

Agreement again!  The story is both meaningful and true.  It is no more
(and no less :-) ) a factual account than either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2.
Who'd have thought that such agreement would be possible? :-)

Collis

    We may have been down this road before.  And I realize there are divergent
    views concerning the concept of multiple sources having contributed to
    what we now call Genesis.  I'm certainly not in favor of wholesale
    dismissal of the multiple source explanation.
    
    Yahweh is indeed probably one and the same God as Elohim.  Certainly,
    it seems, the translators want us to see it that way.
    
    At the same time, I think it's important to realize that the Creator
    God was called by two distinctly different names, *and* that if one
    reads Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 with this knowledge one may gain insights
    and understandings not possible when the two are run together as though
    they are one.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    No, I don't believe snakes (or serpents) are capable of human speech.
    However, I do think there was a reason that a snake was selected for
    the role, though I've no clue as to what that reason might be.
    
    I would like to know if those who advocate having "creationism"
    taught along side the theory of evolution would like to have the
    talking snake included in that teaching.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

I advocate the creationism being taught since it does seem
ridiculous to me to suppress the truth in the name of "science" -
particularly when evolutionary scientists haven't a clue how life 
first started.

On the other hand, I don't believe that teaching should necessarily
be exactly what the Bible claims in a "secular" setting.  It
seems to me that the details of the story are not necessarily
the best thing to get into in a secular setting.  In a church
setting, I firmly believe in teaching about Satan and how he
deceived the first human beings.  I think talking snakes can
be fun, don't you?  I suggest using hand puppets.  :-)

Collis

  >Yahweh is indeed probably one and the same God as Elohim.

<incredularity here>

Really?!

I didn't know that you questioned this (as the "probably"
indicates).  Amazing what a little tearing apart of the Scriptures 
will do...

Collis

    To me, it is an insult to the Bible to attempt to force it
    into the same category as science.  The Bible was never
    intended to be scientific.
    
    As for puppets, God doesn't make puppets.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Snakes do not speak today. In the past? Well, who knows. I read 
    that they are teaching primates to use sign language.

    Is verbal speech the only means of communication? Well not today
    but was it the only means during Adam's time? Somehow I think
    not. Might there have been means that do not exist today? Again,
    perhaps, who knows.

    Certainly is seems reasonable to believe that a fallen angel would
    have means of communication not currently available to regular old
    humans today.

    			Alfred

 Of course remember that things changed considerably from the time
 immediately before the consumption of the fruit and the time shortly
 thereafter.  We do know, for example, the snakes lot changed rather
 drastically as did that of the garden itself.


 So, who knows...had it not been for the fall, perhaps we'd have talking
 snakes with us today.  (I'm sure my son who has a couple of pythons
 would love to be able to carry on a conversation with them).





 Jim

    .83
    
    Yahweh, Elohim, Jehovah, Allah, Bruce, Gertrude, Iesu Nazareum,
    ....whatever.

    It is possible that assuming both names (Yahweh & Elohim) represent
    a single entity might constitute a case of conforming the Bible to fit
    a particular theology, rather than conforming theology to fit the Bible.
    
    To be quite honest, I don't know enough about it to be able to say.

    I know this much.  The opposite of faith is not skepticism.

    Shalom & Salaam,
    Richard

Note 522.85
>                      -< is your imagination so limited? >-

Alfred,

	I believe world peace is possible.  Tell me *that* doesn't require
an active imagination.

Shalom,
Richard

    I'd love to chat with you more about talking snakes, but I simply
    must be off to my appointment with the Easter bunny.
    
    Slither,
    Richard

.82

>In a church
>setting, I firmly believe in teaching about Satan and how he
>deceived the first human beings.

Curious.  The name Satan is not one which appears in Genesis, nor
even in any book of the Torah.

Shalom,
Richard

Re:  Satan

Indeed, you are welcome to call him by other names.  I won't
even be confused if you call Yahweh some other name such as
Elohim.  :-)

Re:  snakes

I think the Bible makes it clear that the adversary was Satan,
not a random snake that wandered through the garden.  Therefore,
the issue has nothing to do with whether or not snakes would
be talking with us if things had turned out differently, but
rather whether or not Satan could either take possession of a
snake and talk through it or whether he could appear as a
snake and talk.  Either possibility seems well within the realm
of reason to me (the Bible tells us that God spoke
through a donkey and that angels can take the form of humans
so this isn't exactly breaking new ground).

If, however, you wish to attempt to ridicule, you would be
well advised to ignore what I said above as it would probably
change the direction of the discussion.

Collis

  >To me, it is an insult to the Bible to attempt to force it
  >into the same category as science. 

It is to me too.  More agreement?

Science is very limited and is full of mistakes.

 >The Bible was never intended to be scientific.

The prophets of God would disagree with you if you are
attempting to say that the Bible was never intended to
be accurate and true.  Personally, I believe the prophets.

Collis

    I would agree to the point that truth is not always the same as fact or
    empirical information.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

	Collis, maybe you can help me out with this. Seeing the snake, who was
played by Satan, was in the Garden, it would seem that somewhere within the 1st
7 days of the universes construction, God would have had to banish Satan from
the Heavens. When did this take place?



Glen

re.94 Glen

> God would have had to banish Satan from
>the Heavens.

	Glen,

	YOur question needs modification. 8*) Satan has not been banished
from the heavens. BUt one day he most definitely will be. He accuses the
believers day and night before the throne (also see Job).

	However, your fundamental question is a good one. When did Satan fall
as archangel over all the angels and become Satan roaming on the earth as a 
snake in relation to the Genesis account? If you would permit me, I would 
change the question this way.

Ace

	Go for it Ace! It will answer what I am asking either way! Thanks. :-)



Glen

Re:  .94

I don't know what the Bible says.  In Job, it appears that
Satan went before God, so I don't think that Satan has been
banished from communication with God, although I also believe
that God does not allow sin in his presence in heaven.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Where is heaven?  What does it look like?  What do people do there?
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

	Collis, the reason I ask is this. The Bible tells us when the universe
was created. It mentioned nothing of angels being around, yet Satan had already
fallen. So, I'm just looking for a couple of things. When was Satan an angel
and when did he fall? Did all this happen in the 7 days the universe was
created?



Glen

RE:  .99

Glen,

I don't have a crystal ball.  I'm not a prophet of God.
Why do you think I have the answers to your questions?  Why
do you think anyone here on earth has the answers to your
questions?  I've already told you that I don't think the
Bible addresses the question as you're asking it.  Do you
think I have some other authority that I should expect an
answer from?

Re:  .98

  >Where is heaven?

Up.  :-)  Where God is.

  >What does it look like?

See Rev 4 and 5.

  >What do people do there?

Worship God.  See Rev. 4 and 5.

Hope you like to worship, 'cause that's what's on the
schedule every day!

Collis

    I don't believe that the talking snake in the garden was Satan in
    disguise or some other embodiment of all that is evil.
    
    Let me ask this though, is it consistent with Jewish theology to
    identify the talking snake as Satan?  Laura Steinhart, you still
    out there?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

	Collis, does the Bible talk of when Satan fell? 



Glen

re.99

Glen,

	My research into this matter has led me to following beliefs
concerning the subject of your question...

	Lucifer was the created by God sometime in the past before Gen 1:2.
He was head of all the angels and led them and probably all creation in worship
of God (Ezekiel 28). But pride was found in him and he became fallen taking with
him one third of the angels into rebellion. These are the current evil angels 
and in the air. 
	According to Gen 1:1 God created the heavens and the earth perfect. 
Genesis 1:2 says "The earth became void..."  and according to the Hebrew 
meaning this is interpreted as "waste". But in Isaiah, it says that God did not
create the earth waste. Therefore in Genesis 1:1 God created the earth perfect, 
but then in Gen 1:2 some catastrophic event occurred to cause the earth to 
become waste. Gen 1:3 and forward then is actually an account of the 
restoration of the heavens and earth that had become waste in Gen 1:2. The 
amount of time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 is not defined, could be thousands, 
millions, billions of years. 
	To your question, given Lucifer's position in the pre-Adamic world as
top creature in the creation, and the earth being originally created perfect 
but becoming waste in Gen 1:2, it is my belief that the rebellion of Lucifer
was the cause of the earth becoming waste. He is seen therefore roaming the 
earth even within the first 7 days of the restoration taking the form of the
serpent and causing the newly created man to fall.

	But knowing this or not understanding it will not make one iota of
difference in the things that matter concerning us and our relationship with
God our Saviour. It may explain some things or it may stir up more questions,
therefore its value is dubious, though I admit I still continue to research
the details.

Regards,
Ace

    re .-1:
    
    "researching the details" is only part of your "is-ness"; another part
    is your "feeling" side of yourself - and tension exists now and always
    will (IMHO) between the two.
    
    Now, tell us, why on earth would God (perfection) create a Lucifer??? 
    Isn't that "personification" a limitation of of evil?  Do you see evil
    as such a personification or as all the faults within which we live? 
    Faults such as disease which neccessarily cause us to decide who does
    and who does not get the actual scarce resouce of medical aid; faults
    such that starving nations may only be helped by "motivated" masses of
    people who are somehow may aware of their terrible plight?  This to me
    is "The Satan" who exists and is "The Satan" that God calls upon us to
    defeat.
    
    "The Satan" is a creation of ours (IMHO) that exists when and only when
    we turn our heads "from" God and "to" the other "stuff" of the
    world(s).
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

   >I don't believe that the talking snake in the garden was Satan in
   >disguise or some other embodiment of all that is evil.
    
Your belief does differ from the norm.  I thought that you did
believe that it was Satan who was the "serpent" (as the NIV
translates it).  Perhaps someone knows a verse off the top
of his/her head that would indicate why this was so commonly
accepted?

Collis
 

Re:  .105

Hi Ron,

Your ideas totally contradict the proclamations in the
Bible.  That's why I reject them.

Collis

Re:  .104

Sounds like an interesting theory!  Thanks for entering
that.

Collis

Re: .106 Collis

>I thought that you did believe that it was Satan who was the "serpent"
>(as the NIV translates it).  Perhaps someone knows a verse off the top of
>his/her head that would indicate why this was so commonly accepted?

Well, not from the top of my head, but I do have my sources...

	And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is
	called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world...
					Revelation 12:9a

From "Asimov's Guide To The Bible", page 31:

	  The serpent is portrayed as able to speak and as maneuvering the
	na�ve woman into eating the forbidden fruit in defiance of God's
	prohibition.  The woman then encouraged Adam to eat it as well.

	  As told here, the serpent's evil is motiveless or, at best,
	arises out of mere delight in michief.  The Jews of post-Exilic
	times made this seem more reasonable, however, by equating the
	serpent with Satan, who is the spirit of Evil as God is the spirit
	of Good.  (This notion was derived from Persian religious thought
	- see page 409.)

	  Actually, the tale of the serpent is quite un-Biblical in
	atmosphere.  Only here and in one other case (that of Balaam's
	ass, see page 184) do the Hebrew scriptures mention talking
	animals.  It seems quite likely that the tale of the serpent is
	extremely primitive and represents a remnant of nature myth (see
	page 175).

Unfortunately, although Asimov states that the post-Exilic Jews equated
the serpent with Satan, he doesn't provide any scripture reference to
support this.  Maybe the connection was made in rabbinical writings.

				-- Bob

Thanks, Bob, for entering that.