Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

        "How can you believe, you who receives honor one from another,
    	 yet seek not the honor that comes from God only.  Do not think
    	 that I will accuse you to the Father; for there is one who 
    	 accuses you, Moses in whom you trust.
    	 For had you believed Moses, you would have believed me, for 
    	 he wrote of me.  But if you believe not his writings, how shall
    	 you believe my words?   John 5: 44-47
    
    	 I believe Moses words, I believe that Adam and Eve fell before
    	 God the Father, I believe through one man, sin entered into the 
    	 word, I believe death passed to all mankind!!  
    
    	 Peace,
        
    	 -Jack

    In line with Jack's reply, Adam & Eve were real persons to Jesus
    Christ (compare Matthew 19:4).
    
    Phil.

    In addition to these first 2 replies, I'd like to propose the question,
    "what else about these myths compromises Christianity?"  Right off the 
    bat, the thing that should bother a Christian in looking at this as a 
    myth is the polytheistic overtones.  We are reminded several times in the 
    OT that God stands alone, there is no god before or after Him.  Secondly, 
    God is always referred to in a masculine sense.
    
    From Genesis - God made us in His 'image'; notice the plurality/singularity 
    of God's nature (the Trinity in action)
    -----------------------------------------------------------
1:26  And God said, Let us make man in *our* image, after our likeness: and let
 them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
 over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that
 creepeth upon the earth.

1:27  So God created man in *his* own image, in the image of God created he him;
 male and female created he them.
    
    From Isaiah - Only 1 God (Christians should be monotheistic, not
    polytheistic)
    ------------------------
43:10  Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen:
 that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there
 was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

43:11  I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

44:8  Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and
 have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea,
 there is no God; I know not any.

46:9  Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else;
 I am God, and there is none like me,

48:12  Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first,
 I also am the last.

48:13  Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand
 hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

48:16  Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the
 beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and
 his Spirit, hath sent me.
    
    God is not a man (in a general human sense)
    -------------------------------------------
Hosea 11:9  I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return 
    to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst 
    of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

Numbers 23:19  God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, 
    that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he 
    spoken, and shall he not make it good?
    
John 4:24
    God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit
    and in truth.

    Patricia:
    
    I think the word myth is improper terminology.  I would think
    allegorical would be more suitable for the discussion.
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack

re:  Note 964.4 by Jack

An allegory is a "symbolic embodiment of generalizations intended to reflect a 
given aspect of experience".

A myth is "a traditional story presenting supernatural beings, ancestors, or 
heros that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the world".

(Both definitions from the _American_Heritage_Dictionary_.)  I think myth is 
the proper definition, seeing as how it is about God (supernatural), the 
patriarchs (ancestors & heros) and such.  

I know many people dislike the view of Genesis as myth, I think terming it 
allegory would in this view give it even less regard.

Peace,

Jim

re: Note 964.3 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

Well, I don't see Genesis as compromising Christianity.  Especially when 
viewing it as myth.

>    Secondly, God is always referred to in a masculine sense.
    
As I recall, (in one of the Psalms, I believe) there is an image of God
gathering children together as a hen gathers her chicks.

Peace,

Jim

>As I recall, (in one of the Psalms, I believe) there is an image of God
>gathering children together as a hen gathers her chicks.
    
    is that an allegory or myth? ;-)
    
    In Exodus 19:4 there is an image of God carrying His people as a mother
    eagle carries her young on her back too (that's how mother eagles carry
    their young).  They're obviously figures of speech.  If we don't take
    figures of speech literally today, why should we take them literally in
    the Bible?  Clearly they are there to present the magnificent
    concern/love God has for His people.
    
    Besides, since when is it only a woman's job to gather the young
    together.  Didn't your father ever gather you and your siblings for 
    special occaisions?  Wouldn't it be just like Abba Father (Daddy) to do
    the same for his children?  Of course it would!
    
    Mike

re: Note 964.7 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

>    In Exodus 19:4 there is an image of God carrying His people as a mother
>    eagle carries her young on her back too (that's how mother eagles carry
>    their young).  They're obviously figures of speech.  If we don't take
>    figures of speech literally today, why should we take them literally in
>    the Bible?  

I don't think it matters if they are taken as literal or not, they are ways of 
refering to God on the feminine gender.  Obviously, God isn't ALWAYS refered 
to in the masculine, as you maintained in your earlier note.

>    Besides, since when is it only a woman's job to gather the young
    together.  

Didn't say it was, but how many male hens do you know?

Peace,

Jim

>I don't think it matters if they are taken as literal or not, they are ways of 
>refering to God on the feminine gender.  Obviously, God isn't ALWAYS refered 
>to in the masculine, as you maintained in your earlier note.
    
    Obviously I should've been more specific earlier, but *direct*
    references to God are masculine.
    

  Ok, I'll go along with this premise and be the "devil's advocate".

  In the NT the children of God are said to be "begotten" of the Father
  and "born" of the Spirit, clearly definable male and female functions.

  "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit".

  Or how about Galatians?

  But the Jerusalem above is free which is the mother of us all...

  Now we brethren, as Isaac are the children of promise...

  who was born according to the Spirit, even as now...
 
  So then brethren we are children not of bondwoman but of the free.

  Hank D

   >> Didn't say it was, but how many male hens do you know?
    
    One...My uncle Henry who is a pain in the behind!! :-)

    ...and before anyone brings it up, Genesis 3:15 refers to the virgin
    birth of Christ, not a female deity.

re: Note 964.9 by Mike "Maranatha!" 
    
>    Obviously I should've been more specific earlier, but *direct*
>    references to God are masculine.
    
But why should that be?  It could well be a simple artifact of language, it 
could have been altered by human interpretation.  Patricia has presented much 
material on this subject.

Peace,

Jim

    That's not true of Hebrew when using "He" or "Him" in reference to God. 
    No feminine traits in those words.

re: Note 964.14 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

Which isn't true?

Peace,

Jim

    I'm talking about the Hebrew context for personal pronouns referring to
    God.  I don't care who wrote what, the Hebrew language hasn't changed
    its pronouns anytime in recent history.

        re: .12

    OK, guess I'm dense, but...  How does Genesis 3:15 refer to the
    virgin birth??  

    In case there is someone else out there who doesn't have it memorized:

    "And I will put enmity 
     Between you and the woman,
     And between your seed and her seed;
     He shall bruise you on the head,
     And you shall bruise him on the heel."

    Debby, what person born of female seed crushed the serpent's head?
    Everyone knows the male has the seed so there was a very good reason
    why the Bible explicitly stated "her seed" here.  Jesus Christ was
    conceived via the Holy Spirit with a female seed.  Which further proves
    the point against female deity since females don't conceive from females.
    
    Mike

    Hmmm.  I do believe in the virgin birth, but I don't buy that this is a
    reference to it.  I wonder if it might be a problem in translation, or
    a case of oral tradition not passed on quite right, or a case of being
    too literal.  

    As to the same verse disproving a female deity, I don't buy that
    either.  And I don't consider it relevant.  God is God, no matter what
    we say, do or believe.  My own personal, and absolutely
    unsubstantiated, opinion is that God is above sexual orientation.

    Debby,
    
    I for one am in agreement with you in rgds. to sexual orientation.
    This is why I cringe when I see the term God/goddess used.  Goddess
    is a term used to depict pagan worship and is not to be put on equal
    footing with God for PC purposes.
    
    God Bless,
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 964.18 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

| Debby, what person born of female seed crushed the serpent's head?
| Everyone knows the male has the seed so there was a very good reason
| why the Bible explicitly stated "her seed" here.  Jesus Christ was
| conceived via the Holy Spirit with a female seed.  Which further proves
| the point against female deity since females don't conceive from females.

	Mike, if there were a female deity, wouldn't you be limiting her power?
You certainly have not done that with God, as usually sex is required to have
babies, well, back then anyway. 



Glen

| <<< Note 964.20 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| This is why I cringe when I see the term God/goddess used.  Goddess is a term 
| used to depict pagan worship and is not to be put on equal footing with God 
| for PC purposes.

	Jack, could it possibly be that the Goddess is on equal footing because
while we may believe God is the supreme being, another could believe that it is
really Goddess? One's beliefs can be a driving factor, and while I do believe
what you wrote above can and does happen, let's not lump everyone into one
catagory on this. 


Glen

    No...this is a Christian Perspective conference...not a religion
    conference!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 964.23 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>

| No...this is a Christian Perspective conference...not a religion conference!


	Jack, I suppose there is some humor to be found in the above, but I
haven't figured it out yet. Wanna clarify? :-)


Glen

re: Note 964.18 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

>    Everyone knows the male has the seed so there was a very good reason
>    why the Bible explicitly stated "her seed" here.  

Come again?

Sex education wasn't widely available 3000 years ago.  We know a lot more 
about reproduction than they did.

Peace,

Jim

    Mike:
    
    I offer this as a possible answer to the virgin birth/her seed issue.
    Read below.
    
    "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the 
    sun and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve
    stars.  And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained
    to be delivered.  And there appeared another wonder in heaven.  Behold,
    a great dragon having seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns upon
    his heads....and the dragon stood before the woman which was readt to
    be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 
    Revelation 12: 1-5
    
    I believe the woman indicated here is the nation of Israel.  Twelve
    stars, persecution, etc...This fits the nation of Israel very well.
    It is a clear possibility that in the account, God is referring to this 
    nation and not the virgin birth although you may be correct.  This
    topic may call for more indepth study.
    
    Whatever the case, I think that we are all in concensus that a gender
    God is simply incorrect.  I still stand that the term Goddess connotes
    pagan worship and should be avoided!
    
    -Jack

     Re: Debby
    > Hmmm.  I do believe in the virgin birth, but I don't buy that this is a
>    reference to it.  I wonder if it might be a problem in translation, or
>    a case of oral tradition not passed on quite right, or a case of being
>    too literal.  
    
    do your own research.  compare Genesis 3:15 with Galatians 4:4, 
    Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 1:26-35.  If you have a good study Bible, the
    cross-references and study notes will verify this as a Messianic
    prophecy and the fulfillment of it.

>    either.  And I don't consider it relevant.  God is God, no matter what
>    we say, do or believe.  My own personal, and absolutely
>    unsubstantiated, opinion is that God is above sexual orientation.
    
    God is not human so orientation is irrelevant, but is referred to with 
    male pronouns.
    
    Re: Glen
>You certainly have not done that with God, as usually sex is required to have
>babies, well, back then anyway. 
    
    Jesus was conceived via the Holy Spirit.   Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-35.

>    No...this is a Christian Perspective conference...not a religion
>    conference!
    
    Amen Jack!  Christianity has nothing to do with religion.  Religion is
    man's attempt to reach God.  Christianity is God's attempt to reach
    man.  BIG DIFFERENCE!  Religion will never work.
    
    Re: Jim
>Sex education wasn't widely available 3000 years ago.  We know a lot more 
>about reproduction than they did.

    Isn't great how God inspired Moses to write about the female egg long
    before we knew anything about it!
    
>    God is simply incorrect.  I still stand that the term Goddess connotes
>    pagan worship and should be avoided!
    
    Amen again, Jack!
    
    Mike

re: Note 964.27 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

>    Isn't great how God inspired Moses to write about the female egg long
>    before we knew anything about it!
    
Do you take the Bible as a 100% scientifically accurate book?

Sometimes you can guess right, sometimes you can guess wrong.

What does it mean to you?

Peace,

Jim

re .19  Debby Haeck

>I don't buy that [Genesis 3:15] is a reference to [the Virgin Birth].

The literal reference is to the descendents of Eve, who will despise
snakes.  But Christian tradition has considered it to be a reference to
Mary who is the new Eve, and her Son.  (ref New Jerome Biblical Commentary)

The passage is known as the "Protoevangelium" (First Gospel).  After Man's
fall, God did not abandon him, but rather, in a mysterious way, heralded
the coming victory over evil and Man's restoration to grace.  This is
the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between
the serpent and the Woman (Revelation 12), and of the final victory of
her descendent.  (ref. CCC#410)

The passage is used in the Common Lectionary (used by Episcopalians, Roman
Catholics, and others) for Proper 5 Year B (10th Sunday in Ordinary Time),
or the Sunday closest to June 8th.  The Gospel for that day is Mark 3:20-35.
The theme for the day is that evil (Satan, the serpent) will be conquered
through the redeemer promised in the Protoevengelium.

/john

I should point out that most Christians agree that Revelation 12 refers
to the nation of Israel, but many believe it is a dual reference to Israel
and to Mary, as well as to the Church.

In either case, the victorious descendent of Israel/Mary is Our Lord.

The word "seed" used in the KJV simply means offspring -- both the first
and all future generations of offspring: "As he spake to our fathers, to
Abraham, and to his seed forever" - Luke 1:55.

/john

 Hi Patricia,

 I know you've directed your question to Richard concerning the definition
 of the term allegory, so I hope you will both overlook my boorishly 
 barging in.

 That said, to me and in my opinion, an allegory is a factual event from
 which a spiritual truth can be extrapolated.

 For example :

 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondwoman was 
 born according to the flesh and he of the freewoman through promise
 which things are an allegory, for these are the two covenants: the one
 from Mt Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar, for this Hagar
 is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is with 
 her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
 Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise...
 So then brethren we are not the children of the bondwoman but the free.

 Galatians 4:22ff

 The difference, I presume, is that "myth" infers that the underlying
 story has little or no relationship to historical fact (and this is what
 is so offensive to those of us who believe in the inerrancy of scripture),
 while an allegory (in the biblical sense) has as its foundation, a factual 
 and historical incident. In other words, Paul believed the Sarah-Hagar-Ishmael 
 account as an historical fact, but drew a spiritual after_the_fact truth 
 concerning the "new" birth from it. Somehere else in the scripture we are 
 told that all such events speak of Christ and His kingdom. We have only 
 "scratched the surface". 

 Another for instance and factoid : The Passover Account can be viewed as 
 an allegory of "the day of the Lord" and the end of this age, (Gentile
 world leadership) as in the Revelation. Now whether one views the Passover 
 (of the Book of Exodus) as "myth" or as a factual and accurate historical 
 record, would probably flavor the spiritual nature and significance of one's
 symbolic-actual view of the "apocalyptic" events leading up to the end of 
 this age and the beginning of the next.
 
  Hank 

re Note 963.8 by DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR:

>  The difference, I presume, is that "myth" infers that the underlying
>  story has little or no relationship to historical fact (and this is what
>  is so offensive to those of us who believe in the inerrancy of scripture),
>  while an allegory (in the biblical sense) has as its foundation, a factual 
>  and historical incident. 

        It is not an "error" when a myth relates a story that is not
        based on historical event.

        Thus to refer to a story in the Bible as "myth" *in no way*
        is claiming an error or defect in the Bible per se.

        So why is this offensive in the slightest, much less "so
        offensive"?

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    To me, it puts prophets in the same league with writers like Homer. 
    I find this very....oopps, wrong string!!
    
    -Jack

 Re . 9 Patricia

 > thus to refer to a story in the bible as "myth" *in no way*
 > is claiming an error or defect in the Bible per se.

 > So why is this offensive in the slightest, much less "so
 > offensive"?

 Myth n. 2. Any fictitious or imaginary story, person or thing.
 The American Heritage Dictionary; Pg. 467.

 Because men such as Kierkegaard, Buber and others within the neo-orthodox 
 movement defined the term "myth" as it is above. They had no problem 
 "de-bunking" the myth of Sarah-Hagar-Ishmael as having been real persons, 
 and in fact stated that it didn't make a difference to them whether they were 
 real persons or not accept for the fact that it flavored the outcome of the
 spiritual truth taught by the "myth". People who support the inerrancy of the 
 Bible simply cannot accept that premise as vaild. They (neo-orthodox) would 
 explain Moses encounter with the I AM as perhaps a vision brought about 
 through a bout with hypoglycemia, or perhaps Moses was schizophrenic and had 
 an episode. this kind of explanation is totally enacceptable to those of us 
 who believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures. I will say this however, we 
 might accept the final outcome (apart from the "myth" symbols) of their 
 analysis as long the truth derived from the symbols jived with an inerrant 
 view (though that wouldnt be one of their criteria, but a chance happening) 
 that's within the realm of possibility, but not very probable.

 Hank

    Hank,
    
    i studied Kierkegaard at school and have read some of
    his works, both secular and theological. i can't recall
    any mention of the argument regarding myths that you
    refer to in your reply. the one recounting the i can
    recall, the story of Isaac and Abraham, is quite dramatic
    and puts me more in mind of Midrash. S.K., while he
    used rational techniques, can not be considered a
    Rationalist (at least by the standards that i was taught).
    
    perhaps you can help me out here and either provide some
    further comment or provide me with a reference that i might
    read.
    
    peter

re Note 963.11 by DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR:

>  People who support the inerrancy of the 
>  Bible simply cannot accept that premise as vaild. They (neo-orthodox) would 
>  explain Moses encounter with the I AM as perhaps a vision brought about 
>  through a bout with hypoglycemia, or perhaps Moses was schizophrenic and had 
>  an episode. this kind of explanation is totally enacceptable to those of us 
>  who believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures. 

        You keep on confusing "historicity" with "inerrancy", as if a
        text *must* be historic to be inerrant (or as if non-history
        was inherently erroneous).

        I realize that historicity is important to Christian
        conservatives, but it isn't the same thing as inerrancy at
        all.

        It is precisely because such assumptions "flavor the outcome"
        of Biblical study that they must be understood as such.  To
        some extent we pre-determine the outcome based upon our
        chosen assumptions.


>  I will say this however, we 
>  might accept the final outcome (apart from the "myth" symbols) of their 
>  analysis as long the truth derived from the symbols jived with an inerrant 
>  view (though that wouldnt be one of their criteria, but a chance happening) 
>  that's within the realm of possibility, but not very probable.
  
        Perhaps I'm beginning to understand why conservatives tend to
        insist that the Biblical text is free of significant
        ambiguity -- they simply define as erroneous any
        interpretations that differ from theirs, and thus "true"
        (true given this assumption) ambiguity simply vanishes
        because it is by definition impossible.

        Bob

  Re .12  Peter

  Oh yes, I remember the "leap of faith", If my memory serves me correctly, 
  Soren K was one of many that the very conservative theological school 
  I attended classified as "neo-orthodox".

  Basically a person of neo-orthodox persuasion need not "debunk" every
  single "myth" of the Bible, just state something to the effect "it 
  really dosn't matter to me whether Jonah and the great fish was a real 
  and historic person and event, only that I can draw some spiritual meaning 
  from the story" Kierkegard usually didn't even address the issue but (and
  I may be wrong) I am almost certain that neo-orthodoxy was his "ground 
  of being". They have no problem using orthodox terminology if you accept
  their basic tenant above and you may read an entire book written by 
  a neo-orthodox writter and not suspect such unless you are sensitive to
  their buzz-words. "leap of faith", "ground of being", "I'm ok, yur OK"
  "I-thou", etc,etc... They would say that the Bible contains the Word of God.

  There is an even more subtle movement today called "neo-evangelicalism"
  (Harold Ockenga (sp) self-proclaimed father of such) which says something
  to the effect "We dont care if you believe that the bible is full of myths
  as long as you come to Christ". Ockenga himself may and probably dosn't
  see "myth" in the Bible, but neo-evangelicalism is very reluctant to tell
  you that you are wrong for rejecting innerancy, for fear that you will be 
  frightened away from your search for truth. They would say that the Bible
  is the Word of God in the Original autographs (which we no longer possess
  neither do we have an inerrant copy).

  Many straight laced fundamentalist categorize Billy Graham as a
  neo-evangelical.

  Re .13 Bob

  Bob, it is important to the concept of inerrancy that historic events be
  categorized as "real". In the example above, we believe that Jonah was a 
  real person, that the fish which swallowed him was a real fish and that 
  jonah was in the innards of this fish for three days and three nights.
  Now, that it is an allegory of the death burial and resurrection of Christ
  every one would agree, but the veracity of the Jonah story is the sore
  point.

  Hank

    Actually, an allegory need not be based on actual events.  What is
    important in an allegory, as I see it, is the meaning of the story
    and not the story itself.  An allegory is a teaching tool, not unlike
    the parable.
    
    Genesis is believed by scholars to have been originated after Exodus
    as a kind of backfill introduction.  I think it's helpful to see Genesis
    in this context.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re Note 963.14 by DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR:

>   but neo-evangelicalism is very reluctant to tell
>   you that you are wrong for rejecting innerancy, for fear that you will be 
>   frightened away from your search for truth. 

        Well, erroneous man-made doctrine elevated to the level of
        divine truth would tend to discredit everthing else one says.


>   Re .13 Bob
> 
>   Bob, it is important to the concept of inerrancy that historic events be
>   categorized as "real". In the example above, we believe that Jonah was a 
>   real person, that the fish which swallowed him was a real fish and that 
>   jonah was in the innards of this fish for three days and three nights.
>   Now, that it is an allegory of the death burial and resurrection of Christ
>   every one would agree, but the veracity of the Jonah story is the sore
>   point.

        Hank, 

        What relevance is your statement that "historic events be
        categorized as 'real'"?  Nobody claimed that they weren't.

        Of course historic events are "real", but the question is not
        that but whether each story presents historic events!

        The nature of such literature is that "myth" is never
        labeled as such -- no mythic story (as far as I know) starts
        off with a disclaimer that "this is just a story, the events
        and persons are fictitious".  Just because particular stories
        in the Bible don't start off "Warning:  this is only a myth"
        it doesn't follow that they must be either historic or
        falsehood.  They can certainly be non-historic and true.

        I think that the real reason conservatives tend to deny that
        any of the Bible is mythical is that they don't want to deal
        with the question "Could it be *entirely* mythical?"

        Truth is never served by avoiding questions.  Truth is
        especially ill-served when the really tough and fundamental
        questions are avoided.

        Bob

    >Do you take the Bible as a 100% scientifically accurate book?

>to the nation of Israel, but many believe it is a dual reference to Israel
>and to Mary, as well as to the Church.
    
    it's not the Church.  It's long gone by Revelation 12.

>    as a kind of backfill introduction.  I think it's helpful to see Genesis
>    in this context.

re Note 964.42 by FRETZ::HEISER:

>                          -< I think it's sacreligious >-
> 
> >    as a kind of backfill introduction.  I think it's helpful to see Genesis
> >    in this context.
  
        To the concept in your mind, yes it may be sacrilegious.

        (Fortunately, I don't worship your mind, and neither should
        you.)

        Bob

    I wonder what God thinks of the condescending attitude toward his Word.

    I didn't realize God might consider the seeking and revealing of truth
    (or Truth, if you prefer) on *any* topic, tenet or object to be
    "condescension."
    

re: Note 964.40 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

>    >Do you take the Bible as a 100% scientifically accurate book?
>                                   -< YES! >-

Then we completely disagree on our premises.

Peace,

Jim

 Re What went before...

 Yes, I believe the Bible to be 100% scientifically accurate book, but that
 does not mean that figures of speech, metaphors, similies, etc are excluded.
 For instance the Bible refers to "the rising of the sun", "the four corners 
 of the earth". The Bible does not give a treatise on the the differences
 between the Copernicus vs Galileo-Newton world view and we may very well
 find out in the future (should the Lord allow) that both these world views 
 are inaccurate and in fact we have found that the sun is indeed moving through
 the Milky Way galaxy at 43,000MPH (approx). The Holy Spirit used the common 
 figures of speech of the inspired writer to convey a spiritual truth. 
 However when someone says that entire books, chapters and portions of the 
 Bible are historically innacurate, then we (inerrantists) are unhappy with 
 such statements.
  
 In addition I personally believe in the infallible transmission of the 
 inerrant Word; that the Hebrew and Greek texts *BEHIND* the 1611 KJV are
 exact duplicates of the Heavenly Model (every vav, yod and iota) so I would
 reject any precepts of higher (or lower) criticism of the text. This does
 not mean that I believe the *English* of the KJV is perfect. Some do.
 As an aside the New King James version uses those same Greek and Hebrew
 master collations housed in the Oxford Library in England as was used
 for the 1611 KJV.
 
 Again the objection to the word "myth" is in relation to the neo-orthodox
 use of the word as "a fictitious story which conveys a spiritual truth".
 We have no problem with those who affirm inerrancy and go on to
 spiritualize or draw "hidden meanings" from scripture passages (though we 
 might disagree as to the conclusions drawn). Such a case would be the note
 relating to the Adam and Eve "myth". Now if one wanted to affirm that Adam
 and Eve were real people (I must admit that there are some inerrantist who
 hold that the "trees" in the garden are symbolic - I dont, I believe that 
 they were trees, different than modern trees but trees nonetheless, and
 yes Jesus Christ is the Tree of Life, the tree of life in the garden of
 Eden being a *type* pointing to Christ) and draw other "truths" from 
 the account (even Patricia's serpent-male dominance theory) then that's
 fine and we might all possibly learn something, but when the premise is
 that "Its a fictitious story to teach a spiritual truth" then we have 
 great difficulty even giving credence to such things. We *need* that
 affirmation up front (call it what you will, but we need it).

 I think one of the *basic* problems that christians have is we pass 
 Judgments on each other; orthodox vs neo-orthodox etc, etc *in both 
 directions*. Inerrantists are particulary guilty of this , I know and 
 understand that this is an irritation to the recipients. This is expressly 
 forbidden in Scripture :

  Do not speak evil of one another brethren...
  There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy
  Who are you to judge another?     James 5:11,12 NKJV

 With that in mind, I would say to those of you who hold to the view of the 
 neo-orthodox "myth" defintion and say that the Bible "contains the Word of 
 God"  rather than is The Word of God, that this is not in your best interest 
 and I would ask that you reconsider your position, or at least when you study
 the scripture try to keep our point of view in mind as best you can.

 The Lord bless you in your search for Truth.
 
 Hank

re: Note 964.47 by Hank

> We have no problem with those who affirm inerrancy and go on to
> spiritualize or draw "hidden meanings" from scripture passages ...

Hank, in most of your note you speak of your own beliefs ("I" statements).
Who is the "we" you refer to here?  Thanks.

Peace,

Jim

 .48 "we"

  I tried to be as representative as possible of the infallible bible folk
  and used the personal plural pronoun "we" throughout. When I was through 
  I changed them to "I"  perceiving that this might cause some one to be
  divisive.

  I missed at least this one.

  Sorry.

  Hank
 

re: Note 964.49 by Hank

No problem, thanks for the explanation.

Peace,

Jim

      Hi,
    
        I just read the first 30 replies, but just a couple thoughts...
    
        On male/female...I agree with Debbie 100%.  Christ was male
        in His humanity.  But, as for divinity, The relevence of male
        of female sexual organs or whatever completely escapes.  God
        creates, males and females can procreate!
    
        I really think the allusions of our Creator as being male or
        female is ludicrous.  I really do and I don't mind saying so
        because in comparison to God's desire to draw people to Him
        by His love and to remake our hearts, well it would like talking
        about (oh I don't know) perhaps tiddly winks while you're watching
        someone try to gun down your own children or something.  Its
        absolutely ludicrous and childless.
    
        I wonder if God weeps when He sees us carry on like this.
    
        And this might offend some, but I believe as to what Christ needed
        to do to redeem us, He could have come in His humanity a woman.
        He still could have had His faith perfected through sufferings
        and could have ordealed all that it means to 'bear sin' in His
        flesh.
    
        I guess what I'm saying is I'm not trying to suggest I'm denouncing
        femininity or womenhood here.  Heck, women are every bit as much
        basket-cases as men are!  We're all 0% righteouss and need a 
        Redeemer 100%!!!
    
        On the seed.  I think CLEAR allusions to the victory of the seed
        can be found in Daniel 7 where I think 3 times it mentions victory
        over the horn (as in verse 26).
    
        I think the woman is the church and the seed that shatters the
        serpent is Christ on the cross and Christ in His last day people.
        Maybe seed refers to Christ and the remnant.  Galatians seems to
        refer to seed being Christ and the church (Gal. 3:16 [Christ] and
        3:29 [church, the faithful].
    
        I think seed has dual application.
    
                                                    Tony

      re: .47
    
      Nice reply Hank.  Thanks.
    
      I wonder if I was judgmental in my last reply?  Hope not.
      I was trying to say some conversation to be ludicrous, 
      but not the people themselves...
    
                                           Tony

>    I didn't realize God might consider the seeking and revealing of truth
>    (or Truth, if you prefer) on *any* topic, tenet or object to be
>    "condescension."
    
    the Truth is in His Word.

 Re .52 judgmental

 No Tony, I have often read my own responses several days, months and even
 years later and thought

 Boy, was I in an ugly mood or what?

 We all do it

 Hank

      Thanks Hank.
    
      The following I think summarizes my thoughts regarding placing
      gender on the eternal God:
    
      Romans 1:20-23
      For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes
      are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
      made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are
      without excuse,
      because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as
      God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts,
      and their foolish hearts were darkened.
      Professing to be wise, they became fools,
      and changed *the glory of the incorruptible God* _into an 
      image made like corruptible man_ - and birds and four-footed
      beasts and creeping things.
    
      I really think that the above passage speaks of learning of
      creative power as an attribute of our God as well as of His 
      character of love.  We see the power of creation be seeing what
      has been made and by contemplating that _it was MADE_; it was
      willed into existence.
    
      But when we put a construction on who God is by taking attributes
      of creation...such as "God is male" or "God is female"...that to
      me is entirely consistent with changing "the glory of the incor-
      ruptible God into an image made like corruptible man."

    .53
    
    >the Truth is in His Word.
    
    And the Word is Christ.  It's in the Gospel.
    

    Yes but Tony, Christ begat the church, not vice versa.  The woman
    therefore must be the nation of Israel.
    
    -Jack

      Hi Jack,
    
        I suppose it depends upon how one defines church!
    
        I define church as the body of God's faithful.
    
        Am I stretching?  Maybe!  Not sure.
    
                                            Tony

    Church - Ecclesia: Local body.
    
    I agree on this term.  
    
    If the woman in Genesis 3 is the same as the woman in Revelation 12,
    then it stands to reason that the woman is the nation of Israel.
    
    But I do see your point.  I guess we'll have to ask Him when we get
    there!!! :-)
    
    -Jack

    Whether you believe it's Israel or Mary, it's still Messianic.  

    It's more to me an interesting point of study, not a passion to know
    the actual truth.  I agree fully...it is messianic!!
    
    -JAck

 Some of us believe that this is one of places where God is
 typified as feminine (the Father begets, the Spirit gives birth).
 Many of the attributes of God are of traditional feminine quality (comforter,
 nurturer; one of the hebrew word pictures of Jehovah is that of a nursing 
 mother).

 In other words this (Rev 12) is the Spirit of God with the true children of 
 the New Birth as she (actually He) soujourns with them on earth. 

 The woman "the mother of Harlots" in Revelation 17 is the antichrist answer
 to the woman of Revelation 12.
 
 And they dwell together :

 to the Church at Thyatira "You allow that woman Jezebeel..."

 "And the dragon was enraged with the woman and he went to make war with the
  rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the 
  testimony of Jesus Christ". Revelation 12:17 NKJV.

  Hank