original manuscripts

Brian, are you "wowing" what I said about Gen 1-11 or something else?

Whether or not you agree with me, I will share that I was EXTREMELY depressed for about a week or so after essentially "discovering" that there was no Adam and Eve in August of '99 (through a Time magazine article summarizing the hominid evidence to date). I thought "the Bible" had been disproven and I was on a train to atheism.

But then, my father-in-law (a moderate Baptist pastor) showed me a number of his critical references from the Interpreter's series and others, where I discovered that the non-historicity of Gen 1-11 isn't something that is avoided in many other denominations or even among Baptists. In fact, it's the accepted NORM among many Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, UCC-ers, Lutherans, etc.

So the literal interpretation that I was raised on is only one of many different interpretations of Gen 1-11 within mainline Christianity, and is by no means essential to the faith unless you buy the false doctrine of inerrancy, (which I am convinced to be a tool of Satan for causing division in the body of Christ where there is none).

 

Brian,

If you want details of what BWSmith thinks about the Bible, go to:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=29&t=000008

You tell me if I falsely misrepresented him as he seems to imply.

As far as my letter to BW's pastor, there's more to that than he has divulged also, including an apology which he virtually ignored. What kind of Christian is that?

 

Brian wrote:
> A trend if you will is that science keeps finding proof of the Bible....man tends to look at how things are now and assume it has always worked this way.

BWS: Actually, the foundation of my understanding that Gen 1-11 is admitting that science has evidence that directly contradicts a literal reading of the Bible. (e.g. transitional hominids)

>Brian: BTW geneticly they have proven there was an Eve.

BWS: No they haven't. They've calculated the time period in which the common "mitochondrial Eve" for all living humans lived. A "mitochondrial Eve" is a most recent common maternal ancestor for a population.

>Brian: If you can't take the Bible as truth in fact then its all theory.

BWS: It's all theory regardless. Taking the Bible as truth in fact is just one branch of the intellectual process of deciding what is and is not truth.

>Brian: I know that there are places where ideas are taught parables and such and they self identify.

BWS: And in other places the genre is not so clear, like Job for instance.

>Brian: I don't pretend to understand parts of it but I completely believe all of it.

BWS: As do I, within the form that the text represents.

>Brian: This will be considered ignorant by many but I have no conflicts within myself when I read the Word. Makes life real simple, there it is so thats it.

BWS: Amen, but at the same time, there is a big difference between pursuing simplicity and pursuing the truth.

 

Hi John. Long time no argue...


> Wells: If you want details of what BWSmith thinks about the Bible, go to: (link)

BWS: Why don't you link everyone into the thread entitled "Wells goes too far" while you're at it, so we can accurately survey the letter incident?

> Wells: You tell me if I falsely misrepresented him as he seems to imply.

BWS: This statement:

"Of course if Genesis 1 thru 11 is myth, then Jesus and half the writers of the Bible are liars because they quote parts of that section as fact, and well, BW has a tangled mess of a cut and paste Bible to deal with."

is a misrepresentation of my beliefs.

> Wells: As far as my letter to BW's pastor, there's more to that than he has divulged also, including an apology which he virtually ignored. What kind of Christian is that?

BWS: I agree, he's right. He formally apologized about the letter, and the record needs to show that.

However, he isn't sorry about the fact that he doesn't think that I am saved and he bases on the fact that 1) I am a theistic evolutionist, and 2) I do not accept material inerrancy. "What kind of Christian is that?"

 

One who believes every word of the Bible!

 

Apocrypha and all?

 

BWSmith said, "However, he isn't sorry about the fact that he doesn't think that I am saved and he bases on the fact that 1) I am a theistic evolutionist, and 2) I do not accept material inerrancy."

I am not sorry and will not apologize for being concerned about your salvation. My opinion is that you are not saved, based on your lack of full respect for the authority of God's Word. I hope I am wrong. Better to be tough on you than condescending, leading you to what Satan loves to pedal, a false sense of security!

 

By faith alone in Jesus the Christ through the grace of God we are saved, John.

The "full respect for the authority of God's Word" is not listed anywhere as a criterion for salvation, especially since you equate that phrase with accepting the doctrine of inerrancy.

 

Saving faith, as my pastor likes to state it, is putting your full weight in Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" (Mark 10:6 NIV)

BW, do you believe every word from the mouth of Jesus? Is your "full weight" in Jesus?

 

I didn't know Jesus spoke English. I also didn't know that Jesus wrote anything. Therefore, I didn't think that we had access to the very words of Christ, correct?