For Exo. 20:13, this is from Matthew henry Concordance: As for the creation account, after God created Adam, these other things created were made especially for the garden of Eden even though they had been previously created for the rest of the earth. 2:7 And the LORD God formed a man's body from the dust of the ground and breathed into it the breath of life. And the man became a living person. 2:8 Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he placed the man he had created. 2:9 And the LORD God planted all sorts of trees in the garden – beautiful trees that produced delicious fruit. At the center of the garden he placed the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 2:10 A river flowed from the land of Eden, watering the garden and then dividing into four branches. 2:11 One of these branches is the Pishon, which flows around the entire land of Havilah, where gold is found. 2:12 The gold of that land is exceptionally pure; aromatic resin and onyx stone are also found there. 2:13 The second branch is the Gihon, which flows around the entire land of Cush. 2:14 The third branch is the Tigris, which flows to the east of Asshur. The fourth branch is the Euphrates. 2:15 The LORD God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and care for it. 2:18 And the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion who will help him." 2:19 So the LORD God formed from the soil every kind of animal and bird. He brought them to Adam to see what he would call them, and Adam chose a name for each one. 2:20 He gave names to all the livestock, birds, and wild animals. But still there was no companion suitable for him. 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib and brought her to Adam.
MadMax: Actually, that is the Origen/Augustine line as far as I can tell. Both advocated Biblical infallibility. But both believed that if you interpreted it completely literally, then you ran into contradiction. Hence, you're in a dilemma: the Bible is either perfect and metaphorical or literal and errant. The sites I ran into called this the "Alexandrian" school, though I hadn't encountered that phrase before.
Hehe, I didn't start this thread trying to tear down a religion, so have no fear. The only reason I started this thread was because I had just fairly recently read the passage I alluded to earlier. When I saw your statement in the Yates thread I was curious. I am still a bit skeptical about the NIV's footnote that "the verb used here is a special word which can only mean murder and always indicates intentional slaying" when according to my source that is clearly not true. What is the Matthew Henry Concordance? It sounds vaguely familiar but as I stated I am not a religion expert...
You guys have too much time on your hands. My apologies to everyone in the Andrea Yates thread who I wanted to respond too. I'll get there if I get a chance, but this one has got me hooked for the moment. MM and please keep in mind the bible is not merely a history book to me..it's not like a statute where i pour over its literalness...i've seen the evidence of Christ in my own life and in the lives of others. you're right in saying you can't change that view most likely. I agree that the personal experience and then relationship is how one really gets to know Christ. Without the personal connection to the spirit, the Bible is just a bunch of words. Many from the Pharisees to the Moonies have twisted and misinterpreted those words to suit their own ends. Getting hung up on the laws and the literal interpretations and not recognising the spirit of Christ is the trap the Pharisees fell into. "Live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature." -- Galatians 5:16 There are other inconsistencies in the bible too, btw. Matthew 27 5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. Acts 1 18 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) There are at least a couple more that I can't remember right now. This takes nothing away from the spirit of the Bible, IMO. It may add, in fact. This may tell us not to get hung up on the details, but to focus on the spirit which is consistent, I believe.
I think that elements of each of these different perspectives are part of the greater whole. And each, to greater and lesser degrees perhaps, has elements that are off track. This is a challenging perspective for me, particularly when it comes to Conservative Christianity, which I tend to see as having much more in common with the Pharisees than with Christ. But I think that in these times it's important that we be trying to come together rather than pull each other down. This doesn't mean I won't tell MadMax that I think that capital punishment is wrong, or someone else that that I think that churches should be building low-cost housing and homeless shelters rather than Crystal Palaces for themselves, but it does mean that I try not to be judgmental and angry with them, and to look for their positives while still pursuing and speaking about what I believe in.
grizzled -- i'm not sure those judas stories are entirely inconsistent. first...what does falling headlong mean?? it used to be said that people were buried headlong...and of course his blood/guts would pour out as he decayed...either way, the only distinction there is the way he dies...the spirit of the story changes not at all...if that's how people attack the Bible as inconsistent, that's just silly. more amazing is how similar the themes of the books in the Bible are despite the fact they span generations and were written miles apart from one another....
grizzled -- as for the palaces they call churches, i couldn't agree more. i actually work with two baptist guys. we were talking about second baptist a couple of weeks back and they both said, "hey, that's great and all...but why don't you use that money to feed someone!?" suffice it to say, i echo that sentiment. having said that, second baptist did a fabulous job of ministering to others during the floods associated with allison.
That's why (one of the reasons anyway) I try not to be judgmental. I certainly have my flaws too, so it's not for me to judge someone who clearly has a good heart in many areas, but likes his palatial churches. It's not for me to judge anybody anyway. But that can be challenging for me, especially when I see things I really object to. I think we should speak when we see such things, but not with anger and judgement. We should speak what we feel is right, but with respect and compassion.
