God of the ancients

  • Thread starter Thread starter tommiatkins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Grace & Peace!
tommiatkins said:
To be a christian who accepts the bible as the inspired word of god or the literal word of god then you cannot accept cavemen.
Click to expand...
This is not quite true. While I see what you’re saying, there are various ways of interpreting the creation and fall myths which do not necessarily mean that cavemen are not part of the picture, nor would it mean positing an Adam character coming after the cavemen.

For instance, it is possible to conceive of the creation story as absolutely pre-historical (not in the sense of pre-recorded history or pre- a historical sense, but pre-temporal, or perhaps even atemporal). The fall can be conceived of as a fall into history and time as we know it, and evolution is the unwinding in the material plane of an act and process of spiritual involution. This does not change the theological truths revealed in the stories one bit.

Just saying–there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!
 
Nobody has posted this bit of evidence:

For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God. 1 Peter 4:6 (RSV)

Bolding mine. I think this allows for Jesus preaching to “the ancients” during His three days in Sheol and giving them the choice. Assuming, that is, that they were Homo Sapiens and had immortal souls.

Ruthie
 
Deo_Volente said:
Grace & Peace!

This is not quite true. While I see what you’re saying, there are various ways of interpreting the creation and fall myths which do not necessarily mean that cavemen are not part of the picture, nor would it mean positing an Adam character coming after the cavemen.

For instance, it is possible to conceive of the creation story as absolutely pre-historical (not in the sense of pre-recorded history or pre- a historical sense, but pre-temporal, or perhaps even atemporal). The fall can be conceived of as a fall into history and time as we know it, and evolution is the unwinding in the material plane of an act and process of spiritual involution. This does not change the theological truths revealed in the stories one bit.

Just saying–there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!
Click to expand...
Except Adam lived on the earth, in the middle east. The bible gives untippexable instructions on how long ago that was. We could throw that infallibility aside and say he was a caveman, dragging his club around. but then 900 odd years later we would have cavemen in chariots , in cities, in ships, wearing silks and smelting metals.

As i say, there may be some possible way to explain it, but none of them that wouldnt trash the infallibility of the bible.

The simpler explaination, and the evolutionary provable one, was that Adam, as in the “first man made out of playdoh” simply is a crock.

I’ll take Adam as a possible real human, living alongside early man, and he was cast out by his tribe or something , for dissing their sun-god. The tribe exiled him, and mayby even posted gaurds at the village (Edens) gates. This story may have passed from his decendents, and Cain married one of another tribes women rather than there being the four of them on the earth. Adam Eve Cain and his unnamed wife. (why bother naming the wife? Girl=unimportant)

This is about as beleivable as this story can get. It’s definatly worth leaving his hallucinations out of it.
 
Putting it in another way. It throws any legitimacy the bible has as either historically or divinely accurate, weather the literal word of god (which would be perfect) the inspired word of God, which again, would be perfect unless god was inspiring it to be completly wrong.
The only God connection possible, is “God is in bits of it” (which bits? we dont know, and it looks like “satan” is in much of it),or “its mans interpretation of things people thought they were doing for god”

In each and any of these cases the Bible can indeed be discarded.
 
tommiatkins said:
Putting it in another way. It throws any legitimacy the bible has as either historically or divinely accurate, weather the literal word of god (which would be perfect) the inspired word of God,
Code: 
which again, would be perfect unless god was inspiring it to be completly wrong
.
Click to expand...
That seems a dubious dichotomy. :hmmm: (If I understand you correctly – I hate to repeat my question: Is English your first language?)
tommiatkins said:
The only God connection possible, is “God is in bits of it”
Click to expand...
And that, a pretty harsh absolute.

If you want to discourse against Catholic Bible interpretation, then discourse against authentic Catholic Bible interpretation.
If, however, you want to argue against biblical literalism, perhaps you should first find someone espousing that, instead of fishing here. (You might try one of those fundamentalist forums people around here occassionally complain about being kicked out of for being too Catholic or too smart or something)

tee
 
As a long-time student of literature I would like to throw in my two cents and note that “literal” is not the same as “true”. The parables of Jesus are excellent examples of stories that are true, but that don’t relate historical facts.

Human beings love stories (perhaps cavemen did too), so why wouldn’t God be able to teach us through them?

I don’t need to believe the that the Bible is 100% historically accurate to believe that it is 100% true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top