dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby) (10/22/85)
In article <732@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >A Reply to a Fundamentalist Christian's literal interpretation of the Bible >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >[it is] obvious that neither life, the earth, the sun or the stars were really >created in seven days as we know them... Although most modern Fundamentalists (some would say that's an oxymoron :-)) believe that the creation took place over 6 literal 24-hour days, it is interesting to note the comments of Dr. C. I. Scofield. For those of you who aren't familiar with this gentleman, Dr. Scofield is the author of the Scofield Reference Bible, and is the closest thing Fundamentalists have to a "patron saint." His Bible/commentary is in use in most Fundamentalist churches and seminaries today as a basis for exposition and doctrine. Dr. Scofield, commenting on the first chapter of Genesis, offers several BIBLICAL proofs that the days mentioned in Genesis NEED NOT be literal! One proof that comes to mind is where he cites Genesis 2:4, which says, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in THE DAY that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." The Bible then proceeds to describe the creation of the plants and herbs in further detail, and then the creation of man... all in THE DAY! Dr. Scofield also cites several other passages where a day cannot mean 24 hours. All this proves nothing about the truth or falsehood of the literal 6-day creation theory (unless you're into ad hominem circumstantial fallacies); but it does show that Fundamentalists need not insist on a literal 144-hour creation in order to be fundamental in the traditional sense of the word. (Interesting note: Dr. Scofield wrote his Bible/commentary in 1909, and was the original teacher, as far as I know, of the Hal Lindsey view of Revelation, complete with pre-tribulation rapture; he said in 1909 that the Bible taught that the tiny, feudalist state of Russia would eventually become a great nation, and would attack Israel, a nation that didn't exist and had not existed for nearly 2 millinea. Of course, he was considered crazy by many non-Fundamentalists. And probably a few Fundamentalists of the time thought he was a little weird.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Kirby ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave) (The views expressed herein are the exclusive property of Dave Kirby. Any person, living or dead, found with the same or similar opinions will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of law.)
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/24/85)
> In article <732@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > > > >A Reply to a Fundamentalist Christian's literal interpretation of the Bible > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >[it is] obvious that neither life, the earth, the sun or the stars were really > >created in seven days as we know them... > > > Although most modern Fundamentalists (some would say that's an oxymoron :-)) > believe that the creation took place over 6 literal 24-hour days, it is > interesting to note the comments of Dr. C. I. Scofield. For those of > you who aren't familiar with this gentleman, Dr. Scofield is the author > of the Scofield Reference Bible, and is the closest thing Fundamentalists > have to a "patron saint." His Bible/commentary is in use in most > Fundamentalist churches and seminaries today as a basis for exposition > and doctrine. > > Dr. Scofield, commenting on the first chapter of Genesis, offers several > BIBLICAL proofs that the days mentioned in Genesis NEED NOT be literal! > One proof that comes to mind is where he cites Genesis 2:4, which says, > "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were > created, in THE DAY that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." > The Bible then proceeds to describe the creation of the plants and herbs > in further detail, and then the creation of man... all in THE DAY! Dr. > Scofield also cites several other passages where a day cannot mean 24 > hours. > > All this proves nothing about the truth or falsehood of the literal 6-day > creation theory (unless you're into ad hominem circumstantial fallacies); > but it does show that Fundamentalists need not insist on a literal > 144-hour creation in order to be fundamental in the traditional sense > of the word. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Dave Kirby ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave) All this proves is yet another contradiction in the Bible if it is *taken literally*. My "New Oxford Annotated Bible" points out that the discrepecancy between the Genesis 1 and the Genesis 2 accounts of creation are evidence that the two accounts come from different traditions and authors. This is merely another way in which those two accounts *taken literally* blatantly contradict each other. tim sevener whuxn!orb
ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) (10/27/85)
In article <739@whuxl.UUCP>, orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > All this proves is yet another contradiction in the Bible > if it is *taken literally*. My "New Oxford Annotated Bible" points > out that the discrepecancy between the Genesis 1 and the Genesis 2 > accounts of creation are evidence that the two accounts come from > different traditions and authors. This is merely another way in which > those two accounts *taken literally* blatantly contradict each other. > I'm trying to understand what you think constitutes a contradiction. Any time someone uses 'literal words' whose 'literal meaning' (does such a creature really exist the way you think it does?) goes against other 'literal words', that's a contradiction. Some examples. (Christ speaking) "I am the bread of life." "I am the ressurrection and the life." Obviously a contradiction, a person can't be two things at once. Or at least not the bread of life and THE life. "But I say to you that Elijah already came ..." "Then the disciples understood thay He had spoken to them about John the Baptist." Jesus said the literal name Elijah, yet He was talking about someone else. You can't have one thing refer to or mean another. All analogies, symbols and parables are contradictions. "A sower went out to sow." Did a literal sower go literally out to sow? Did seed actually fall by the wayside and get snatched up? Did thorns grow amidst some of the seed and strangle it? It most likely didn't literally happen, so not only is the Bible full of contradictions, it's also full of lies. One last one just so you get the point of what I'm literally saying and a good example of the error you made. "Everyone who drinks of this water (speaking to the woman at the well) shall thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst." What a lie. He's saying I'll never be thirsty again because words can only have their literal meanings and that's what He literally said. And please don't try to say that you'll only see this kind of language (and these blatant contradictions and lies) in the Bible. You used two interesting words in your article. 'Taken'. Do you mean literally removed from the place where something used to be or do I have to look at the context and figure out the meaning of the word that way. What about the two 'accounts'? Savings or checking? Or can a literal word actually have two literal meanings? How do I know which one you mean if I have to take it literally? Rick Frey