Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

Glenn wrote:

 

"...Either the Bible is to be interpreted differently (as I have tried) or it is false and God don't know diddly about how the world was created."

 

OR scriptural inspiration isn't what you think it is.  We've gone over this before, and I don't expect any better outcome this time, but maybe it's still worth a stab: 

 

Men wrote the Bible, not God.  <<<<

 

Fantastic, so we are to follow the word of man.  yeah, that is what I want to spend my life doing. All religions are simply the word of man and there is nothing special about them.

 

 

 

>>>>Men were inspired by God to put down in words what they considered to be important aspects and consequences of their relationship with God. <<<<

 

My bad attitude will show through here, but if it is written by men, what does god have to do with anything?  If God can't communicate something to man and man writes what he wants to write, then there is a problem. Why should I listen to a god who can't get a man to write the truth about what I can verify?  Why should I trust what the books says about what I can't verify. 

 

 I too don't expect a much better outcome of this go round than the last.

 

 >>>>Thousands of years ago, the creation story said meaningful things to people at that time about God's relationship to humans.  The relationship was the important thing, and the scriptures promoted that relationship at that time and for many centuries to come.  It still promotes such relationship for us if we can put ourselves in those ancient shoes.  <<<<

 

 

My sarcasm will unfortunately show forth, but if meaningfulness is what we want, how about "A rose by any other name should smell as sweet" Now that is meaningful! That says bucketloads about our relationship to roses.

 

 

>>>The relationship with God did not teach science to the inspired writers.  <<<

 

OK, God inspired (or let men) teach false things about what we can verify. I can buy that. But then why would I  believe that God always told the truth about the theology he was supposedly inspiring those lying humans to write?  How do I know that there are angels in Heaven if God actually allowed a human to teach that the world was created 6000 years ago?

 

Sarcasm once more, maybe you are more trusting than I.

 

 

>>>The purpose of scriptures is to promote and enhance relationship with God.  <<<

 

Is this from 2nd Athenians 5:4 where it says, "God's purpose was to promote and enhance relationship with God."  I can't find this in any other place in the Bible other than 2nd Athenians 5:4.

 

>>>The Bible is a record of God's interactions with humans, and from that record we can infer that we also may interact with God.  <<<

 

This I could buy, but that doesn't tell us God's purpose or why he let those lying humans say what they did about nature, about a 6000 year old creation, about a flood that didn't happen etc.  Since all that didn't happen, how can I be sure that the theology the Bible teaches is actually real?  Upon what basis do I judge that, Don?

 

>>>>About 50 years ago I was "converted" by reading Jeremiah's prophecies.  What was it about those prophecies that converted me?  Was I perhaps particularly impressed with how the prophet dealt with King Zedekiah?  No way.  The history bored me at the time.  What impressed me was the way Jeremiah's writings conveyed the unmistakable impression that he was in a close relationship with God, a relationship that involved frequent poignant interaction.  Much to my surprise, Jeremiah's accounts of his interactions with God led immediately to my own interaction with God--as if it had been contagious.  The experience was life-changing.  Big time.  <<<

 

Are you saying you were converted  by prophecies which had no concordance with any historical event--prophecies which were not fulfilled?  I would understand this if you were converted by prophecies which CONCORDED to reality, but to be converted by prophecies which have no cocordance with reality is truly amazing!!!! You are one in a million.

 

 

>>>This personal history, I think, largely explains why my view of inspiration is orthogonal to yours.  You seem to think God dictated the content, so that if anything is inconsistent with science, it reflects poorly on God.  I see the content rather as a human witness to the reality of God's love, a witness that suggests to us that we as humans can also know that love.  <<<

 

I truly stand in awe of a person converted to a religion by prophecies which do not have fulfilment and do not match history.  This is truly an amazing state of affairs. My hat is off to you. You are a better man than I.