A non-creationist interpretation of Genesis

Most things I've observed have a beginning, however, "ex nihilo" is taken on faith. But, I believe its taken on faith with good reason.

 

There is an incredible difference between a house being built with existing materials and something being built from nothing. Really, the comparison isn't even in the same ballpark. What good reason do you have to believe that existence from ex nihilo happens?

 

What does that have to do with what our mistranslated texts are? Maybe we are even using the correct texts to mistranslate.

 

I think I answered that in that I take it on faith. Most things that I've observed have a beginning, whether the materials are there or not. In fact I can say I don't know of anything that doesn't have a beginning. Do you know of anything that doesn't have a beginning? That doesn't mean that there never has been anything that hasn't had a beginning, but do you know of anything that hasn't had a beginning, starting point, etc.?

 

IF God is omnipotent, could He have preserved the texts correctly? Also, I never brought up the subject of any supposed mistranslated texts. There will always be textual variants, if that is what you're referring too?

 

You also said you have good reason. Do I know of anything that doesn't have a "creator" in the natural world that uses existing materials to make a "creation"? No. But, I don't see how that is analogous or useful to a completely separate scenario.

 

yes God could. But where are they? Have you seen them?

 

So does it seem even remotely possible that something can exist without having a first cause?

 

No, I haven't seen the original manuscripts. So if God could preserve the originals, and really the only thing that matters is the texts themselves, since its supposed to be His word, couldn't He preserve it through translations?

 

Yes, and considering that you're claiming that God does, it would seem you agree with me.

 

I just wanted to point out that there are various Christian thoughts on soteriology/atonement/Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, not just the one you seem to dislike (which I would not blame you for, since I dislike it myself). I would never think that any of these thoughts could say what happened on the cross ‘exactly’ – God is nothing that we can grasp ‘exactly’ in the way that we can determine the exact boiling point of water.
One of the thoughts that I’m personally closest to would be along the lines of Moltmann. In my own and probably inadequate summary: on the cross Jesus shows God’s solidarity and compassion for our human suffering.
After minute 6:15 of the video you can get a slightly longer summary:

[video=youtube;vUcCoP9EPY4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUcCoP9EPY4[/video]

And here’s one in written form:
http://theoriesofgod.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/review-jurgen-moltmanns-the-crucified-god/

I do not know why it does, but it’s a pretty much universal observation that everything in time and space does have a cause. If you see a marble rolling across the floor from A to B you can be pretty certain that it has been pushed. And if marble X reaches B faster than marble Y that’s probably because it’s been pushed harder. Marbles don’t seem to be in the habit of moving without a cause. Same with the cosmic marbles, whose movements can be traced back to the big bang, a theory that happens to have first been proposed by a Catholic Priest acquainted with Aquinas’ Aristotelian theological/philosophical contemplations of “creatio ex nihilo”. The Big Bang would have been the point at which time and space came into existence. Does this suggest a first uncaused cause/creator outside of time and space? Well, to quite a lot of philosophers and theologians who struggle with “ex nihilo nihil fit” it does. At least the proposition is not unreasonable: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

 

Thing is: I don’t doubt God could have kept the original manuscripts inerrant if He had wanted to, but He obviously didn’t. That much seems certain if one assumes that modern textual criticism comes rather close to reconstructing the original manuscripts. You may of course think the originals as reconstructed by textual criticism are nothing like what we can read in our modern Bibles today. But what we can read can’t be seen as inerrant unless one deliberately buries ones head in the sand or comes up with the most ridiculous apologetics. Such behaviour is not caused by having faith, it's caused by having an ideology.

 

We would get into the infinite regress otherwise. If God were timeless, would He need a creator?

 

Do you know the definition of the inerrancy of scripture? I know by asking this, if you don't, you're going to look it up.

Now you say He obviously didn't keep them inerrant, why do you sat that?

 

As is known today, they don't seem to exist. The RC church supposedly destroyed them. So while God could keep the originals, it seems God did not.
So we have no way of knowing what exactly is mistranslated and what is not. But we know there are mistranslations. Red Sea, virgin, and others. And words from 2000 yrs ago don't mean the same today. Some words today don't even mean the same they did 50 yrs ago.

 

Whats our evidence that the RC church destroyed them?
Red sea, and virgins are inconclusive.
True, some words don't mean the same today, that tehy meant many years ago, but couldn't the "thought or Idea" evolve with the language? For instance what is more important, that God delivered moses and the israelites from the hand of the egyptians, or the name of the sea? Isn't the idea of "deliverance" more important, than say an abstract name of a lake, sea, or otherwise?

 

Who made 'god'?

 

In a round-about way, I think thats what me and "gradpingforpeace" are discussing.

 

Existence (nature) created man (life) as 'we' are born within 'alpha/omega'. Man (all cases) was/is born in between the, beginning and ending.

Man created the 'word'.

Nature (the garden) is god and mankind are its children that are describing 'itself'.

The 'god' that idiots believe, that is supposedly outside of nature, is manmade by people believing a 'god' wants a dog to worship it. People require worship but not ANY god.

 

and this is why I can't have a discussion with you. When you equate a theist to an idiot...........the discussion degenerates..........

 

You've never seen them. And I bet you can't find them.
As for the exodus stuff, been there done that.

 

Anyone sustaining a lie, is an idiot. That kind of person is a degenerate.

 

Ok, comments like that lead me to believe you have no interest in furthering a conversation that you initiated.

If you have no desire to discuss the allegations that you've just laid at the the doorstep of the RCC, or the specifics of the exodus, then why bring them up?

 

When do you answer a question honestly?

The exodus, did not happen as many can read of bible/torah or what have you. There is no 'deliverance' as many want to 'believe' was enabled by a 'god'.

Archeologically the only 'exodus' from 'egypt' would be the schism within egypt to monotheism by ahkenatan.

So now, do you hold belief over what is real?

 

It's why I wasn't bothering to answer. There is never an end to the discussion.
I was only stating there are mistranslations, the originals don't exist and leave it at that.
And I think I've done the circle jerk on the exodus. It is still not proven the so called hebrews were ever in Egypt.