Egyptian Mythology

[Mark C.]

Dear Will
  I'm sorry, but I don't know any of your story re. the Assembly; were you a past member?  If so, how long have you been out?
  I ask these questions because I wonder where you are turning for your understanding of the history of the Bible and Christianity.  Are you getting your understanding from some particular group that has a heavy New Age bias?  Even a basic understanding of the reformation totally refutes your "Princeton Fundamentalists" theory.
  Are you familiar with the battle cry of the Reformation, "Sola Scriptura"?  The Fundamentalists of the the 19th century were merely asserting the Reformation teaching re. the authority and reliability of scripture against the great evil of modernism.  The great battle cry of modernism of that era was, "God is Dead".
   These original "Bible thumping" Reformers brought about a wonderful reformation in England that eventually led to the formation of our own Constitution, the abolition of slavery, and many other very positive things to the world.
   Modernism, with it's rejection of the authority of God's Word, it's relavistic moral views, etc. brought about the philosophies that led to Communism and Nazism.  You see, if the Bible isn't reliable, and I can decide what is really true and what isn't, or if evil is a relative concept,  then evil is promoted in the world.  Moderism (the religious view you seem to promote) is clearly and evidently Satanic.
   I would not call myself a Fundamentalist, as it is practiced today, but an Evangelical Christian.  The churches that promote Evangelical beliefs are the one's that are growing by leaps and bounds today.  The mainline liberal/modernist churches are dying.
 Your type casting of all Bible believing Christians as unsophisticated "street preachers" who glibly and ignorantly quote scripture is a false caricature of same.  My Sunday school teacher was a Physicist, Tom Maddox (who posts here) works with a Christian group that has many prominent scientists involved with it, and there is an abundance of very honored scholarship that defends the Bible believing position.
   Most of the so called "contradictions" that you mention have been ably answered many years ago.  Most of what you presented has to do with figures of speech.  Though I may say, "the sun came up this morning", it does not mean that I endorse the view that the sun circles the Earth; it is a figure of speech.  The Bible was not written to convince 21st century man that there is a God by means of scientific proof, but to bring the Gospel to men.  When we try to find reasons not to hear that message the problem may not be with the Bible, but with our own sinful hearts.
                                         God Bless,  Mark

[Will Jones]

Mark,  

To answer your question, I was an Assembly member for about 3 years in the early 90s.  You can well understand that I had to keep my different beliefs quiet because the Assembly insisted on conformity of belief.  I assure you that I am not part of a New Age group; I am an avid reader who has read a variety of Christian, scholarly, and primary source material.  While I went to university, I spent as much of my free time as possible reading the volumes of the early church fathers.  And the Reformation was one of my favorite eras and Luther (though far from a perfect man) one of my heroes!

Indeed, I am well aware of Sola Scriptura or "scripture alone."  This Protestant Battle cry as you call it was a simple way of stating that one's private interpretation of the Scriptures came before Papal decrees because everyone had the right of direct access to God through reading the Scriptures themselves.   Read the famous words of Luther as he stood before the Council of Worms in 1521:   "Since your Imperial Majesty and Lordships demand a simple answer I will do so without horns or teeth as follows:  Unless I am convicted by the testimony of Scripture or by evident reason - for I trust neither in popes nor in councils alone, since it is obvious that they have often erred and contradicted themselves - I am convicted by the Scripture which I have mentioned and my conscience is captive by the Word of God. Therefore I cannot and will not recant, since it is difficult, unprofitable and dangerous indeed to do anything against one's conscience. God help me."  I keep a copy of these words on my bookshelf!  Awesome!  Please notice Luther's emphasis on Scripture and evident (also translated elsewhere as 'plain') reason."  Luther did not throw his mind away because he taught it was the responsibility of everyone to read and interpret the Scriptures for themselves.  Please also note that Luther says his conscience--that is, what he believes to be truth--comes before councils, religious leaders, etc.   Luther stood for the authority of the inspired Scriptures over the rules of the Roman Church, but not for the "inerrant and infallible" Fundamentalist notion of the Bible because Luther did not accept certain books of the Bible as "inspired"!  He believed, as I do and as I stated below, in the passage of 2 Timothy--that inspired Scriptures have the authority on which to establish doctrine and the knowledge of how to live a good life before God.  Nowhere does Luther ever say that Bible is completely reliable in all matters of science and history.  On the contrary, in some cases he is critical of certain books and passages.

Like church leaders before him, Luther used his mind and conscience to interpret what he believed God had revealed to him--the gospel, the good news of salvation--and he fought for the right for everyone to interpret the Scriptures according to their minds/reason and conscience.  Thank God for him!  He was a religious freethinker of his time.  So you were worried that I was getting what I have come to believe is truth from a New Age group, but really I got it from Luther and others!    It is many Christians today who have gotten what they believe about the Bible from the Fundamentalist movement which was inspired by the 19th Century Princeton scholars who were trying to justify the place of the Bible in the growing acceptance of science.

The Fundamentalists of the the 19th century were merely asserting the Reformation teaching re. the authority and reliability of scripture against the great evil of modernism.  The great battle cry of modernism of that era was, "God is Dead".

Please do some reading in this era from a variety of sources that are not just pro-Fundamentalist/ mainstream Christian.  You have telescoped certain events together.  It is true that Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra wrote the famous "God is dead and we have killed him" line a bit before this time, but the majority of the people believed in God until early in the 20th Century.  In fact, there were many positive feelings about God, religion, and social reform at the beginning of the 20th Century that the last Century was dubbed, “The Christian Century.”  The popular "God is Dead" movement was in the 1960s, long before the Princeton Scholars were arguing BEYOND Luther.  They were adding to what Luther stood for, that is, they argued for the authority of Scripture (to establish doctrine and know how to live a good life as it says in 2 Timothy) AND that the Bible was the "inerrant and infallible Word of God" in all areas including science and history.  Instead of just admitting that much of the content of the Bible is metaphorical and myth--like Genesis, a story that attempts to reveal a greater truth about the nature of our existence--they went and said that the Bible had greater authority than science.  Luther only went over the heads of the Popes and priests by saying that one's interpretation of the Bible via mind and conscience had more authority than Councils and Canon Law, but the 19th Century Princeton scholars said that the Bible had the authority over the claims of science in all matters.  They should have just stuck with "in all matters of faith" rather than in all matters including history and science.  As a result, the Bible has lost authority when matched with the modern discoveries of science that rely on evidence that is observed rather than faith that is accepted.  For example, many people--scientists and scholars, etc.--will not believe in Christianity because (due to the influence of the Fundamentalist movement) they do not agree that the Bible is inerrant and infallible when they read different passages of the Bible that revealed a poorer, more ancient understanding of cosmology, etc.  

Believing that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in all matters is seen as a necessary part of being a Christian nowadays.  You and Arthur seem to think I am not a Christian simply because I believe the Bible is authorative in matters of faith and spiritual practice, but not necessarily science or history.  But, read 2 Timothy again, does it say anything about being a perfectly reliable document in terms of science and history or is it just talking about matters of faith and practice?  And, when does it ever say in the Scriptures that there will come THE BOOK that will be THE TRUTH, etc.  Nowhere does it say in the Bible that you must believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures or you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.   To reject the Word is to reject Jesus, the Word made flesh, not the Bible that contains the word of God, the gospel (notice the difference in capitals).  

Your type casting of all Bible believing Christians as unsophisticated "street preachers" who glibly and ignorantly quote scripture is a false caricature of same.

On the contrary, I was talking to Arthur who went all fire and brimstone on someone he did not know.  As I said, below, if people want to win souls, they have to be careful how they come across.  I was not angry at Arthur when he, in a very soap-boxish way, made certain assumptions and hinted at certain destinations for David's and my soul.  However, I did point out to him and those who choose to speak like him--not  "type casting of all Bible believing Christians"--that he has to rethink his approach in today’s day and age.  

You see, if the Bible isn't reliable, and I can decide what is really true and what isn't, or if evil is a relative concept,  then evil is promoted in the world.

 
As Luther and others taught, the Bible is reliable in terms of its presentation of the gospel and has the authority as it says in 2 Timothy to be a guide in all things of faith and spiritual practice.  But we must use our MINDS/REASON as we INTERPRET Scripture (which was written in a different time and culture) and respond how it speaks to our hearts/conscience.  

The Bible was not written to convince 21st century man that there is a God by means of scientific proof, but to bring the Gospel to men.

 Exactly!  There are things that ancient authors wrote that are not correct in terms of our modern understanding, but I accept that the men writing then (under the inspiration of God) were writing based on what they knew then.  As humans, they were limited and were not completely correct about how they described science or how they related history.  Certainly the Bible, due to the pains of preserving it through translation, etc., is very accurate and an amazing book.  It is a book of truth, but it is not THE book of TRUTH when it comes to science and history.

Is this any clearer or do I still sound like an infidel to you?  

[Will Jones]

I have also added to the thread I started in THE BIBLE Section--Danger: History and Science in the Bible.  This essay, about how the Protestant Reformers, etc. saw the Bible, nicely captures much of what I discovered through my own research.  Check it out if you like.  

[Mark C.]

Hi Will !
  Thank you so much for your very clear and detailed reply.  I wish I had the time to reply in similar detail, but maybe in course of further conversation I will be able to respond to more of your posted points.
  I now understand much better where you are coming from.  Your last post clears up for me what you were trying to say.  I never thought you were an "infidel" and was truly confused with your portrayal that seemed to suggest the view of liberal scholarship, or of new age teaching on the Bible.
  I totally agree we must think clearly and honestly when approaching the scripture and that a wooden kind of literalism is not the proper approach to hermenutics.  However, to suggest that one must interpret scripture from a Neo-Evangelical perspective only and that conservative theologians are hopelessly back woods in their methods is haughty, in my opinion.
  I understand the Neo-Evangelical position re. scripture and am very cautious re. the position that seeks to segregate scripture into the categories of "Gospel", and "human/cultural".  One assumes a great risk as they attempt to make a decision in this regard.  One could make the mistake of the Jesus Seminar folks who have the incredible arrogancy to suggest that they have figured out what Jesus really said and what men made up in the Bible!  The thinking they use to make these decisions comes from pre-determined bias to negate claims of the deity of Christ and His work of salvation on the cross.  In other words, we run the risk of creating a Bible in our own image, by removing verses we don't like.
   I think you misunderstand the concept of innerancy as consevative scholarship presents it (I realize there are those under the banner of fundamentalism today who make very ridiculous arguments against the Neo position.  This is why I would not put myself in their camp).  Conservative scholars are not saying that you don't need skills in order to interpret the Scripture or that there are not different genres within the Bible.  Yes, God spoke through humans, in their language, in their cultural setting, and it is our job to take that into account in our interpretation.  When we couple our own human weakness of sin, and obscurity of vision with Bible interpretation we must be very humble in our search for the meaning.  I fear the Neo, in his search to be a "free thinker", must be careful not to undermine confidence in the message of the Gospel to a needy humanity.
  We are not commissioned by Jesus to spread the Gospel of our new hermenutic, but the clear authoritative call to the one "Way, Truth, and Life", found only in Jesus.  If we spend our time trying to make "Free-Thinkers" are we diverting our attention from the best goal of reaching lost sinners?  Are we supporting a shift from the absolutes of Biblical revelation to a kind of relativism that the Modern scholars of the 19 th century took us to?  Neitzche took his cue from these theologians as did Karl Marx.
  You suggest that I should read other theologians on this issue and I have read Barth, as well as quite a few liberal scholars on this issue.  I am somewhat sympathetic to some of the Neo position, and understand that these individuals are true to the Gospel.  I have spent the last 12 years thinking very carefully about these issues, and continue to do so.
  I would recommend, if your desire is to support the Gospel message, to not attack those who believe in the traditional innerrancy position as your energy may serve to create agnostics rather than build faith in those reading here.  There are many wounded souls here who need to hear the positive assurances of the Gospel vs. the possible fallibility of scripture.  There is a time and place for that discussion among the secure in their faith.  It would seem at times that you have supported those who have rejected Jesus as the Way, Truth, and Life, and whom have sought other religious teaching.  My desire is to minister the healing blessing of the true Gospel and to help build the faith of the wounded here.
  I know that I did not address all of your post, but trust we can continue our conversation.
                             God Bless,  Mark
   
 

[Will Jones]

I have received a few emails and private messages in the range of support to concern over my salvation.  Thank you for them all.  One person had the following as their signature:

In the essentials, unity,
In the nonessentials, liberty,
In all things, charity.
                      John Wesley

The surest way to be deceived is to think one's self more clever than others.  French proverb

Amen to the French proverb!  I could very well be wrong about some of my views and that is why I keep reading, seeking, meditating, etc.  This is the whole premise of the scientific method:  we may be wrong so let us keep up with the experiments, etc. so we can get a better understanding.  Thank God things have gotten clearer as I have studied more / gathered more pieces of the puzzle of reality.  As I have been saying soooo often in my postings is we need to be humble when it comes to claiming we know THE TRUTH and we have to be careful about "hellfire preaching" nowadays because it just turns people off.  

Amen to the quotation from Wesley!  There are over 30,000 different Christian denominations that might agree with the essentials but do not agree on the nonessentials.  Sadly, charity is often left out of equation because people need to prove they are right and push their opinion of truth.   As far as most of the posters here, I believe in the essentials there is unity, but we will have to allow liberty in the nonessentials.  As Paul admonished, “Let each person be fully convinced in their own mind.”  I have already said that nowhere in the Bible does it demand a person to believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in all matters such as history and science.  I have already clearly stated how I deem the Scriptures.  Sadly, as I also mentioned, many people think that "true Christians" do not ever question the Bible (which probably means the recent Fundamentalist view of the Bible) so that means, by some people's definition, I am not a Christian because I do not believe the Bible in inerrant, "without mistake," because I have studied discrepancies in the Synoptic Gospel accounts, seen many passages that were written according to the incorrect scientific understanding of the time, etc.  However, I have demonstrated--from my own studies and to my satisfaction--that Christians before me like Luther, Augustine, etc. used their minds/reason/conscience to interpret the Scriptures and saw the Bible as a book inspired by God but written by men, a remarkably book (though not always perfect in fact) that reveals spiritual truth about The Way, The Truth, and The Life--Jesus, the person I prayed to receive as my Lord and Savior when I was in my teens.

I hope this brings relief to those who are concerned for the standing of my soul.    

we run the risk of creating a Bible in our own image, by removing verses we don't like.

I agree... Luther removed whole books!    But everything in life involves risks.  Faith is a kind of risk.  That is why it is up to us to try to understand the background, history, culture, etc. that makes up the Bible so that we can interpret it for our different days and culture.  However, I do not agree with the extremes of the Jesus Seminar, etc.  So many people have a different version of "Q" that it is laughable!  

If we spend our time trying to make "Free-Thinkers" are we diverting our attention from the best goal of reaching lost sinners?  

Western culture now expects people to "follow your hearts" and "think for yourself."  Thus, I disagree with you because the education systems, media, etc. state that this is the goal a person has to attain--to be a free thinker.  Therefore, to win souls, Christians of today must encourage people to seek, examine evidence, etc. that they may find the truth.  Besides, you cannot tell someone what they must believe; they must decide what they believe based on what is presented to them.  Today we live in a world of ad agencies and sweet-talking lawyers--presentation and argument is everything.  I will state again that I believe the street corner preaching style is passé.

Are we supporting a shift from the absolutes of Biblical revelation to a kind of relativism that the Modern scholars of the 19 th century took us to?

Take a look at something I read recently:  Inerrancy and the NIV at http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv-inerrancy.html  Check out the quotes at the end and it appears that many churches and training centers are moving away from the Princeton Theology / Fundamentalist-style of interpretation.  

Mark, I have never attacked anyone and if I have come off that way I ask humble forgiveness.  I am interested in a dialogue around truth.  I have already stated my belief here and in another thread in the Bible Forum that it is dangerous to teach the inerrancy of the Bible in all matters because it literally shuts the door to some people who cannot or do not believe the Bible is a reliable document in all things.  To make the Bible out to be more than it is--a human document inspired by God that reveals spiritual truth--discredits the Bible in the long run as long-run affects of Princeton Theology suggest.  The Bible and Christianity, on the whole, is rejected in the scientific community(that most laypeople revere and base their modern beliefs upon) simply because of the teaching that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in all matters.  If the Princeton scholars of the 19th Century, like the Christians before them, had only claimed that the Bible was inerrant and infallible in all things concerning faith—a world often outside of the observable world that science deals in—then there would not have been such a falling away in the last few centuries.  That is why I brought all of this up and put myself in the line of fire.  Science and matters of faith usually deal in two different realms that can complement each other BUT the Bible was discredited when it was wrongly made to be infallible in a world it never intended to be an authority in.  See the wonderful book FIRE IN THE EQUATIONS for more about this reconciliation of science and faith.    

When I recommend others to read it is not because I think I am the only person doing honest study or that I think others are just intellectually lazy; on the contrary, I am just encouraging people to read as much as they can to arrive at a better understanding.  The same goes for me, I need to continue reading more too.  The day we give up seeking to learn and grow is the day we begin to shrivel up and die.  

I don't misunderstand what inerrancy means as you suggested due to my stress of interpretation.  When I started seeing discrepancies in the Bible, it started me off on a search that continues to this day.  I just keep stressing about interpretation because some Christians I have known will NOT acknowledge that Scripture is something that needs to be interpreted and that interpretation may be wrong because we are only human.  Some of the things we believe in may be wrong so it is up to us to constantly re-examine what we believe.  One of the things I did not agree about in the Assembly was the spiritual pride and the refusal to look beyond what the Assembly had defined as THE TRUTH/THE WILL OF GOD.  This is dangerous thinking and damaging to people who leave such a group thinking that the group was right and that they were wrong.  The point is is we could all be wrong.  Thus, it would not hurt to have a look at other beliefs to get an understanding of what other people believe.  

Anyway, it appears that we agree:

Yes, God spoke through humans, in their language, in their cultural setting, and it is our job to take that into account in our interpretation.  When we couple our own human weakness of sin, and obscurity of vision with Bible interpretation we must be very humble in our search for the meaning.  

I think that if we agree that we need to be humble and avoid spiritual pride that "our group has the most light and is better than other places" AND that we need to constantly explore new possibilities and re-examine our cherished beliefs, we will be in full agreement.  Now, if we can agree to have liberty and charity in the nonessentials, there will be no problem.  Whether one believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures has no bearing on one’s salvation, but, as I argued, such a teaching is dangerous nowadays in our scientific-minded society that does not acknowledge the Bible as the Princeton scholars made the Bible out to be.  

[Will Jones]

I think I need to restate why I originally posted on this thread to clear up any misunderstanding.

I realize that it is surprising for some Christians that it seems I came to the defense of David.  Well, I did for a variety of reasons.  
(1) In my interpretation, David started this thread to discuss (not argue or attempt to prove) his findings about mythology and his own personal experiences.  People seemed to "jump" on him and kept pointing him back to the Bible as if scholarly works were wrong.  I wanted to make it clear that we need to read a variety of works to get a broader understanding of the puzzle of reality and that we have to be humble--David, those who wrote to David, and myself--because due to the frailty of our human condition, we do not have a perfect understanding of reality.
(2) After one of Arthur's posts where he states that the Bible is a "completely reliable" account of history and science, I decided to finally speak up about my understanding of the Bible and how the Bible has been seen BEFORE Fundamentalism came onto the scene because I wanted to demonstrated that the Bible is more complex and wonderful than what people make it out to be--a magic document written by God that will stamp the truth onto their minds, etc.  Christians I knew in the past did not like me talking about how the Bible needs to be interpreted because that flew in the face of THE TRUTH/THE WILL OF GOD that the group believed in and thought that true Christians should believe.  Also, as I have explained, to teach the Bible is inerrant turns off many potential converts who don't believe that God dictated the Scriptures through humans.
(3) I also wanted to make it clear that we have the freedom and responsibility to decide things for ourselves about who Jesus is, etc.  We need to INTERPRET things with our fallible mind and this can give rise to error.  It certainly has given rise to many different denominations!  
(4) And, I also wanted to strongly encourage people not to just accept what they have been taught, but to explore new possibilities because the light in us could be darkness. Read, study, meditate, pray, etc. to get a better understanding!  

[Mark C.]

Hi Will!
  I think I read some place that you were from Canada?  If this is true do you know where Ronan Cossette is?  He lived in a small town in Saskatchawan and was a good friend of mine.
   I understand that Luther rejected the book of James because he felt that it was without the Gospel, and therefore not cannonical.  This means he had a clear principle that guided him as to what was God's message and what was not (I'm not saying I agree with his concept).
  I feel the next question I should ask is, what do you believe the Gospel is?
    Also, you seem to believe that in order to bring people to the Gospel we must mount a modern marketing scheme that takes into account the present natural resistance to the traditional Biblical message.  It seems to me that by using natural methods we can only produce natural results.  Billy Graham has very successfully reached this generation via the simple proclamation of the Gospel.  By trying to make the message more palatable for modern ears we risk losing the message altogether.  By sending seekers of God to Egyptian myth writers they are assured of never hearing the truly singular message of salvation through Jesus Christ.
  The Gospel is not mysterious, or difficult to understand.  Yes, the implications are deep and profound and the full measure of the accomplishment of God and of knowing Him passes our understanding, but the message is very clear and simple. There are not many ways to look at the Gospel, nor is it a relative concept, but is layed out in clear propositional truth in the Bible.  Luther saw this, and embraced it; and so doing brought great light to a dark religious system.
  Will, I'm glad that you are secure in the Gospel, but to be useful to others you want to communicate clearly what the Gospel is, and to let it have it's wonderful effect in the lives of those who hear it.  Again, free thinking does not save, but the Faith once delivered to the Saints does.
                                  God Bless,  Mark

[al Hartman]

===============================================================

     As i begin writing, this thread has been read 1,684 times, and 116 replies have been posted.  Those numbers may have increased by the time i post these thoughts.  
     The figures reflect a sizable "silent majority," for which i'm grateful.  The whole purpose of this bulletin board is to offer something to people who are seeking.  Too often, the intended forum for open discussion becomes an arena for closed contests of one-upmanship, which would be better conducted in personal emails.
     If you are among those who come here to read, and do not post, my words are for you.  Not even for the other non-posters-- just for you, individually.  (Those who post here are free to read along if they wish, but i am not engaging them in conversation).

     David opened this topic to engender open discussion, but the thread of dialogue soon devolved into personal wrestling matches between individuals more concerned with (1.) being right and (2.) proving someone else wrong than with doing anyone any good.  One poster did a commendable job of remaining objective for awhile, but someone else managed to push his buttons, and he, too, got sucked into the fray.
     The villain here is a fellow called Spiritual Pride, aka Arrogance.  Individuals have become so excited about their own opinions and insights, that they no longer seek to minister, but to brag, "Look what I have seen!"  This in turn prods the next one to say, "Well, I've seen thus-and-so, and that trumps what you've seen.  So, Ha!"  Then, under the show of being concerned how you and i will be affected, they misconstrue, misinterpret, and misrepresent each other, continuing to argue in front of us, instead of taking it into the other room.
     i could name them off, one by one, and tell you what i see wrong about each of their presentations...  That would only serve to establish me as the most proud and arrogant of the lot (which i won't deny).

     Please just note three things which lack mention over the last several pages of discussion on this topic:
     (a.)  PRAYER:  There has been a lot of "I've read this," and "I've studied that," and "I believe thus-and-so," as if what is in one's head is the most important factor of life.  But who has told us how seriously they have cried out to the Lord (as must we) for guidance into truth and protection from deception?  Not in this lifetime will we know as we are known, but we must pray without ceasing to be kept upon the straight and narrow path, facing toward the Lord, and not be drawn off by clever arguments and pretty pictures.
     (b.)  LOVE:  We have been told how we must, or we must not, preach an old fashioned fire-and-brimstone gospel, or a message more cerebral.  What works and what doesn't work may cover a spectrum as broad as humanity itself, for there are people at every stratum of society starving for the gospel.  We love God because he first loved us, and through us he can express his love to anyone, in a way they can understand and accept, if we'll allow it.  Which brings us to
     (c.)  THE LORD JESUS CHRIST:  Shouldn't his name be popping up more frequently in all this discussion about the meaning of and best way to present the gospel?  The real question about the bible isn't whether it WAS inspired (in being written), but whether it IS inspired (as it is read & heard)!  Are we seeing Jesus Christ?  It is his gospel, after all!  He, himself is the good news.  He lives!  Have we met him?  Do we know him?  Can we/do we walk with him?  Bottom line:  it's not what you know, it's WHO you know!
     Let's all quit kidding each other and ourselves about how smart we are, how fundamentally sound, how open-minded, and get back to the basics of Christian faith:  it is faith in the Person of the Living God, in whom WE live, and move, and have our being!

     Anyone who wants to know what that means to me, personally, please ask, right here on the BB, or in a personal email (see my profile).
     Any of you wise posters want to take me to task for what i've said here?  Please email me personally, but hold this public space open for posting some positive, loving messages that will bless the readers.

in humble arrogance,
al Hartman

===============================================================    

[Oscar]

Test

[Oscar]

Arthur wrote,

"We don't know the millionth part of one percent about anything.  We don't know what water is.  We don't know what light is.  We don't know what heat is.  We have a lot of hypotheses about these things, but that is all.  But we do not let our ignorance about these thngs deprive us of their use."
Thomas Edison

Well now, Tom, do you so hate believing in what the Bible says about creation that you now side with a Buddhist and a guy who thinks Joseph Campbell is a good read?  
Are you so quick to attack your brother in the midst of this discussion?
That's sad.  Is that what "higher learning" gets you --makes an induhvidual to be so "open-minded" that he forsakes sound doctrine?  That's a shame.  

Thank you for the "enlightenment", but how is it exactly that you know that it takes light 50,000 years to reach the earth?"


1. Arthur, your Edison quote is interesting, but soooo out of date.
   Edison was a self-taught genius.  However, he died in the 1920's or 30's.
   Scientific knowledge has advanced a little in the last 80 years.

2. We know what light is, and we know what water is, at least down to the sub-atomic level.

3. Why do I hate believing what the Bible says?  Easy.  I don't.  Read my post about  the difference between revelation and theology over on young earth/old earth.  If you believe the earth orbits the sun, you don't believe "what the Bible says", at least the way you seem to understand what that means.

4. I'm not "siding" with a Buddhist or a Joseph Campbell fan.  If someone tells you it is Thursday, what matters is whether or not he's right, not his opinions on anything else.  Christianity is about TRUTH.  

5. How do I know that it takes 50,000 years for light to reach the earth?  I didn't say that.  It takes 9 minutes for light to reach the earth.  I said it takes 50,000 years for an individual photon, (that's what light is), to be emitted by the fusion process at the sun's core, rise through the high pressure/density gasses of the sun's interior, and reach the surface to leave the sun on its way to earth, to arrive 9 minutes later.

How do I know?
All you have to do is go to Google and type in your question.  You will get the websites of dozens of physics classes who will give you all the details you could wish.

Arthur, I'm going to quote a couple of paragraphs from a letter I have from an astronomer I know.  It is enlightening. He recently spoke at a Christian university.

"My ability to read audience reaction may not be keen, but even I could tell that my hearers-students, faculty, staff, and guests-seemed dumbfounded.  at first I chalked it up to the fact that they were expecting a talk on life science, not physical science. (The biologist got sick and he was substituting)  But as I continued, and especially in speaking with people afterward, I discovered the real reasons for their response, and it was MY turn to be dumbfounded.

First, I learned that even the most basic principles of physics were foreign to most of them.  Second, I heard that this "science illiteracy" among otherwise educated people is DELIBERATE, springing from an inculcated fear that science is a destroyer of the Christian faith.  Then, most importantly and encouragingly, I saw how thrilling it is to discover that science is actually a Christian's friend. Providing an ongoing stream of profound evidences for faith is Christ and confidence in His Word."

Not bad for a fellow who has "bought Satan's lie".  This guy has seen many souls saved through his science apologetic ministry.

ARTHUR, I SUGGEST WE CONTINUE OVER ON YOUNG EARTH/OLD EARTH.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
 
v

[Arthur]

Tom,

I must apologize for the tone of my last post. It was a bit more on the side of ad hominen then what is proper.  I'll talk to you more on the new/old earth thread.  

Arthur

[David Mauldin]

While attending a lecture yesterday at the Philosophical Research institute  given by Matthew Fox He noted that on an Egyptian tomb that dates back before Isaiah is found the passage of "scripture"  ...give bread to the hungry, light to the blind, freedom to the captives..."  This confirms to me that the Hebrews are really Egyptians and that their religion has its origins in Egypt.

[Will Jones]

I have edited this post at a later date because of an email I received from Al where he clarified his earlier post.

When I logged in this morning this appeared on the top of the screen:  

News: Feel free to post your thoughts and experiences.

 This board presents an opportunity to have conversations about "any and all topics" without fear of moderation.  The progression of this thread has been profitable because we are moving towards a better understanding of other Christians and their views.  For example, Mark and I have come, on the whole, to an understanding of each other's views and are in agreement to, as Wesley said, agree in the essentials and to give liberty in the nonessentials.  To arrive at an understanding with our brother might be messy at first, but it is a process that takes time and that we are entitled to.  

Al, I think your interpretation of our motivations and emotional states while writing is unfair and off the mark as you we talked about via email.  However, it is your interpretation and you are entitled to it.  As we both agreed, one of the drawbacks of internet chat boards is we have to try and fill in the tone of voice, body language, etc. as we read and we are not always correct because (so it’s been said) 80% of communication is not what you say but how you say it.  

You are correct, each of us does believe that we are correct in our views and are interested in sharing what we have learned AND THAT IS A GOOD THING!    (Some people come from groups that did not encourage any difference of opinion and such open dialogue.)  This thread and this BB is a valuable educational process that enables learning and growing through dialogue and interaction with others.  I believe that we have all admitted that we are not perfect in our knowledge, but we believe what we believe know based on past experience, etc.  Because we all care about arriving at the truth, we are passionate about sharing what we have learned.  This shows a LOVE of the truth as we understand it and it shows a willingness to share so that we might benefit from other's views.  I have learned a lot from this dialogue and I do not believe that anyone here holds any ill will towards their brothers as you agreed via email.

PRAYER... But who has told us how seriously they have cried out to the Lord (as must we) for guidance into truth and protection from deception?

 I see what you are getting at and I believe we have all prayed this many times.  This would be quite pious sounding to state such a thing on this open forum because it would be like taking God on our side when it came to our version of the truth.  ("I prayed to God and this is what He showed me; therefore, I am right because God showed it to me and you are wrong because God did not show it to you as He showed it to me.")  As Luther said, we interpret the Scriptures ourselves, with our minds and consciences.  If God somehow magically showed us THE TRUTH every time we prayed and bypassed the frailty of our mental faculties then there would not be so much disagreement in Christendom where there is over 30,000 different denominations.  But now that you mentioned PRAYER, to pray to God to show you the truth and to keep you from lies is an honest plea and is submission to God.  It does not mean God will give you THE TRUTH, it just shows you are willing and open to the truth AS YOU SEEK TRUTH IN THE BIBLE AND IN OTHER WORKS.  As the old saying goes, "God helps those who help themselves."  God will not magically feed you the truth, it will be slowly revealed to you as you read, study, pray, meditate, etc.

THE LORD JESUS CHRIST:  Shouldn't his name be popping up more frequently in all this discussion about the meaning of and best way to present the gospel?

 So far the conversation has been about MYTHOLOGY that is related to the Bible, how the Bible does or does not need to be presented as an inerrant document, and whether a person should or should not be so blunt as to present an aggressive "you are going to hell unless you believe" approach.  As I said above, just because we have not mentioned Jesus, the Lord’s Supper, etc. does not mean we devalue such things because it is not possible to talk about all aspects of Christianity in one single thread.  

Spiritual pride is thinking you are right and everyone else is wrong.  A few of us have warned against such pride and have admitted that we are not perfect and could be wrong.  We are open to the truth and that is why we are willing to talk about it.  

Let's all quit kidding each other and ourselves about how smart we are, how fundamentally sound, how open-minded, and get back to the basics of Christian faith:  it is faith in the Person of the Living God, in whom WE live, and move, and have our being!

 Actually, the subject of this thread was MYTHOLOGY, not "the basics of Christian faith."  [However, in your email you stated you were referring to the BB in general so forgive me for misinterpreting you.]  And your quotation of Paul’s words is quite interesting because Paul quoted them from a secular writer of his time!

I remembered that Paul quoted pagan books in Scripture, but I could not remember the exact quotes so I did a search on the web and found this http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/abss/abss0148.htm

Acts 17:28, where Aratus, Phaenomena 5, is paraphrased.

Acts 26:14. The phrase "it hurts you to kick against the goad" is a Greek proverb (see Euripides, Bacchae, 794-795).

1 Corinthians 15:33, where Paul quotes Menander, Thais, Frg.218.

Titus 1:12, where Epimenides, De oraculis/peri Chresmon is quoted.

Conclusion:

(1) An Apostle of Christ was well read in non-Christian literature.

(2) At least four times, an Apostle of Christ included quotes from pagan writers in the New Testament

(3) Paul seemed to have no theological problem with quoting pagans, and the Holy Spirit must have concurred.

(4) We conclude then, that sometimes a pagan will say or write something that is useful, if not true, and that reading widely will not only not destroy your faith, but could enhance it.

Amen.

Mark, I'll reply to you a bit later.  Have to go.

[Will Jones]

Mark,  

On second thought, I'll just make this as quick as I can.

Because I have been out of the Assembly for so long, I don't have any information about Ronan Cossette.  The only thing I know is old the Ottawa Assembly is (with some changes) still up and running.  You might want to contact the Cossettes there.

Luther did reject the Book of James (he called it "The Epistle of Straw") because he thought it taught that we are saved by works rather than we are saved by grace through faith.  Thus, he believed that "The Bible" contradicted itself.  To deal with it, he disregarded James.  Like Henry VIII, who disregarded a whole Church, past Christians like Luther have noticed what appear to be discrepancies in the Bible BUT THIS DID NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT THEIR FAITH because they did not believe that the Bible was inerrant like many modern day Fundamentalists do.

I feel the next question I should ask is, what do you believe the Gospel is? Also, you seem to believe that in order to bring people to the Gospel we must mount a modern marketing scheme that takes into account the present natural resistance to the traditional Biblical message.  It seems to me that by using natural methods we can only produce natural results.  Billy Graham has very successfully reached this generation via the simple proclamation of the Gospel.  By trying to make the message more palatable for modern ears we risk losing the message altogether.  

Billy Graham is a great example!  No, I don't think a modern marketing scheme is necessary.  I agree with what Al said,

What works and what doesn't work may cover a spectrum as broad as humanity itself, for there are people at every stratum of society starving for the gospel.  We love God because he first loved us, and through us he can express his love to anyone, in a way they can understand and accept, if we'll allow it.

 But I contend that most people today will not appreciate a "fire and brimstone" presentation of the gospel because today's society expects people to hold their own opinions and be "free thinkers."

Paul appealed to the intellectuals in Athens by quoting a familiar verse they would know.  Paul was well read for his time!  We can have knowledge of secular things to use to preach the gospel:  God loves us and our sins can be forgiven!     If soul winners want potential converts to understand where they are coming from, soul winners have to be willing to understand where their potential converts are coming from.

Sorry that this is written in a rush but I have to go!  

[retread]

Hi Will!
  I think I read some place that you were from Canada?  If this is true do you know where Ronan Cossette is?  He lived in a small town in Saskatchawan and was a good friend of mine.
...

Mark,

To the best of my knowledge Ronan is still in Estevan.  I'll send you an IM with his contact info.  Also, I believe that Bernie Cossette is still in Calgary, and Armand Cossette is still in Ottawa.  Man are there a lot of Cossettes running things up there or what?!?!?

Retread