Denying science in the classroom

[DrunkOffPunch]

 

 

 

 

So which parts of Genesis are suppose to be interpreted the way it was written? Story of Adam and Eve or no?

 

As a Catholic, I was taught the bible is the literal word of God and that is the way it should be followed. And that is the way my teachers taught it at my school.

As a former catholic, I concur that christians are instructed to read the bible and take it literally.

I wasn't. I'm Lutheran and we were taught in Sunday school that the Bible was not to be taken literally.

ELCA? Because I've had decades of Lutheran theology and I've done Lay preaching, taught Sunday school and adult worship classes, and I've never heard this in a Lutheran setting. My flavor of Lutheran is Missouri Synod, so results may differ.

Emmanuel Lutheran Church. I'd imagine what's taught differs between individual churches anyways.

[knapplc]

That is so interesting. If that's the Emmanuel in York, NE, it's a Missouri Synod church. I can tell you that such teaching is NOT part of Missouri Synod theology. It is not supposed to be different church to church, but I agree with you that it could be.

 

I can tell you that the way I described it is how the Missouri Synod teaches. If you were taught differently, it would not be endorsed by the Synod.

[Landlord]

These are all far, far too simplistic hermeneutics/approaches to the Bible. It's ancient literature spanning thousands of years, most of which was originally oral tradition. Pre-science. Pre-enlightenment or rationalism. There is no single answer on how the Bible is supposed to be read, because the Bible is a collection of different books, written by different authors, in different periods of time, to different audiences in different contexts.

 

All parts of the Bible are supposed to be read the way they were written, but in what way were they written? Is Song of Solomon supposed to be read literally? Or as poetry? Is Exodus an observing, objective history account, or is it a contextualized understanding of God by a people trying ti figure it out? If it's to be read literally, who were the first to go to Jesus' grave on Easter, since there are different accounts of this story?

 

It seems to me your priests and pastors have disrespected your intelligence by giving you a one-size-fits-all means of figuring out the mysteries of God.

 

 

 

 

Here is a good read specifically on Genesis and how to approach it as literature.

 

http://personal.evangel.edu/badgers/Web/AGTS_Genesis_Science/Waltke_Crux_Genre_Genesis.pdf

 

 

 

As so often happens in Scripture, historical events have been dischronologized and reconstructed for theological reasons. For example, the nations listed in Genesis 10 came into existence after the confusion of languages at Baby Ion recounted in Genesis 11, but the writer has dischronologized events in order to put the nations under Noah's blessing, not under the Babylon's curse. 27 According to Genesis 35: 16-18 Benjamin was born in Canaan, but less than ten ;verses later it lists Benjamin among the Jacob's sons born in Paddan-Aram, presumably to represent the Youngest patriarch as taking part in the return of all Israel from the exile in Paddan-Aram. Biblical writers display a freedom in representing historical events for theological reasons.

 

 

...

 

 

Finally, the language of our creation narrative is figurative, anthropomorphic, not plain. The writer's vantage point is with God in His heavenly Court.31 As a representation of what has transpired in that transcendent sphere, the narrative must employ metaphor.

[knapplc]

There is no single answer on how the Bible is supposed to be read

 

Yes, there is. At least according to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

 

 

Of the Holy Scriptures

 

1. We teach that the Holy Scriptures differ from all other books in the world in that they are

the Word of God. They are the Word of God because the holy men of God who wrote the

Scriptures wrote only that which the Holy Ghost communicated to them by inspiration, 2 Tim.

3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21. We teach also that the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures is not a so‐called

"theological deduction," but that it is taught by direct statements of the Scriptures, 2 Tim.

3:16, John 10:35, Rom. 3:2; 1 Cor. 2:13. Since the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, it goes

without saying that they contain no errors or contradictions, but that they are in all their parts

and words the infallible truth, also in those parts which treat of historical, geographical, and

other secular matters, John 10:35.

 

2. We furthermore teach regarding the Holy Scriptures that they are given by God to the

Christian Church for the foundation of faith, Eph. 2:20. Hence the Holy Scriptures are the sole

source from which all doctrines proclaimed in the Christian Church must be taken and

therefore, too, the sole rule and norm by which all teachers and doctrines must be examined

and judged. ‐‐ With the Confessions of our Church we teach also that the "rule of faith"

(analogia fidei) according to which the Holy Scriptures are to be understood are the clear

passages of the Scriptures themselves which set forth the individual doctrines. (Apology.

Triglot, p. 441, Paragraph 60; Mueller, p. 684). The rule of faith is not the man‐made so‐called

"totality of Scripture" ("Ganzes der Schrift").

 

3. We reject the doctrine which under the name of science has gained wide popularity in the

Church of our day that Holy Scripture is not in all its parts the Word of God, but in part the

Word of God and in part the word of man and hence does, or at least, might contain error. We

reject this erroneous doctrine as horrible and blasphemous, since it flatly contradicts Christ

and His holy apostles, set up men as judges over the Word of God, and thus overthrows the

foundation of the Christian Church and its faith.

 

From the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod

 

LINK TO PDF

[Landlord]

The Synod is wrong. But even ignoring that, they still do not really give instructions on how to approach the Bible on a micro-level. Yes, okay, let's assume the Bible is inspired, inerrant, conclusive, and the pure undefiled word of God. That's a macro perspective. What does that tell me about how to interpret apocalyptic literature inside of it, and whether or not that's different than how I should interpret Paul's letter to Ephesus? That's what my sentence was getting at. The Bible includes diversity of genre, intention, cultural context and prose amongst it's different books.

[knapplc]

The Synod has extensive theology to back up what they believe. Of all the Christian sects I have explored, their interpretation of the origin of the Bible makes the most theological sense.

 

You cannot actually have it any other way, because as I explained before, if you start interpreting even one word of the Bible, that interpretation undermines every single word. Now, because it's interpretable, it's not infallible. It's not from an omniscient God, it's from sinful men.

 

If you can interpret Genesis to mean something other than what it says, you suddenly have authority to interpret every single thing about Jesus' life. You cannot do that and still have Jesus be without question God.

[Ratt Mhule]

And this is one of the many reasons I fell out of religion. Christians telling each other they are wrong and not even able to agree on their own teachings. Everyone needs to get on the same page before you can convince other people to believe in what it is you believe.

[Redux]

I remember someone posting this recently, may have been knapp.

 

 

Point is, that taking The Bible verbatim word for word is probably not going to make anyone more holy than the next person. These stories and interpritations are older than print itself. Faith is an amazing thing to have, and maybe there is a divine higher power instilling said faith into those who choose to accept it. But to accept the Bible without question is a hypocisy in itself in my opinion. More power to the people that are devoted to it though.

[knapplc]

And this is one of the many reasons I fell out of religion. Christians telling each other they are wrong and not even able to agree on their own teachings. Everyone needs to get on the same page before you can convince other people to believe in what it is you believe.

 

Heh. I fell out of belief because of my extensive research into religion. The more I learned the more I realized it wasn't possible for it to be true. The eggshell cracks and suddenly it's gone. Can't unscramble the egg.

[Making Chimichangas]

If we're going to deny science in the classroom, then why doesn't "god" itself appear and set the record right?

 

End the confusion, end the bickering, and most importantly, end the murder, bigotry, and hatred carried out in "god's" name. And, once and for all, clarify exactly what it wants from us.

 

Personally, if I was "god" I would appear from time to time and have a few basic rules:

 

1. Don't be a hateful person. Love and accept everyone, because no one I created is an abomination. And, it's your body, if you wish to tattoo it, change genders, shave your head, not have a beard, etc, all that is perfectly fine.

 

2. It is fine to eat pig, rabbit, lobsters (and all other shellfish) because they are not detestable abominations.

 

3. Slavery is definitely an abomination.

 

4. Being rich is not a sin, if you make your wealth by paying people who work for you a wage they can comfortably live on.

 

5. Women are not property, nor are they to defer to any man, or be silent when men are around. A spouse abusing a spouse is an extreme no-no.

 

6. Committing any rape, murder, and/or killing in "my" name is an automatic ticket to hell and eternal damnation.

 

7. I bless this world and will ensure all humans have plenty of resources.

 

8. Honor me by upholding the virtues of love, compassion, and caring.

 

9. I do not need any financing and people asking for money in my name are sinners.

 

10. Give to charity and/or donate your time to charity as often as you can.

 

In summary, there is no correct religion. Just live your life and don't be an a**hole.

 

Sorry not trying to derail the thread, just wanted to say this ^^ though. #Done

[Ratt Mhule]

 

And this is one of the many reasons I fell out of religion. Christians telling each other they are wrong and not even able to agree on their own teachings. Everyone needs to get on the same page before you can convince other people to believe in what it is you believe.

 

Heh. I fell out of belief because of my extensive research into religion. The more I learned the more I realized it wasn't possible for it to be true. The eggshell cracks and suddenly it's gone. Can't unscramble the egg.

My post above is just one reason. There were many others, trust me

[knapplc]

But to accept the Bible without question is a hypocisy in itself in my opinion.

That's scripturally problematic, though. God tells you not to question his Word.

 

Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

 

Revelation 22: 18-19 I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

 

[DrunkOffPunch]

That is so interesting. If that's the Emmanuel in York, NE, it's a Missouri Synod church. I can tell you that such teaching is NOT part of Missouri Synod theology. It is not supposed to be different church to church, but I agree with you that it could be.

 

I can tell you that the way I described it is how the Missouri Synod teaches. If you were taught differently, it would not be endorsed by the Synod.

Small town in northern Nebraska. Its not Missouri Synod but I don't know what it's affiliation is. Also I should correct myself, I was thinking of confirmation classes not Sunday school. Although we were never taught to take the Bible literally as far as I remember in Sunday school. Confirmation classes were more of an open discussion than 'this is what we teach repeat after me.'

[Landlord]

The Synod has extensive theology to back up what they believe. Of all the Christian sects I have explored, their interpretation of the origin of the Bible makes the most theological sense.

 

You cannot actually have it any other way, because as I explained before, if you start interpreting even one word of the Bible, that interpretation undermines every single word. Now, because it's interpretable, it's not infallible. It's not from an omniscient God, it's from sinful men.

 

If you can interpret Genesis to mean something other than what it says, you suddenly have authority to interpret every single thing about Jesus' life. You cannot do that and still have Jesus be without question God.

 

 

 

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. I know you don't believe it, so maybe i'm proving your point, but to read a single word of the Bible is to interpret.

 

There is no such thing as a form of communication that is pure and exactly what it ought to be. Interpretation is the means of understanding the world. Hell, the entirety of our reality is just our brain interpreting electrical signals and chemical secretions.

 

I don't hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, because language is errant. If God chose to communicate His nature through men, which I have no problem with the idea of or with people believing, He chose to condescend into a flawed, imperfect means of communicating, the way you would struggle to teach a six year old about democracy.

[knapplc]

 

The Synod has extensive theology to back up what they believe. Of all the Christian sects I have explored, their interpretation of the origin of the Bible makes the most theological sense.

 

You cannot actually have it any other way, because as I explained before, if you start interpreting even one word of the Bible, that interpretation undermines every single word. Now, because it's interpretable, it's not infallible. It's not from an omniscient God, it's from sinful men.

 

If you can interpret Genesis to mean something other than what it says, you suddenly have authority to interpret every single thing about Jesus' life. You cannot do that and still have Jesus be without question God.

 

 

 

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. I know you don't believe it, so maybe i'm proving your point, but to read a single word of the Bible is to interpret.

 

There is no such thing as a form of communication that is pure and exactly what it ought to be. Interpretation is the means of understanding the world. Hell, the entirety of our reality is just our brain interpreting electrical signals and chemical secretions.

 

I don't hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, because language is errant. If God chose to communicate His nature through men, which I have no problem with the idea of or with people believing, He chose to condescend into a flawed, imperfect means of communicating, the way you would struggle to teach a six year old about democracy.

 

 

Doesn't matter if I believe it or not. I don't have to believe in something to be well versed enough in it to teach it.

 

Under what authority are you making these claims? Is this a church teaching or your own belief? What you're saying in this thread is not strictly Christian theology.