Stephen Fry on meeting God ...

So you think we should all stop learning anything else at all ? That no-one should examine the world about them?

Not study the stars, the planets, the nature of space, the continents, the oceans, the structure of the rocks, the chemistry of water, the anatomy of plants and animals and the way they grow and reproduce, the way their DNA governs the transmission of heredity, the history of life, from single-celled creatures in the primeval soup through creatures of more and more complexity and refinement, the lost species that couldn't thrive in changing conditions and the ones where some slightly different individuals managed to struggle through and reproduce to fill the gaps in the ecosystem?

You reckon we can just sit in the dark staring at our navel and say "No need. All knowledge was codified long ago. Everything else is false. Pull down the blind. The light is too dazzling."

mcem. The Bible has a beginning, a middle and an End. It is complete as it is.

The Hebrew word, yom, can have a number of meanings, only one of which is "day of 24 hours."

mcem. The 7 day bit. The Bible is quite specific by saying "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."
"And there was evening and there was morning, the second day" etc.

Soutra, I know that you know.

soon, perhaps you would like to read this article and respond? The writer articulates (much better than I ever could) something of my own views.

So if god changed the rules did he then agree with the subjugation of women and them not having a place in any christian church? Because that was the result of the suppression of any accounts written by women.

If God has accepted that rules and concepts need tweaking and adapting why can't you?

I take serious issue ( I.e. am bl**dy cross) at the assumption that we do not know. There are some serious brains and (more importantly) a whole heap of common sense on this site so don't get patronising about your "superior knowledge".
The only thing you are spelling out is an unthinking, unquestioning , irrational belief in your literal interpretation of the Bible.

We know " plenty", but some of us don't share your fundamentalism having perhaps had a more enlightened education, religious or otherwise.

The original plan, by God, did not involve sending Jesus.

That is why I have never answered the "eye for an eye" type posts.
I wrongly assumed that virtually all posters knew that God changed the rules.

Instead, I now realise that virtually all posters, didnt know.

The Bible has always been like this.

The goalposts ahvent changed. It has always been thus.

If I had known when I joined this site, that most posters did not know such things as this, I would have spelt it out back then.
I wrongly assumed, that virtaully all posters already knew this.

elegran as I've read my way through this thread I have wondered if I'd ever think of an explanation of the whole myth of creation in 7 days that would make sense to soon.
I touched on it earlier but it was once again head and brick wall time.
So congratulations on your last 2 paragraphs! Well done.
soon doesn't that make some sense?
Each 'day' in the Genesis story represents a period of time. A day is a symbol for an era.
Haven't you noticed that chronologically the 6 days of creation follow the same pattern and progression as the theory of evolution. So all credit to those ancient writings for seeing a logical development.
I've used this analogy in teaching and most children accept and understand the concept.
It's one of the reasons I was curious about soons views contradicting what children are taught in schools.
Either one has to tell children that school (and science) are wrong, or you really confuse them!!

Ah! so that's how people cope with the inconsistencies, just move the goal posts.

More chuckles.

God changed the rules. He didnt forsee it right at the beginning.
He was forced to change the rules along the way.

Haha! soon. Thanks for the laugh.

The "facts" as they were in the Old Testament at the time might have been suitable for the readers at the time. If God could foresee that Jesus would update the Old Testament in favour of the New, perhaps He also foresaw that with more research and more detail being uncovered with every century, the "facts" of the timescale of the universe would become clearer.

Elegran there are many Christians who would agree with the points you make. I'm one of them.

Ah but is He?

I understand the "passing through many hands" bit. As it happens, one of my cousins is a Bible translator. She speaks many languages, and so translates across them.

God is not going to let His Bible become not God inspired.
He is God after all!

The reason you don't find the Apocrypha and many other writings from the early Christian church in the bible is because the people who controlled the church in the early days (men of course) wanted to make sure that only the writings that fitted their own agenda were shared with the congregation. What you are reading is a version of stories that the protestant church inherited from the catholic church. I'm never sure how it can be interpreted as the word of god having passed through so many different hands.

It is not really worth expending time on this, so I don't know why so many heads are being bruised against the brick wall. It is of no use at all pointing out to someone wearing a blindfold that where there are contradictions in descriptions, the way to clarify them is to take another look at them.

But we still try.

If you look at accounts of facts and events from the side as well as the front, you see them in 3D, not as the cardboard cutouts they seem as represented by the person who recorded them. Yes, I know you will say that "the Bible is divinely inspired", but the people who wrote down what that inspiration had shown them were human beings, and they only understood their visions in the light of what they knew and could understand.

Principles of behaviour and standards - yes, they would understand those. "Love God and obey" - yes, they would understand that.

But millions of years of prehistory passing before humans existed, millions before that without animals, without fish, insects, trees, grass - all quite outside their conception. so in the writing of whatever vision they saw or imagined, it became "days".

And what is the exact meaning of the word which has been translated in and out of several languages as "days"? I have heard that it is much as we would say "In my day we did it like this . . ." which does NOT mean that we did it like this for 24 hours. Any linguistic experts out there?

I am not a teetotal fundamentalist.
The Bible is clear on a little wine is good for the stomach and other ailments bit. So that is what I do.

Not the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha does not fit the OT, the NT and Revelation. It looks like it does a bit until you have a good read of it. Hence why you will not find the Apocrypha in Protestant worship places.

I accept the book of Revelation too. I accept it all.

But then you have to define what you mean by the Bible.

Old Testament?
"Eye for an eye " sacrificing goats and all that? Genesis, Creation? All those "begats"? Methuselah????
New Testament?
Gospels? (Anecdotal)
Epistles?
St Paul, women should shut up and know their place (boo) but a little wine is good for the stomach (hurray) . Some teetotal fundamentalists claim they can justify that by saying he meant you should rub it on (!)
Revelation?
What was St John on?
The Apocrypha?
It is not a book but a collection of myths, legends, documents (?) assembled, translated, interpreted, altered, adjusted over centuries.

Happy to agree to differ.