Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you saying that incest was ok in the beginning because it was Gods plan but not ok later? There are many cases of incest throughout the Bible. For example, after The Flood, when Abraham married his sister, when Lot fathered children with his own daughters after they took turns to seduce him while he was drunk and when Joshua gives Caleb's daughter to her cousin as a wife
God condemned incest several times:
"Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..." (Deuteronomy 27:22).
"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness" (Leviticus 18:6).
Union your father's wife, or, a father with his daughter in law, both merit punishment by death (Leviticus 20:11-12).
"If a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter...it is a wicked thing" (Leviticus 20:17).
what it shows is that it might be a better choice than extinction. But maybe not the best choice when there are other options.
Biblically speaking, a sin can be something you think. Pride, arrogance, lust, lying, gossip, hate, unjustified anger, revenge motivation, etc. biblically speaking are sins. I doubt that any Buddhist Monk hasn't at some point in his life committed some mental attitude sin or sin of the tongue.
As I said, the only evidence to back up the idea of an age of accountability is that King David believed that he would see his dead infant son again.
I'll decide how I answer a question.
What I said was that ''Everyone is born with a human nature which will inevitably sin.'' I gave examples of sin from the biblical perspective of what constitutes sin. And everyone is guilty of committing one or more of those examples at some point in their life.
I've been quite clear on this forum, or on the Christianity forum, in other threads that neither the creation accounts in Genesis nor the flood story is to be understood literally. I see no reason not to accept anything after Genesis chapter 11 as historical even if the details or somewhat distorted.
I'll let Dr. Enns speak for himself on whether he believes the Bible is the word of God.
''Is the fact of diversity fundamentally contrary to the Bible being the word of God? My answer is no. And the way in which we can begin to address the issue is to confess at the outset, along with the historic Christian church, that the Bible is the word of God.'' p. 96
''Moreover, inasmuch as Scripture is the word of God, I would expect multiple layers of meaning insofar as no one person, school, or tradition can exhaust the depth of God's word.'' p.151
''Inspiration and Incarnation puts forward a less problematic model of Scripture while also encouraging faith that the Bible is God's word.'' p.173
''Paul's midrashic hermeneutic is firmly at home in Second Temple Judaism (rather than modern evangelical hermeneutics), and Paul's letters are God's word.'' p.175
Inspiration and Incarnation, Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, Peter Enns
And so, yes, Peter Enns believes that the Bible is the word of God. Now, he doesn't believe that the Bible is the Word (notice the capitalization) of God as if the Bible is equated with Jesus Christ, but he clearly believes that the Bible is the word of God. He makes that distinction between the Bible as the word of God, and Jesus as the Word of God, in the following article - https://peteenns.com/year-of-the-bib...e-word-of-god/
Now, since this thread's topic is whether the story of Adam and Eve should be taken literally, I'm not going to continue going down rabbit holes about what is sin or whether we all sin. As I've said, the Genesis creation story and the flood story are polemics against the creation and flood stories of the other ancient Near East peoples.
I can only say that I am not impressed by Peter Ems or his article. Nor by his certificates or his university position. Now he may (like prof. Stavrakopulou) be an expert on the matter of the Bible without believing it, in which case I have no problem with him and he has no relevance to atheism. But if his words are presented as some kind of case to Believe Christianity, then they count no more than any other religious apologetics, limited by the constraints of thinking within the box of Religious faith.
I can only say that I am not impressed by Peter Ems or his article. Nor by his certificates or his university position. Now he may (like prof. Stavrakopulou) be an expert on the matter of the Bible without believing it, in which case I have no problem with him and he has no relevance to atheism. But if his words are presented as some kind of case to Believe Christianity, then they count no more than any other religious apologetics, limited by the constraints of thinking within the box of Religious faith.
you mean your brand of atheism. I call your brand a sect because its based on an anti-god faith for political reasons.
Actually talking about people's spiritual beliefs and god claim in reference to STEM is deemed dangerous to your anti-godfaith and needs to be avoided. Just like JW's deem things in science dangerous to them.
so they have no relevance to your chapter (sect) of atheism. that chapter being based on the political agenda of stop religion/christian in the . And you aint even from here.
I can only say that I am not impressed by Peter Ems or his article. Nor by his certificates or his university position. Now he may (like prof. Stavrakopulou) be an expert on the matter of the Bible without believing it, in which case I have no problem with him and he has no relevance to atheism. But if his words are presented as some kind of case to Believe Christianity, then they count no more than any other religious apologetics, limited by the constraints of thinking within the box of Religious faith.
Oh, that's all right. I'm sure he wouldn't be impressed by you either.
What it shows is that stories like these are just pure mythology.
You definitely have a point.
I look for lessons in a book like that. I never would take it literal. I mean there were the first human and they had to breed very closely with relatives to get us started. When faced with extinction some tough choices will be made.
Oh, that's all right. I'm sure he wouldn't be impressed by you either.
I shall try not to let that fact keep me awake at night. If he doesn't want to turn the powerful searchlight of his erudition on anything but beliefs that he takes for granted as true (the basic illogic of theism), there are others who will do so.
I can only say that I am not impressed by Peter Ems or his article. Nor by his certificates or his university position. Now he may (like prof. Stavrakopulou) be an expert on the matter of the Bible without believing it, in which case I have no problem with him and he has no relevance to atheism. But if his words are presented as some kind of case to Believe Christianity, then they count no more than any other religious apologetics, limited by the constraints of thinking within the box of Religious faith.
I shall try not to let that fact keep me awake at night. If he doesn't want to turn the powerful searchlight of his erudition on anything but beliefs that he takes for granted as true (the basic illogic of theism), there are others who will do so.
wrong again trans. Most theist do not take for granted their beliefs are true. Fundy theist,, like you militant atheist (you are not new aged) take for granted that your political agenda based anti-godfaith crusade is true.
I like everybody (mostly). I'm not always impressed by them, or their reasoning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
