quote:

cow451
I do not believe the Bible is inerrant as interpreted "literally".

quote:

cow451
Genesis 3:8: And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

So, was God walking through the garden? or, was His voice walking through the garden?

quote:

cow451
"Why would an omnipotent spiritual deity walk?"

quote:

cow451
"Why would an omnipotent being have to ask the whereabouts of Adam and Eve?"

quote:

"So we can dispense with the silliness of stating that there is one one correct way (yours) to see any scripture and that you make no decisions about interpretation. "

quote:

ORIGINAL: Codegrazer

quote:

cow451
I do not believe the Bible is inerrant as interpreted "literally".

I thought so. Thanks for the clarification.

quote:

cow451
Genesis 3:8: And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

So, was God walking through the garden? or, was His voice walking through the garden?

First, there is a vast difference between interpreting the meaning of scripture and translating the language of Greek/Hebrew text. The translation of Genesis 3:8 you quote appears to be from the King James version which uses a beautiful poetic 1600's english translation that seems to leave you questioning the meaning (interpretation) of the passage because you are reading the poetic old english on the same terms as todays modern english. The following is the same passage in a thought-for-thought modern english translation from the NIV version which should answer your question for you.

"8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden." Genesis 3:8 NIV

Obviously, poetic language is not to be understood on a literal word-by-word basis. BUT the message being communicated in the Bible is not up for a "I have MY truth and you have YOUR truth" approach to interpretation either. Can we agree on that, at least?

quote:

cow451
"Why would an omnipotent spiritual deity walk?"

Maybe He enjoys walking. Perhaps manifesting in a way that walking along with Adam and Eve in the garden was one of His ways of relating and fellow-shipping with them. Bottom line, if He wants to walk, He walks!

quote:

cow451
"Why would an omnipotent being have to ask the whereabouts of Adam and Eve?"

He wouldn't have to ask, to know for Himself. He asked "Where are you?" rhetorically for the sake of His communication with the hiding Adam and Eve. He knew where they were - He's God!

quote:

"So we can dispense with the silliness of stating that there is one one correct way (yours) to see any scripture and that you make no decisions about interpretation. "

"Silliness???" Hmmm... well, no we can't. Not based upon the arguments you stated so far anyway. When it comes to Truth there really IS only one correct interpretation of yes or no, either/or scripture and it's not mine or yours, but His. If God says he created a real live Adam and Eve and they were the source of original sin (which is why we need Jesus) THAT's the truth and anything else is a lie.

quote:

My Bible Study group has been pondering this questiion, "Can evolution theory Allow for belief in a fundamentally Literal interpretation of Genesis?" Can one believe in modern evolution theory AND still ALSO believe in the Creation story of Genesis as being a basically factual account of how God created all things?

quote:

Scientology also says there was a begining. Does that make Scientology scientific?

quote:

Your effort to prove the Bible "scientific" with such silly "facts" lowers Christianity to the level of every religion that has any statement of a "Beginning".

quote:

setriously, how about a "fact" that is a bit more challenging? Something beyond the grass being green, etc. Something about process or mechanism, etc

quote:

How about the selective breeding mentioned by drmark? Is selective breeding to improve a herd not a scientific process? Why don’t you address that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

How about the selective breeding mentioned by drmark? Is selective breeding to improve a herd not a scientific process? Why don’t you address that?

It's become quite obvious that cow is not interested in facts, scientific or Biblical. It's a rather sad commentary on the misunderstanding by evolutionists of the relationship between Scripture and knowledge. This clearly shows that it is NOT the YEC crowd who should blamed for the perceived artificial separation of science and religion!

Well, Codegrazer, have you seen enough dichotomy on your thread? BTW, I think I know your answer, but have you presented your view and its rationale on the OP question?

quote:

I would agree that the separation is artificial, but exists because atheists and fundamentalists have done the same thing. They take one (religion or science) and try to make it prove or disprove the other. My argument is that it is not either-or.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

I would agree that the separation is artificial, but exists because atheists and fundamentalists have done the same thing. They take one (religion or science) and try to make it prove or disprove the other. My argument is that it is not either-or.

A simplistic but fair assessment, cow. Since I am not a fundamentalist (by my definition) and you are not an atheist (by your definition), let's declare a truce on this issue instead of blaming one another for separatism. What say ye, moo-man?

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

How about the selective breeding mentioned by drmark? Is selective breeding to improve a herd not a scientific process? Why don’t you address that?

quote:

Genesis 30:
[34] And Laban said, Behold, I would it might be according to thy word.
[35] And he removed that day the he goats that were ringstraked and spotted, and all the she goats that were speckled and spotted, and every one that had some white in it, and all the brown among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.
[36] And he set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob: and Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.
[37] And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
[38] And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
[39] And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
[40] And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.
[41] And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.
[42] But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.
[43] And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels, and asses.

quote:

(what is ringstraked anyway?)

quote:

This is not science; it is magic.

quote:

Science can appear to be magic to those who lack understanding.

quote:

For accuracy, since you are not a fundamentalist, how would you classify yourself?

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

For accuracy, since you are not a fundamentalist, how would you classify yourself?

I assume, cow, that you are specifically asking in regards to the OP what is my self-designated classification of hermeneutics. I suppose the best response would be that I'm a "straightforward reader" employing the historical-grammatical method of interpretation as supported by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.

How would you classify yourself?

quote:

SRC: Rrecovering Southern Baptist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL: PolarBear

quote:

quote:

TOE requires death BEFORE sin. If TOE is true then the Bible is a lie.

If that's your best argument, you've lost. Thanks for playing.

Are you claiming TOE doesn’t require death before the existence of man, or that sin preceded man?

The Bible clearly states that death entered the world through sin. I.e. sin preceded death. Do you suppose the Bible is in error?

quote:

Paul makes it pretty clear in Romans 5 that this passage speaks about the spiritual death that came through sin, not physical death.

quote:

I would agree that the separation is artificial, but exists because atheists and fundamentalists have done the same thing. They take one (religion or science) and try to make it prove or disprove the other.

quote:

My argument is that it is not either-or.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

SRC: Recovering Southern Baptist.

I see - "recovering" from sound doctrine. Now it all makes sense!

quote:

Let's see in 1 Co. 7:22 it says "For as in Adam all die, So in Christ all will be made alive"

Does that mean that no after Adam was made physically alive until Christ died?

How was Christ ever physically born?

quote:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Well, I have no idea who "Dr Prescott of Mainstream Baptists" is, but here is the SBC statement on the Scriptures:

quote:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

Looks pretty straightforward to me, cow - God's perfect truth, without any error, and totally trustworthy. You certainly have "recovered" from sound doctrine if you believe that creation science is "abhorrent theory"!

quote:

If the Bible is "written by men", then God cannot be "its author". The SBC has no position on creation science.