Reason to Believe, a very interesting website

The other thread deals specifically with the topic we were starting to discuss. This thread's topic has little to do with it. And I did not condemn either you or your beliefs.
I have never posted that the Bible is a myth. What I did post was: And I am still interested in knowing why you seem to be so convinced that the Bible is contradicted by modern scientific evidence.
Nor have I any interest in attempting to do so.

Malaka,

From the sound of it, I would doubt that you have actually looked at the issue, because you don't seem to be offering any evidence to support your point of view.

Have you looked at the hebrew? Have you looked at the way the same hebrew word is used elsewhere?

What is your reason for believing what you do?

Hi There!



Welcome to the forums...

and you may understand that your views are "welcome"... but, while I am not a scholar at Hebrew or Greek, I have the resources that do enable me to come to a very good understanding of the languages of "the Scriptures" and "the Christian Scriptures"

The question does always seem to go backt to "interpretation"... and I follow the same interpretations that fundamentalist follow... I just don't pick and chose like many do.


thanks for the comments!

~malaka~

Which is what, exactly?

What is *your* method of determining which Scripture should be read literally and others not? You seem to insist that there is an easy to follow formula for this, but it would be good if you could set it out specifically for all of us to see. You don't seem to like my less formulaic method, so maybe I could use yours.

If we're giving our opinions of reasons.org, I vote for "very stupid website."

It is true that, while solid on the age of the earth and a local flood (being real scientists), they still hold to overly dogmatic views against evolution (claiming it would just take too much time). Still, nobody is perfect, and for a Creationist site, it has much to recommend it over the likes of AIG and ICR.

Hi Vance!


I thought I had already sent this to you....

Hermeneutics, by Charles C. Ryrie
The fundamental assertion of dispensational hermeneutics is that of lteral interpretation which gives to each word the same meaning it would have in its normal usage. This is also called the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. The principle relies on the normal meaning of words as the approach to understanding them. It is also knows as plain interpretation to keep from ruling out symbols, figures of speech, and types. These are interpreted plainly in order to communicate their intended meaning to the reader. Symbols, figures of speech, and types are normal literary tools that are used to clarify or emphasize thoughts and ideas.
This position is supported in the following ways.
1. Language was given by God for the purpose of communication with humankind. Therefore, God would give His linguistic communication in the most understandable way--literally and normally. It seems unlikely that God would go to all the trouble of revealing Himself to people in a manner that only caused people confusion and uncertainty in their understanding of who God is and how He works.
2. The Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ's birth and rearing, ministry, death, and resurrection were all fulfilled literally.
3. In order to maintain objectivity the literal method of interpretation must be emplyed. This insures that impartiality is maintained and prevents the interpreter from overlaying biblical truth with personal thoughts.
Thus, normative dispensationalism is the result of the consistent application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal interpretation. This claim can be made by no other system of theology.
Literal interpretation results in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value, which involves recognizing distinctions in the Bible. The text taken at face value and the recognition of distinctions in the progress of revelation reveals the different economies God uses in the outworking of His program. ...

YOu know, I follow that same concept, really, with some subtle but important differences. The problem with the approach as stated is that it makes the assumption that we can easily determine exactly what the writer is saying and whether He meant it to be taken literally in a given text. I always start with the assumption of plain reading, but do not make exceptions ONLY for figures of speech. The other problem is that, while it sounds good, it doesn't always work and those who pretend to follow it observe it almost as much in the breach as otherwise.

The seventh day of "rest" I have been discussing elsewhere is a perfect example.

The plain, literal reading is that God actually took time to recouperate from His labors of Creation. This is not a "figure of speech" and so must be taken literally by Ryrie's method. This method then reads this as God actually and literally resting.

But we know that God is spirit and does not need any rest whatsoever. In fact, God, being perfect, CAN not rest any more than He can sin. It simply doesn't apply to Him in any way.

The better approach is that God did not physically rest, but set aside a period of time after his creative effort as an example for us (and possibly for other symbolic reasons). And, if we read it this way, we are NOT reading it the way Ryrie suggests.

Just to add to my comments above, since this subject of interpretation is really at the heart of the matter.

First, the "literal, plain meaning" approach must determine whether it will be based on a plain meaning of the original text or of the English translation (or whatever other language you happen to be reading). Most seem to want to use the plain reading of the English words and I think this creates a lot of difficulties and errors.

Second, the method for literal reading above seems to require following the "most common usage" of a given word unless it is being used as a "figure of speech" or a "symbol". This can create some serious difficulties if followed strictly.

Let's take the word "yom" for instance, since we are basically discussing Genesis. This word in Hebrew has many meanings, everything from our own understanding of a 24 hour "day" (although they measured the start and finish of a day a bit differently than we do) all the way to an indefinite, but framed, period of time. Let's assume for the moment that the "24 hour period" was the most common meaning. The word is found all throughout the Old Testament in a variety of contexts. If we follow the literal method described above, we must read each of those as a 24 hour period unless it is being used as a figure of speech or a symbol. I am not sure how Ryrie's method deals with the various other valid meanings the word has, does he treat them as *other* true meanings, or is every other usage just a "figure of speech". If it is the latter, then we must determine whether a given usage is a figure of speech or not. There are a lot of possibilities there, and to act as if the choice is obvious is disengenuous.

The same applies to the word "erets" which is used in the flood stories. This is another word used extensively in the Bible. The most common usage for erets is not the entire planet, but a specific land or area, or even a people of a land. In fact, there is a word that specifically means the entire world, and it is not ever used in the flood accounts. So, under Ryrie's method, we must use the most common usage of erets and read "erets" in every instance as "a specific area" or "the land". The problem is that it was translated into English as "the world" and the most common, plain usage in English for "the world" is the whole planet. So, we have a conflict here in common usages. Which should we follow?

I understand the psychological appeal of a "strict and simple literal reading". It seems so straightforward and so much less subject to error or personal derivations. It also appeals to the idea that the Bible must be simple and straightforward or it would not be able to reach everyone of all education and sophistication levels (an idea that grew out of the fundamentalist movement in the southern United States, which also is based on the reaching the "lowest common denominator". I know of what I speak here since my father was an Assembly of God minister for most of my life and I grew up in that environment). But this appeal is a false security, since it is simply not that simple and trying to force a plain reading when it is not a proper reading can cause more error than otherwise.

Ryrie says "It seems unlikely that God would go to all the trouble of revealing Himself to people in a manner that only caused people confusion and uncertainty in their understanding of who God is and how He works."

If only this were true. While I think it IS true regarding the basic message of salvation through redemption and God's omnipotent control of the universe and all that is in it, beyond that we almost immediately get into conflicting views even among those who attempt to follow this literal interpretation. We have so many different sects and denominations and viewpoints on nearly every area of Biblical interpretation (again, even among those who attempt to read literally) that it is impossible to say that God wrote the Bible in such a way as to remove all confusion and uncertainty. Yes, I wonder why He left so much open to interpretation, but I am sure He had a reason.

Take a perambulation over to any of the theological discussions on the other boards and see how far this fantasy of a plain and simple reading that reveals a single obvious truth to all goes.

Malaka and Vance:

Thank you very much for your posts on the topic of how you interpret scripture. Both of you have given very well thought out statements of how you interpret Bible passages, and (although they differ in some aspects) both make sense and help explain why each of you have responded as you have to some of the issues raised in this forum. Although this side topic may not have a great deal of relevance to the OP topic ("Reason to Believe, a very interesting website"), I have found your comments to be helpful and interesting. Again, thank you.