What the Bible does *not* say

[theFijian]

A Creationist in another thread said the following:

God declares at the end of each day that his work is tôb (good), he then declares at the end of the week that all of creation is me'ôd tôb (very good). It is never described as tâmîym (perfect).

Thanks for the lesson in tongues --- but I'll take it in English.

Now I constantly see Creationists claiming here that they are they ones seeking to uphold the Bible and that TEs are the ones twisting it to suit their own interpretation. So then, I was rather astonished to see a Creationist dismiss the original Hebrew in favour of their own english terms which they thought were better suited to the text.

Is this really the case in Creationism? Are Creationists substituting words in the original Hebrew with other words which they think better suit a YEC interpretation? I've never seen a Creationist do this before so at the moment I'm hoping this is just an isolated incident. Would be nice to see some other Creationists practice what they preach and defend the integrity of scripture.

 

[Poke]

To God, "good" is perfect. That's why Jesus said no one is good, except God.

The word "good" does not imply imperfect. It does imply something of value where the word "perfect" does not (at least the Hebrew words translated to these).

Now, let's talk about the lack of care the "Theistic Evolutionists" have for the Bible...

 

[Mallon]

I wonder if this means I just have to be "good" to get into heaven?

 

[nickspacek]

Heh, no offense, but your thread title makes it seem like you want to start a flame war. I admit, I just started reading here, but I see a lot of attacking going on here rather than the inviting fellowship I assumed would be present.

Nick

 

[muaxiong]

I wonder if this means I just have to be "good" to get into heaven?

Not if by God's standard of "good".

 

[The Lady Kate]

To God, "good" is perfect. That's why Jesus said no one is good, except God.

The word "good" does not imply imperfect. It does imply something of value where the word "perfect" does not (at least the Hebrew words translated to these).

Something "good" has value but something "Perfect" does not?

 

[IisJustMe]

Is this really the case in Creationism? Are Creationists substituting words in the original Hebrew with other words which they think better suit a YEC interpretation? I've never seen a Creationist do this before so at the moment I'm hoping this is just an isolated incident. Would be nice to see some other Creationists practice what they preach and defend the integrity of scripture.

I can't say what the motive for the post was, but I do know that at least one of the TE posters to this thread have as much as denied the word of God in the past, saying He Himself didn't call His creation perfect, but only "good" or "very good." Deal with this passage, a declaration of Moses:

"The Rock! His work is perfect,
For all His ways are just;
A God of faithfulness and without injustice,
Righteous and upright is He." (Deuteronomy 32:4)

As for who upholds the integrity and truth of the Bible, all one has to do is look at the Bible, and look at the limited defense of the theory through Scripture offered by TE'ists to determine who actually does uphold the Bible.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Don't Creationists care about the Bible?

I often wonder about that. The people who assert themselves to be the absolute defenders of the Bible often seem to disregard it in practice- insisting on using archaic translations, quoting verses out of context... using verse numbers at all, which I see as an unnecessary addition to the text. I'm often criticized for holding unbiblical views which I reached in the first place by reading the Bible.

 

[Battie]

It's probably more fair to say that perhaps *a* creationist does not care. I see plenty of others carefully researching the meaning of yom and all that.

Creationists and TEs may not agree on interpretation, but it does not good to make sweeping statements that further alienate people and show what appears to be a lack of understanding of what they are trying to show us.

 

[Poke]

Something "good" has value but something "Perfect" does not?

Sometimes my words might be sloppy, especially if it's been a long day and there are distractions. But, I'm pretty sure I didn't say "perfect" things don't have value.

I just made a bowl of salsa from my garden veggies. The salsa is good. The bowl is perfectly round.

 

[theFijian]

To God, "good" is perfect. That's why Jesus said no one is good, except God.

That is an interesting point, but not a lot to do with what I was talking about. The original hebrew of Genesis 1 does not include the word for perfect. The hebrew word used for good does not convey the concept of perfection. Why are Creationists adding to scripture?

The word "good" does not imply imperfect. It does imply something of value where the word "perfect" does not (at least the Hebrew words translated to these).

You are quite correct, the word 'good' does not imply imperfection as something can be imperfect and still good, just as something can be perfect and not good, because 'good' is subjective, it is qualitative whereas perfect is quantative. I can have a perfectly round sphere but if I have a perfectly square hole that is not much good.

The word used for 'good' in Gen 1 implies God taking pleasure in his creation, he was pleased with his handiwork. God takes pleasure in us, his children, despite us being far from perfect. Again it needs to be stressed that the writer of Gen 1 did not use the hebrew word for perfect. Please deal with what the actual text says and not what you want it to say. Creationists are the ones who supposedly take the text literally, at least be consistent. If God wanted to convey the idea of perfection the word for perfection would appear in the text. It does not.

Now, let's talk about the lack of care the "Theistic Evolutionists" have for the Bible...

More care than others round here it would seem.

 

[theFijian]

I can't say what the motive for the post was, but I do know that at least one of the TE posters to this thread have as much as denied the word of God in the past, saying He Himself didn't call His creation perfect, but only "good" or "very good."

Actually it's you who is in danger of denying the word of God by adding to it, because God doesn't use the word perfect in Gen 1. But he does use the words good, and very good. Deal with the text actually says and not what you want it to say.

Deal with this passage, a declaration of Moses:

"The Rock! His work is perfect,
For all His ways are just;
A God of faithfulness and without injustice,
Righteous and upright is He." (Deuteronomy 32:4)

In the Song of Moses he is praising God for his gracious dealings with the people of Israel. He doesn't mention Creation.

As for who upholds the integrity and truth of the Bible, all one has to do is look at the Bible, and look at the limited defense of the theory through Scripture offered by TE'ists to determine who actually does uphold the Bible.

Why don't you deal with the what the text actually says rather than what you want it to say. This thread has really demonstrated for me the hypocrisy of Creationism in it's treatment of scripture.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I just made a bowl of salsa from my garden veggies. The salsa is good. The bowl is perfectly round.

Just "good"? Not excellent, outstanding, wonderful, super, magnificent, or terrific?

Not even "great"?

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with good salsa, but isn't it possible that the salsa could be better?

"Good" implies imperfection simply because "good" is not the same as "perfect."

 

[RealityCheck]

The bowl is not perfectly round, any more than the earth is. Perfection is an ideal. The bowl is made in the shape of a circle, yes, but measure it carefully all the way around and you'll find that it is not "perfect" - it may deviate in radius from one point on the edge to another, there will be pits or bumps on the surface (as minute as they may be), etc. etc. etc.

 

[theFijian]

Just "good"? Not excellent, outstanding, wonderful, super, magnificent, or terrific?

Not even "great"?

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with good salsa, but isn't it possible that the salsa could be better?

"Good" implies imperfection simply because "good" is not the same as "perfect."

Good only implies perfection here because we're still dealing with the english usage of these words which was the point of this thread, we shouldn't be, we should be dealing with the Hebrew.. There is more than one hebrew word translated as good in the Bible, (The word used in Gen 1 is different to that used in Mk 10:18) and the one used in Gen 1 does not convey the idea of perfection. The issue is what do the original Hebrew words mean?

I'd like to actually hear what Creationists think perfection actually means with regards Creation.

 

[shernren]

To be fair, TheFijian, AV1611 is one of those KJV-only people. (I don't mean this derogatorily but it's the simplest way to get my point across.) I don't think you will find any other posters here with such blatant disregard for the significance of the original language, since a KJV-only person will normally have his/her own theological reasons for supporting infallibility (or near-infallibility) in the KJV text instead of in the original, which are (almost) completely independent of creationism.

Having said that, I think the discussion happening now is an important one. I think it's a bit of a double-standard when creationists say that the evolutionist's idea of mindless animals dying for millions of years is cruel ... and then that God making a garden with a tree of damnation* smack in the middle of it is perfect. Does that make sense?

*Of course, it's not actually called a "tree of damnation", but that doesn't make much difference to the question at hand.

 

[IisJustMe]

*Of course, it's not actually called a "tree of damnation", but that doesn't make much difference to the question at hand.

Knowledge does not condemn. What we do with it is what may condemn us, if it isn't glorifying to God. Your lack of understanding (as evidenced by this erroneous statement) indicates anything you might have had to say about the Bible is irrelevant. If you don't understand it, you can't hope to use it to explain your basis for believing TE.

 

[jereth]

I was rather astonished to see a Creationist dismiss the original Hebrew in favour of their own english terms which they thought were better suited to the text.

Is this really the case in Creationism? Are Creationists substituting words in the original Hebrew with other words which they think better suit a YEC interpretation?

I'd just like to cite 2 key examples of the Hebrew language being consistently adulterated in modern English versions, in favour of the YECist/global flood point of view:

1. raqia (firmament) translated as "expanse" (or dropped altogether)
2. "Mountains" being used in Genesis 7:19, 20 where "hills" is more appropriate.

It is an unfortunate that English bible translators are biased in this way, as it leads to further entrenching of erroneous thinking.

 

[Pats]

As a side not, Fijan, I don't know if you're familiar with the concept that many fundamentalists say the KJV is the only true Bible.

 

[IisJustMe]

Actually, both your examples are the result of your KJV Only bias.

1. raqia (firmament) translated as "expanse" (or dropped altogether)

It is nothing more than the use of a more modern term in place of the obsolete term. "Firmament" has come to mean, not by definition but by common usage, the ground. The use of the word in relationship to the heavens, and more specifically the solid vault that supported the water canopy before the Flood, is lost on modern readers. "Expanse" on the other hand is readily recognizable for its conjunctive use with "heavens" as in "the expanse of the heavens" and is more readily read by modern non-Christians as having to do with the sky and not the ground. I can't help it that non-Christians don't use the Olde English meanings anymore. Unfortunately, that means a lot of what the KJV says doesn't make sense to modern people, which is a pity, because that means this venerable old translation doesn't accurately convey God's truth to the person seeking after Christ.

2. "Mountains" being used in Genesis 7:19, 20 where "hills" is more appropriate.

The word translated "mountain" in the NASB (for example) is har and while it can mean hill or mountain, according to Strong's, is it most often translated "mountain." Har is translated 132 times "hill" in the NASB, and 143 "mountain." Wonder of wonders, it is also translated "hill" 59 times in the KJV, as well as "hill country" once, and one completely inexplicable rendering as "promotion." There are six other words for "hill" or "hill country" in both the NASB and the KJV. Har is either a mountain, or a large hill, as designated by the other common word for "hill," the Hebrew gib`ah, used 69 times in the KJV as "hill," 30 times in the NASB and 39 times as the plural, in addition to once as "Gibeath-haaraloth" which is "hills and mountains." Its definition is "hill (lower than a mountain)" in Strong's. The others are variants that only result in their rendering as "hill" in either version once or twice each. I won't even go into the fact that the waters covered the earth after the "founts of the deep burst forth" which is what created the mountains in the first place. So there were mountains by the time reference of Genesis 7:19, 20.

Before you complain about "perverted versions" you really ought to make sure it doesn't come back to bite you.

It is an unfortunate that English bible translators are biased in this way, as it leads to further entrenching of erroneous thinking.

What is unfortunate is that the KJV Only-ists would further confuse the debate over creation vs. evolution by dragging their elitist concepts into the mix. What is even more unfortunate is that they pretend the KJV doesn't use the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the same way as the NASB, NIV and other translations, just so they can try to make a point that, upon inspection, is no point at all.