A question for Young Earth Creationists

[RealityCheck]

If you can find 'truth' from outside the Bible that is contrary to it, then it most certainly isn't truth. But there are truths that the Bible doesn't speak of, so they are still truths.

You can't have it both ways.

"If you can find 'truth' from outside the Bible that is contrary to it, then it most certainly isn't truth." - The implication is that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth - that nothing in the Bible can be wrong.

But if it is the ultimate source of truth, then it must be the only source of truth. It cannot simply be "one source of truth of many" because then it could not be considered the ultimate source of truth.

Therefore, anything outside the Bible cannot be considered truth. If it was truth, it would be in the Bible.

"But there are truths that the Bible doesn't speak of, so they are still truths. " - But if this is true, then the Bible is not the ultimate source of truth!

 

[laptoppop]

if it must be historical to be true then you seem to believe that only historical can accurately transmit or carry truth.

No - that is not the position of anyone I know. However, historical details in the scriptures are true.

 

[laptoppop]

You can't have it both ways.

"If you can find 'truth' from outside the Bible that is contrary to it, then it most certainly isn't truth." - The implication is that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth - that nothing in the Bible can be wrong.

But if it is the ultimate source of truth, then it must be the only source of truth. It cannot simply be "one source of truth of many" because then it could not be considered the ultimate source of truth.

Therefore, anything outside the Bible cannot be considered truth. If it was truth, it would be in the Bible.

"But there are truths that the Bible doesn't speak of, so they are still truths. " - But if this is true, then the Bible is not the ultimate source of truth!

The Bible is the ultimate source of truth.

However, there is a wide range of truth discoverable outside the Bible. As long as it does not conflict with the God's express revelation, there is no problem.

We must never use a secondary source to overrule direct revelation.

 

[RealityCheck]

The Bible is the ultimate source of truth.

However, there is a wide range of truth discoverable outside the Bible. As long as it does not conflict with the God's express revelation, there is no problem.

We must never use a secondary source to overrule direct revelation.

No, read what I said again. An ultimate source of truth by definition is the only source of truth.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

No - that is not the position of anyone I know. However, historical details in the scriptures are true.

hang around the boards for awhile.
i've had people deny that "God spoke" in Gen 1 is a metaphor.
we've had people tell us that Jesus' parables must have been real events or they would not be true.


the book of Jonah claims Jonah was swallowed by a large fish in the Mediterranean sea.

is this an historical fact?

the book of Job claims:
Job 1:2 And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.

Job 1:19 And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee

Job 42:13 He had also seven sons and three daughters


so he had two complete families of 10 kids.
same wife?

 

[laptoppop]

Yes, I believe Johah was carried in a large fish - very possibly one specially prepared by God for that transportation.

As for Job's family -- it could be the same wife, or it is also possible that "handmaidens" provided extra kids, as in Jacob/Rachel/.....

 

[RealityCheck]

The Bible is the ultimate source of truth.

However, there is a wide range of truth discoverable outside the Bible. As long as it does not conflict with the God's express revelation, there is no problem.

We must never use a secondary source to overrule direct revelation.

What defines and proves the Bible to be "direct revelation"?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yes, I believe Johah was carried in a large fish - very possibly one specially prepared by God for that transportation.

As for Job's family -- it could be the same wife, or it is also possible that "handmaidens" provided extra kids, as in Jacob/Rachel/.....

note how easily the thoughts come to you.
The Bible is true.
Truth means it really happened (historical) and that it is accessible to logical thought, usually science.

means that you look for a big fish, even to propose that God created it supernaturally. and that you look for common sense answers to questions that are historical about Job.

It is that below the level of consciousness analysis that things ought to fit together in historical and scientific ways. that gaps ought to be bridged by supernatural creative acts. that things are explainable in our average ordinary common sense physical ways.

It is this assumed historicism and scientism that i find fascinating. For instance, numbers. they are almost completely desacralized to us, but to the ancients numbers weren't really used for counting*. they were used to carry truth , why is there 7 sons? because the author of the story counted them? the point is that even something as simply as counting is not common between us and those that first read the book of Job.


i see the same forces at work in movies. we talked about "phantom of the opera" awhile back, it is an extraordinarily good example of this historicism and scientism because the author was very conscious and verbal about his use of it.

likewise the movie "v is for vendetta" is a good example of how plausibility to us is completely wrapped up in common sense history and science. and we come to the Scriptures with all of this cultural ideals and read them back into the long past millenniums and the culture they were addressed to.


*i saw a little bit of this mystical ideal of numbers in China. i have 4 sons, you should have seen people change when i haltingly told them this. and then the next statement from them was always, sad it was not 5 sons, for you know how luck 5 sons are. Chinese culture is much closer to ANE in these ideas of the mystical character of numbers.

 

[vossler]

First of all I agree 100% with what laptoppop has stated.

An ultimate source of truth by definition is the only source of truth.

True, but it is only ultimate in those areas where it speaks.

 

[vossler]

As far as Jonah and Job are concerned, well I have no reason whatsoever to believe either of them to be anything other than factual and historical. Yet in the overall scheme of things if one were to be somehow found mythical or legend that would not change the truths buried within.

 

[RealityCheck]

As far as Jonah and Job are concerned, well I have no reason whatsoever to believe either of them to be anything other than factual and historical. Yet in the overall scheme of things if one were to be somehow found mythical or legend that would not change the truths buried within.

Why is this, vossler? What is it about Job and Jonah that convinces you they are factual and historical?

 

[vossler]

Why is this, vossler? What is it about Job and Jonah that convinces you they are factual and historical?

I believe that whenever God uses names to tell us his Truth they were indeed real people. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Why would you believe them not to be?

 

[RealityCheck]

I believe that whenever God uses names to tell us his Truth they were indeed real people. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Why would you believe them not to be?

Because I don't make the same assumption you do. I don't assume that because it appears between two covers labeled "Holy Bible" that it is unquestionably something written or delivered by God. Every book of the Bible was written by men, and some of them written by more than one author, and many of them edited and revised by other men later on.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I believe that whenever God uses names to tell us his Truth they were indeed real people. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Why would you believe them not to be?

Luke 16:19-31
Lazarus is mentioned by name, Dives is not, so Lazarus is real and Dives is not? but it is clearly a parable, with no physical historical reality underpinning it, in fact, it takes place in heaven where you would not expect earthly historical notions to apply.

 

[Smidlee]

Luke 16:19-31
Lazarus is mentioned by name, Dives is not, so Lazarus is real and Dives is not? but it is clearly a parable,

No, clearly it isn't a parable. In fact no doubt some know the rich man Jesus was referring to. Anyone who know their bible knows why the rich man wasn't named.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

No, clearly it isn't a parable. In fact no doubt some know the rich man Jesus was referring to. Anyone who know their bible knows why the rich man wasn't named.

since i obvious don't know the Bible since i have no idea why the rich man does not have a name, can you explain why this is so?

actually, i have never heard anyone say it was not a parable so i, as always, go googling.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/parable.htm

1. It would be the only parable in the Bible that describes certain things that are outside of the realm of human experience. All the other parables talk about things that we are familiar with such as birds, seed, fields, pearls, wheat, barns, leaven, fish, etc. (see Matthew 13, etc.). This passage is different because it talks about what happens to two men after death, and this is a realm where none of us have had any personal experience. A parable is an earthly story with a heavenly or spiritual significance but Luke 16 transcends the realm of the earthly.
2. It would be the only parable in the Bible that uses a proper name (Lazarus).
3. It would be the only parable in the Bible that makes mention repeatedly of a historical person--Abraham. Moreover, this historical person actually carries on a dialogue with the rich man! Indeed, mention is also made in this parable of Moses, another historical character. What other parable speaks of real, historical persons?
4. It would be the only parable in the Bible that describes the places where the dead go (Hades, Abraham's bosom, a place of torment).
5. It would be the only parable in the Bible that makes mention of angels. Compare Matthew 13 verses 24-30, 36-43, 47-49 where angels are mentioned in the explanation of the parable but not in the parable itself.
6. If Hades is not really a place of torment then this would be the only parable in the Bible where the Lord Jesus taught error instead of truth. GOD FORBID!

from: http://www.bible.ca/su-hades-luke16.htm

The fact that Lazarus actually named gives strong evidence this is a true story. For this third reason, we reject Lk 16 is a parable because no parables of Jesus ever gives specific names. Although the story begins with "there was a certain..." this phrase does not indicate that it was not a parable, for several other parables begin this way.

so i guess it just goes to show that there is nothing so simple in the Scriptures that there aren't a dozen different ways to interpret it.

 

[shernren]

I don't think you'll find another YEC here that will subscribe to what your proclaiming. For that matter the AiG statement of faith you posted doesn't proclaim what you're espousing.

The Bible's assertions are factually true. I agree 100%!

It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. I agree 100%

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

Again I agree 100%

No where did I see any statement that said truth is only found via one or two means, nor did I see something that said it couldn't be found via allegorical or metaphorical means. So I'm sorry but I don't see what you're claiming.

BTW, welcome back!

The nub of it is in what AiG doesn't say. Here's the statement again:

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

Follow their train of thought:

1. Divine inspiration
2. Inerrancy
3. Truth
4. Factuality
5. Historicity/scientificity

What I am asserting is that there is an exclusive link between 3 and 4. The link between 4 and 5 is unavoidable (given how "fact" is defined), and the links 1->2 and 2->3 are reasonable (though not agreed on by some TEs). But look what happens if I take a fork down from 3:

1. Divine inspiration
2. Inerrancy
3. Truth
4b. Myth/spiritual truth
5b. Allegorical/parabolic presentation

Why, we've arrived in TEville! As far as I see, the only thing that prevents YECs from coming down here is their refusal to admit that 4b. is a reasonable path to take from 3.

Ergo, that mythical or spiritual truth is really truth at all, as presented in the Bible; that only a scientific or historical interpretation of Genesis 1 can be truth.

Do tell me why (if your reasoning is different) you would reject a mythical/allegorical interpretation of Genesis, or any other passage in the Bible.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I believe that whenever God uses names to tell us his Truth they were indeed real people. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

So it's your opinion.

Why would you believe them not to be?

Because not every name is an actual person.

 

[vossler]

Luke 16:19-31
Lazarus is mentioned by name, Dives is not, so Lazarus is real and Dives is not? but it is clearly a parable, with no physical historical reality underpinning it, in fact, it takes place in heaven where you would not expect earthly historical notions to apply.

This is the same example everyone keeps pulling out, but to me and a lot of other people there is no reason not to believe Lazarus wasn't an actual person. It isn't nearly as clear as you would make it appear and that shouldn't keep someone from believing other names could be mythical or otherwise not actual people.

 

[vossler]

Because I don't make the same assumption you do. I don't assume that because it appears between two covers labeled "Holy Bible" that it is unquestionably something written or delivered by God. Every book of the Bible was written by men, and some of them written by more than one author, and many of them edited and revised by other men later on.

This isn't an assumption because when it comes to something this important I try extra hard to stay away from assuming anything. The Bible clearly states and implies that everything within it is from God and I will never believe otherwise. You're free to believe otherwise.