Open-Minded Creationism!

[HSetterfield]

I know you are serious. But you are forcing upon Genesis your own worldview rather than accepting it for what it presents itself as: true history.

 

[Willtor]

I know you are serious. But you are forcing upon Genesis your own worldview rather than accepting it for what it presents itself as: true history.

That's a more constructive thing to say. In that case, let's talk about worldviews and their relationships to interpretation.

What, in your view, is more highly regarded in modern Western society: literal history, or figurative history?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I know you are serious. But you are forcing upon Genesis your own worldview rather than accepting it for what it presents itself as: true history.

the idea of "true history" is a modern social construct dating from the early 17th C. The whole idea of a newspaperman's factual account of a historical event is a modern notice that accompanied the rise of science. What you are fundamentally doing is to force Gen 1-3 into a modern box, saying that if God didn't write Gen to your modern satisfaction then it must be false. This does not do justice to the important concept that the Scriptures are addressed to their first readers, in their cultural and social ideology and that we are essentially shoulder surfing. You are addressing questions to Gen 1-3 that are not in the text, that never were in the minds of their first readers, in order to prove that God wrote Gen to modern scientific and historical minded readers.

The worse thing about this complex misunderstanding of what the Scriptures are is that it seems so natural, so common sensical to modern man that he never addresses the issue that he is really reading someone else's mail. This is not how the Scriptures ought to be exegeted and it is the fundamental reasons for such monstrousities as YECism, modern flatearthism and modern geocentricism to say nothing of the 19thC Christian defenders of Southern American slavery.

 

[laptoppop]

Of course this highlights an interpretational point -- are the Scriptures ONLY to the first parties, or has an omnipotent, omniscient God constructed them to consistently have message and value over all time?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Of course this highlights an interpretational point -- are the Scriptures ONLY to the first parties, or has an omnipotent, omniscient God constructed them to consistently have message and value over all time?

these are not mutually exclusive ideas by any means.
the problem is that subsequent readers must literally put themselves into the first readers sandals and do carefully historical grammatical exegesis to first derive the meaning and interpretation from the passages and then apply those ideas to modern structures and ideologies. That is why preaching is exegesis and application, not just a word for word across the generations wooden analysis, but up the exegetical arch and down the other side. Allegory interpretation is fundamentally this straight across application hermeneutics and got harder and harder to properly do as the church moved historical distances from the Scriptures first readers.

 

[laptoppop]

Yes, but would you say that the Author (God) used an author (human) to convey His message as He wanted it conveyed, or that an author (human) was inspired by the Author (God) to convey spiritual truths? How much of a role does the timlessness and omniscience of God play in our view of Scripture?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yes, but would you say that the Author (God) used an author (human) to convey His message as He wanted it conveyed, or that an author (human) was inspired by the Author (God) to convey spiritual truths? How much of a role does the timlessness and omniscience of God play in our view of Scripture?

One of the things i learned from this forum is what i eventually called the "easter egg mentality" of Scripture. I finally saw the idea in writing in _Paradigms on Pilgrimage_ so i know it is widespread in the modern church, probably like YECism centered in dispensationalist independent and fundamentalist ones.

The idea is that God put "easter eggs" into Scripture so that later readers would finally understand them and poof, like prophecy "prove" that the Scriptures were inspired by a God who could either see or control the future. This is one of the basic ideas of H.Ross and how he wants to see modern science confirm both the order and particulars of Gen 1. Occasionally i see it in YECist literature as well, lots a bit like scientific prophesy. It is also pure nonsense and has no Biblical basis.

i believe that the liberal or progressive error is to center inspiration and authority at the interpretation or idea level, i think it best described by BB.Warfield and Princeton theology as at the word level, God produced the Scripture exactly as the words He wanted.

How much of a role does the timlessness and omniscience of God play in our view of Scripture?

i'm an orthodox Calvinist, God chose the elect before the foundation of the world and is in the process of gathering them together into His church. But this doesn't include creating "easter eggs" in Scripture so that our great grand children will be able to point to verses that confirm the invention of warp drive.

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian, 'of the Lord' is a prepositional phrase. I stand by what I said.

You said:

"In the day OF THE LORD" incorporates the prepositional phrase as do several similar phrases, and thus means an indeterminate amount of time.

This question comes up in discussions on yom, but the point is being made is based on the Hebrew preposition 'in', in the day, b'yom which comes up in verses like: in the day the Lord brought you out of Egypt, or, in the day of trouble. That prepositional phrase is absent from 'the day of the Lord' verses which in fact doesn't even have a preposition but is simply yom yhwh, 'day of LORD'.

Is this any different from the construction in Genesis where 'the first day' is yom echad literally 'day of one'?

 

[laptoppop]

Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. (NASB)

 

[laptoppop]

There are quite a few places where God put future-telling prophecies in the Scripture specifically to let folks know the message was His, not the human author's.

Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. (NASB)

 

[HSetterfield]

So historical recording is a product of the last few hundred years? Amazing!

Please don't read Josephus, Cicero, Herodotus, Ptolemy,or any of the ancients. They were all playing games, right?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So historical recording is a product of the last few hundred years? Amazing!

Please don't read Josephus, Cicero, Herodotus, Ptolemy,or any of the ancients. They were all playing games, right?

you are distorting the idea. the concept of history as accurate reporting of the factual events is a modern construct. as a reading of Josephus, Cicero, Herodotus, Ptolemy will demonstrate. they mix up myths and stories and moral tales with what we describe as history. their purpose of proving a point, or the natural superiority of their ethnos overran the desire to accurately report the details. it was the meaning and significance of the events that occupied their histories, not the list of details as we now see history.

but you are right, read the ancients and see how they did not view history as we do. then look at something like _history and historians_

They were all playing games, right?
unnecessary name calling, right? who is playing games?

 

[HSetterfield]

If the professional historians had done that they would have been fired at the least, executed at the most, and their writings destroyed.

By the way, are you saying that Chronicles, Kings, Judges, Ezra, Nehemiah are not historical documents?

Are you saying the Gospels have myth and reality mixed?

 

[Melethiel]

That section is the foundation of the entire rest of the Bible.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the core problem. The GOSPELS are the foundation and core of the Scriptures. Everything else is to point to them.

If the professional historians had done that they would have been fired at the least, executed at the most, and their writings destroyed.

How many of these historical chronicles have you actually read? The ones that I have read, they usually start with a series of obvious legends and mythos about the country they are writing about, and eventually merge into what WE would call history - in this or that date, so-and-so fought a battle. The transition is seamless.

 

[HSetterfield]

How much have I read of them? Between my husband and myself, most of them. We have spent years studying history.

In the meantime, the first eleven chapters are indeed the foundation of the entire Bible. They describe what happened to man to need a Savior. They describe God's right to judge. They describe His care for His own. They establish His story of creation. These eleven chapters are referred to by Jesus numerous times as well as most of the other authors of the Bible. They are indeed foundational to biblical doctrine and validity.

In the meantime, let me ask again, are you saying that Chronicles, Kings, Judges, Ezra, Nehemiah are not historical documents?

Are you saying the Gospels have myth and reality mixed?

 

[Melethiel]

How much have I read of them? Between my husband and myself, most of them. We have spent years studying history.

Then you should know that pre-Enlightenment documents often conflate legend and fact.

In the meantime, the first eleven chapters are indeed the foundation of the entire Bible. They describe what happened to man to need a Savior. They describe God's right to judge. They describe His care for His own. They establish His story of creation. These eleven chapters are referred to by Jesus numerous times as well as most of the other authors of the Bible. They are indeed foundational to biblical doctrine and validity.

Yes, THIS is the message of Genesis! Not whether the earth is 6000 years old or when the continents broke up.

In the meantime, let me ask again, are you saying that Chronicles, Kings, Judges, Ezra, Nehemiah are not historical documents?

What in anyone's statement makes you think that?

Are you saying the Gospels have myth and reality mixed?

No. Neither are they written as a chronicle in the same way that, say, Acts is.

 

[HSetterfield]

Quote:
In the meantime, let me ask again, are you saying that Chronicles, Kings, Judges, Ezra, Nehemiah are not historical documents?
What in anyone's statement makes you think that?

You don't seem to think any real literal histories were written without mythical additions before just a few hundred years ago. Are you including the Bible histories?


Quote:
Are you saying the Gospels have myth and reality mixed?
No. Neither are they written as a chronicle in the same way that, say, Acts is.

These also predate the time you say actual non-mythological histories were written.

So where in the Bible do you draw the line? Was Moses writing real history? Do you think the Exodus is true?

 

[Mallon]

Yes, but would you say that the Author (God) used an author (human) to convey His message as He wanted it conveyed, or that an author (human) was inspired by the Author (God) to convey spiritual truths?

What does the Bible suggest? I can't think of a single verse that undoubtedly supports the former. Can you?

 

[vossler]

What does the Bible suggest? I can't think of a single verse that undoubtedly supports the former. Can you?

So is it your opinion that Scripture may not be limited to the 66 books of the Bible? Couldn't this view even allow you or I, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, be writing what will someday be considered Scripture? Isn't this what this line of thinking can and will lead to? I mean really, aren't we all capable of conveying spiritual truths and thereby be authors of Scripture?

 

[chaoschristian]

Open-Minded Creationism accepts the notion that the creation story found in the book of Genesis is much too vague for anyone to make any sense of it,

I hold that scripture is primarily a phenomological expression of certain people and peoples attempts at making sense of their experiences, and as such the Genesis creation account does in fact make sense.

To whom it makes sense, or in what paradigm is makes sense, and how or whether or not its still relevant is what we debate about here.

To the people of the ANE I suspect that there is much in Genesis that would make more sense to them than to us if they were still around to explain it.

Certainly to post-Enlightenment, post-industrial, post-modern people Genesis makes little sense at all . . .

. . . unless one sees how it is anchored in the ANE world view and how that world view can add value to our own understanding and expression of our faith.

but it also confirms that no matter how it actually happened, God was behind all of it 100%.

Thank you for pointing that out. It's a point that gets lost too easily too often.

Or I should say, what gets forgotten is that we all hold to this, regardless of our differences on anything else.

Open-Minded Creationism both accepts and rejects certain aspects of all 4 of the above mentioned creation theories;

I would be interested in reading more on how Open-Minded Creationism accepts and rejects certain aspects of all 4 of the above mentioned creation theories in more detail.