The Case For A Creator

[gluadys]

Quite frankly, I don't know how you can believe in an inerrant and literal word ....

I would like to know precisely what you mean by "literal". I find very often that even though people interpret a passage figuratively, they still call their interpretation literal. For example, the idea that the snake in Eden was "literally" Satan.

Well that is a self-contradiction. The snake can only be literally a snake. Any other interpretation is not literal. It may be true, but it is not literal.

I fear too many people say "literal" when they really mean "true".

This leads to giving a preference to "literal" interpretations (even when they are really figurative) over other interpretations.

I also note how "inerrant" and "literal" are tied together. I would say that inerrancy of the text of scripture is a red herring. It evades the whole problem of interpretation. After all, a person may believe deeply in the inerrancy of scripture without feeling compelled to interpret it literally.

So what you are really proposing is not that scripture per se is inerrant, but that a "literal" interpretation of scripture is inerrant. And that assumption is what leads to suspicion of unbelief when a person opts for a different style of interpretation.

 

[shernren]

Quite frankly, I don't know how you can believe in an inerrant and literal word and not have that concern -- and not say something about it. Similarly, if you really believe that the truth is a metaphorical truth and that is what is intened, you should say something about it.

What concern - that I don't believe in an "inerrant and literal word" (with gluadys' caveat) because I don't have a good relationship with God? But you see, I don't credit my understanding of the Bible simply and purely to my relationship with God. I took time, effort, reading, and thinking to arrive where I am in terms of Biblical interpretation. I knew I wanted to do science, I'd heard things that didn't jive between science and Scripture (which are far more fundamental than the issue of how to interpret a few chapters in Genesis), and I needed to work them out before I could confidently be a Christian scientist. Thus far the Holy Spirit does not seem to have opposed what I believe, nor has He revealed anything (in that area) which I wouldn't have figured out on my own. (Of course, it may well be that things seemed logical to me only because He made them so. But I hope you get what I mean. Trying to discuss God's works in human words is so difficult, isn't it?)

Let's start by comparison with a far more neutral field. I play bass guitar in my church for worship, and I train a few juniors on the side. Some of them have problems with basic skills. Now, why are they having those problems? Why are they doing things differently from me? If I were to pull one of them aside and say "Your scales are all wobbly ... you need to pray more!" that wouldn't make sense, now would it? Not only that, it would be an affront to him: I'm attacking his spirituality based on something that may or may not have anything to do with his spirituality. He may take it positively, or negatively, but the fact is that I had no right to say what I did. His bass skills are weak probably because he doesn't practice, not because he doesn't pray.

In the same way, I believe that my Biblical position is based on a lot of time and effort spent looking at the Scripture-science relationship, not just my relationship with God, in the same way that my bass expertise is based on a lot of time and effort practicing bass. And I bear no grudge whatsoever against someone not putting in time and effort in that area. We all have to prioritize: my self-learning of Koine Greek is going at a snail's pace, I don't have time to read any of the classical theologians (besides where they pertain to origins), and I don't have the money to buy anything else once I've went and bought a response to Dawkins. In my study of the Bible I put so much effort (on top of the basics) in looking at the relationship between Scripture and science that I would be completely out of my league looking at the relationship between, say, Scripture and law (where I would expect you to know far more than me).

So if someone comes to a different opinion of that Scripture-science relationship, I expect that perhaps the person would have spent less time and effort studying this relationship, or perhaps studied it with different starting points and goals. And I don't hold anything against that person. I don't expect it to affect his/her relationship with God. I expect far more fundamental things like how willing you are to share Christ and how much you serve in church and how you pray and whether you're worshiping idols to affect his/her relationship with God, but not a specialized area of study and knowledge like this. For me choosing between different origin positions is like choosing between a PC and a Mac, or between Hillsong and Planet Shakers, or whether to wear the green shirt or the red shirt for Christmas at church. Interesting, maybe even important, but hardly something that would affect my relationship with God. I bring my origins position before the Holy Spirit and frankly, He always has far bigger concerns for my edification than that.

So that's my experience, and that's why I don't see any urgency to ask "why don't you read the Bible metaphorically? is it because you don't pray enough?" the way some of you treat literalism. If God has far more important things to do in your life than to get you to think about the relationship between Scripture and science, that's His problem not mine. If you want to discuss things with me I'd tell you what I believe and why I believe it; if you don't want to agree, I don't need to assume that it's because you're less holy or sincere than I am - just that maybe you're not as free and bored as I am to think through things. How we live our lives is of far greater concern.

 

[sfs]

You forget that TEs have rejected 2000 years (around) of biblical and theological study. I haven't! One other thing is that it is the Holy Spirit that opens our eyes to the truth of God's word.
How quick we are to reject those who have gone before us, just because of one person having a brain fart that doesn't fit with scritpure and is not based on science.

'So that what we say may be understood quite concretely, let us now bring the argument to bear upon actual passages in Scripture. To what person of intelligence, I ask, will the account seem logically consistent that says there was a "first day" and a "second" and a "third," in which also "evening" and "morning" are named, without a sun, without a moon, and without stars, and even in the case of the first day without a heaven (Gen. 1:5-13)? And who will be found simple enough to believe that like some farmer "God planted trees in the garden of Eden, in the east" and that He planted "the tree of life" in it, that is a visible tree that could be touched, so that someone could eat of this tree with corporeal teeth and gain life, and, further, could eat of another tree and receive knowledge "of good and evil" (Gen. 2:8-9)? Moreover, we find that God is said to stroll in the garden in the afternoon and Adam to hide under a tree (cf. Gen. 3:8). Surely, I think no one doubts that these statements are made by Scripture in the form of a type by which they point toward certain mysteries. '

Origen, On First Principles IV.iii.1

(from Origin: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer, and Selected Works, translated by Rowan A. Greer, Paulist Press)

 

[busterdog]

What concern - that I don't believe in an "inerrant and literal word" (with gluadys' caveat) because I don't have a good relationship with God?

The same concern you should (and do) have for me that I don't seem to understand Gen. 1 & 2 properly, from your view. It don't think it is impolite for you to correct me and vice versa. It is hard to do that without implying a moral superiority in the essentials of faith.

I think I do have a superior understanding of Gen 1 & 2, I guess. But, that is not an essential of saving faith and not a moral superiority. I get zero points from God for all that understanding.

Of course, no one is "good" but God alone, as the Lord said.

 

[cattycakes]

Most people, like myself, who believe in God do not require any scientific evidence for His existance. We just believe. The other side of the same coin, of course it that no scientific disovery can disprove God either.

Science seeks only to explain phenomenon in the universe, it is NOT intended nor suited for proving/disproving the existance of God.

Can you name one scientific theory that proves God, or requires God? Can you name one that attempts to disprove God (you insinuate that evolutionary theory does this, please demonstrate how).



For example?


I guess I will just have to take your word for that.


Your distain if evident. Yet, you still manage to overcome your revulsion of science and sit yourself in front of a computer to broadcast your ideas over the internet.



Go ahead and share, we are waiting.

Are you kidding????????????????

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Are you kidding????????????????

is it "are you kidding?"
or
"who are you kidding?"

 

[shernren]

The same concern you should (and do) have for me that I don't seem to understand Gen. 1 & 2 properly, from your view. It don't think it is impolite for you to correct me and vice versa. It is hard to do that without implying a moral superiority in the essentials of faith.

My only concern that I have over an improper understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 is that it would force Christians to discard Scripture for good science or to discard good science for Scripture. If you happen to live your life in such a way that you can do so without much impact and without bringing much disgrace to Christ then by all means go ahead. But such leniency is not available to me.

 

[busterdog]

My only concern that I have over an improper understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 is that it would force Christians to discard Scripture for good science or to discard good science for Scripture. If you happen to live your life in such a way that you can do so without much impact and without bringing much disgrace to Christ then by all means go ahead. But such leniency is not available to me.

Well, no doubt you anticipate that Scripture gives a fair amount of encouragement to pursue that "disgrace" and be a "fool"? Which is why your confidence puzzles me.

 

[busterdog]

I would like to know precisely what you mean by "literal". I find very often that even though people interpret a passage figuratively, they still call their interpretation literal. For example, the idea that the snake in Eden was "literally" Satan.

Well that is a self-contradiction. The snake can only be literally a snake. Any other interpretation is not literal. It may be true, but it is not literal.

* * *

So what you are really proposing is not that scripture per se is inerrant, but that a "literal" interpretation of scripture is inerrant. And that assumption is what leads to suspicion of unbelief when a person opts for a different style of interpretation.

Yes, some kind of thing with scales and a three chambered heart, and probably more than that also.

What I mean by literal is the surface text, unless the text tells me otherwise. So, at least the surface text and probably much more besides.

As for unbelief. Yes. That is what I am saying. No one believe 100% of what he should.

 

[billychum]

I'm new to this part of the forum and have enjoyed the read but can someone tell me what a TE is?

Billy <><

 

[Melethiel]

I'm new to this part of the forum and have enjoyed the read but can someone tell me what a TE is?

Billy <><

TE = Theistic Evolutionist
YEC = Young Earth Creationist
OEC = Old Earth Creationist

 

[billychum]

Thanks Mel, that will help me in following along with you all.

Billy <><

 

[gluadys]

Yes, some kind of thing with scales and a three chambered heart, and probably more than that also.

What I mean by literal is the surface text, unless the text tells me otherwise. So, at least the surface text and probably much more besides.

Well, that is ambiguous. If the snake of Genesis 3 is "probably more than that" you are not staying with the surface text. You are digging beneath the surface to ask: what does this mean? And you are coming up with a figurative/theological answer.

Now, even if you are right--that is no longer the surface or literal meaning of the text.

What I am getting at here is the very meaning of the term "literal". It comes from the word "letter"--and it means exactly what the text says in the plainest, most obvious meaning. And the plainest, most obvious meaning of "snake" is "snake".

As soon as you start saying: "well it can't be just a snake, it probably means something more than that" you are saying there must be a deeper meaning which is not part of the surface meaning. A meaning that is not in the letter of the text, but has to be sought out in the spirit of the text.

And theologically, I think you are probably right. The snake of Genesis 3 isn't just a snake. It is symbolic of something deeper which is not stated in the letter of the text.

Hence, the snake is not to be understood literally.


Note that once we understand the term "literal" properly, we see that what is true (the snake is really a symbol of Satan, not a literal snake), doesn't have to be literal. In fact what is literal (the snake is just a snake) can be false.

IOW, a literal meaning is not a guarantee of a true meaning, and vice versa, a non-literal meaning is not necessarily false or even a lesser truth.

As for unbelief. Yes. That is what I am saying. No one believe 100% of what he should.

I quite agree that no one believes 100% what they should. But I hope I have shown to your satisfaction that it is senseless to try to use a literal interpretation as a litmus test of whether they do or not.

 

[gluadys]

Thanks Mel, that will help me in following along with you all.

Billy <><

Welcome, Billy

If you haven't done so already, you might also like to check out the sticky "The full spectrum of Christian beliefs on origins--where do you stand?"

It will give you a concise rundown of what each position is.

 

[pastorkevin73]

You better tell 2,000 years of theologians that they didn't have the luxury of having opinions on God's word and that they're faithless losers with no spiritual lives. Because TE is just another instance of what theology has done so far, of work that has gone into the dictionaries and commentaries you use, of work that you do every Sunday when you step up to the pulpit and preach:

TEs are just trying to figure out how the Bible should be interpreted so that it carries weight to the world as they see it.

Why is that such an offense to you?

It's not that it's an offense to me (but I do find it offensive and a believer in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that a person who professes to be Christian would believe any foolishness that contradicts His Word), it's that it is an offense to God. Believing anything other than what God says in is Word is a lack of respect for God (ie Fear of the Lord).
Some TE's have said that they believe Genesis 1, but also believe evolution. It's not possible to believe both. Either you believe that what God says in Genesis 1 is true (ie has happened) or you don't. You can't have it both ways. Genesis 1 and evolution are opposites of each other.

 

[Melethiel]

It's not that it's an offense to me (but I do find it offensive and a believer in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that a person who professes to be Christian would believe any foolishness that contradicts His Word), it's that it is an offense to God. Believing anything other than what God says in is Word is a lack of respect for God (ie Fear of the Lord).
Some TE's have said that they believe Genesis 1, but also believe evolution. It's not possible to believe both. Either you believe that what God says in Genesis 1 is true (ie has happened) or you don't. You can't have it both ways. Genesis 1 and evolution are opposites of each other.

Wait, wait. True = has happened? Since when? I guess that means that Jesus was lying when he told parables. (Come to think of it, it seems that parables are God's preferred method of communication.)

 

[pastorkevin73]

Wait, wait. True = has happened? Since when? I guess that means that Jesus was lying when he told parables. (Come to think of it, it seems that parables are God's preferred method of communication.)

Start by reading Genesis 1 and read all the way through to the end of Revelation. Before you read, ask the Holy Spirit to open your eyes to what God is saying.

 

[Melethiel]

You just don't get it. Start by reading Genesis 1 and read all the way through to the end of Revelation. Before you read, ask the Holy Spirit to open your eyes to what God is saying. Once you have done this, come back and we'll talk.

I have read the Scripture completely through several times, including straight through as you propose. I was also raised in a fundamentalist baptist environment, so I am well aware of the viewpoints there.

Would you please care to actually address my post?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Some TE's have said that they believe Genesis 1, but also believe evolution. It's not possible to believe both. Either you believe that what God says in Genesis 1 is true (ie has happened) or you don't. You can't have it both ways. Genesis 1 and evolution are opposites of each other.

this is downright wrong. Gen is a theological statement. evolution is science, no one "believes in evolution", they accept that the evidence for it is persuasive and beyond reasonable doubt, it is not a faith or a religion that you "believe in it". actually this is a rather typical religionist error, expecting evolution to fulfill a religious sphere, it does not.

shernren, glaudys, and i (for example) all believe Genesis 1 and accept the theory of evolution as the best theory about how life presents itself to our eyes in a scientific manner. So do lots of other Christians. This radical dichotomy between evolution and Gen 1 is a false one. The actual division is between supernaturalist and naturalist or between the philosophy of scientism with associated materialism and naturalism or the metaphysics of Christianity. The argument is not at the level of science but at the level of metaphysics.

but i don't expect to persuade anyone of this, this hardshelled YECist idea that evolution and Christianity are competing religious systems is so much a part of the whole YECist system that it will require a complete change of perspective to see the truth of the issues. read testimonies like Paradigms on Pilgrimage to see what i mean.

I believe Gen 1 is authoritative, infallible, true and must be integrated into my life and into my thinking, i just don't interpret it like YECists do but rather see the whole thing in Kline's framework interpretation structure. It is no less important to me then it is to any YEC, nor is it any less authoritative or true. They just don't get the distinction between text and interpretation and blindly see their own interpretation as the only one possible for True and Real Believers.

actually a shame, people ought to be able to put themselves other people's shoes and really understand their opponents arguments from the inside. i constantly try to see things in these terms, using the idea of "the willing suspension of disbelief" to genuinely get into people's heads and really understand things as they do, insofar as this is possible. I don't ever remember a YECist trying to learn in this manner, perhaps it is because they commonly come here to preach and to teach and not as often to listen and learn.