God Told Moses How Creation Happened

[gluadys]

Fair enough.

I would just add that if you reach certain conclusions about what the Word of God is, for example, that it is inerrant, you must conclude that narrative is to be taken literally. But, and I think we are in agreement, the form of narrative does not make the case for inerrancy itself (or its opposite). We reach that conclusion or dismiss it generally upon other grounds. As we look at our particular method of hermeneutics, we should be checking ourselves where we inconsistent in who we apply a given form, such as narrative. I would venture that we agree on this as well.

And one of the bases for ongoing discussion is the identification of the Word of God. Is it Christ? Is it the scriptures? What is the relationship of the scriptures to the Word of God?

I have no problem in affirming the inerrancy of the Word of God. I do have a problem in affirming the inerrancy of the text of scripture or rather in affirming the inerrancy of a particular, literalistic interpretation of the text of scripture.

In fact, even most of those who proclaim themselves literalists, cherry-pick what they will or will not intepret literally, for they can give no consistent reason (apart from acknowledging the reliability of extra-biblical evidence) for rejecting a literal interpretation of the scripture's geocentric perspective. Nor can Protestant literalists give any consistent reason for rejecting the apparently simple teaching of Jesus that the bread and wine of communion are literally his body and blood. The first of these examples was understood as literally true by Christians for nearly 1500 years and the latter is still believed to be literally true by the majority of Christians. I disagree with both of those positions, but I do not see how it is possible to do so if one insists on a literal interpretation of the relevant texts.

So, as I see it, even those inclined to favour a literal interpretation cannot do so consistently and still hold to the inerrancy of scripture. They change their interpretation from literal to non-literal when the former leads to what they believe to be error.

What they refuse to recognize is that this invalidates their arguments against OEC and TE because old-earth advocates and evolutionary theists have simply done exactly what literalists do--changed from a literal to a non-literal interpretation when the former leads to what we believe is error. We save the inerrancy of scripture by refusing an interpretation that has been shown to be false.

 

[Willtor]

True narratives are not always literal, BusterDog. Consider Jesus' parables. Parables are a type of narrative, but most of them are not taken to represent factual, historical events. I'm guessing that we'd agree that they represent spiritual truths, and their being non-literal doesn't influence their inerrancy.

 

[lucaspa]

Fair enough.

I would just add that if you reach certain conclusions about what the Word of God is, for example, that it is inerrant, you must conclude that narrative is to be taken literally.

Let me add my voice to Gluadys here: why do you refer to scripture as "the Word of God"? As I read scripture, only in John 1 do we find "Word" with a capital W. And it does NOT refer to scripture.

But, and I think we are in agreement, the form of narrative does not make the case for inerrancy itself (or its opposite). We reach that conclusion or dismiss it generally upon other grounds.

Jesus told us scripture was not inerrant. I'll go with him.

As we look at our particular method of hermeneutics, we should be checking ourselves where we inconsistent in who we apply a given form, such as narrative. I would venture that we agree on this as well.

The question isn't "narrative". The question is when a literal interpretation is the correct one. And Christians historically have used extrabiblical evidence to decide that verses previously read literally should no longer be read literally. The issue we have is: why do creationists refuse to apply these same criteria to Genesis 1-8? Why do creationists cling to a falsified scientific theory based on a literal reading of Genesis 1-8.

What is your stance on the idea that there are different types of truth? That a document can be true in one sense but not in another.

 

[HypnoToad]

Jesus told us scripture was not inerrant.

Where?

 

[busterdog]

And one of the bases for ongoing discussion is the identification of the Word of God. Is it Christ? Is it the scriptures? What is the relationship of the scriptures to the Word of God?

I have no problem in affirming the inerrancy of the Word of God. I do have a problem in affirming the inerrancy of the text of scripture or rather in affirming the inerrancy of a particular, literalistic interpretation of the text of scripture.

In fact, even most of those who proclaim themselves literalists, cherry-pick what they will or will not intepret literally, for they can give no consistent reason (apart from acknowledging the reliability of extra-biblical evidence) for rejecting a literal interpretation of the scripture's geocentric perspective. Nor can Protestant literalists give any consistent reason for rejecting the apparently simple teaching of Jesus that the bread and wine of communion are literally his body and blood. The first of these examples was understood as literally true by Christians for nearly 1500 years and the latter is still believed to be literally true by the majority of Christians. I disagree with both of those positions, but I do not see how it is possible to do so if one insists on a literal interpretation of the relevant texts.

So, as I see it, even those inclined to favour a literal interpretation cannot do so consistently and still hold to the inerrancy of scripture. They change their interpretation from literal to non-literal when the former leads to what they believe to be error.

What they refuse to recognize is that this invalidates their arguments against OEC and TE because old-earth advocates and evolutionary theists have simply done exactly what literalists do--changed from a literal to a non-literal interpretation when the former leads to what we believe is error. We save the inerrancy of scripture by refusing an interpretation that has been shown to be false.

I was not in the prior post trying to get a concession on inerrancy. I just wanted to note how the various forms of literature might apply to a given a prior view of what scripture is. The dividind line is the a priori, not the form itself.

Sometimes consistency must abide later revelation, admittedly. This is an aspect of science that is well accepted -- that the contradictions will be resolved with time. Religionprof came on to note the disparity in the number of generations described in Matthew. That is an unresolved issue. There are few enough of them that I am not terribly concerned that any of them will prove error -- as odd as that may sound to some.

 

[busterdog]

Let me add my voice to Gluadys here: why do you refer to scripture as "the Word of God"? As I read scripture, only in John 1 do we find "Word" with a capital W. And it does NOT refer to scripture.

Jesus told us scripture was not inerrant. I'll go with him.

The question isn't "narrative". The question is when a literal interpretation is the correct one. And Christians historically have used extrabiblical evidence to decide that verses previously read literally should no longer be read literally. The issue we have is: why do creationists refuse to apply these same criteria to Genesis 1-8? Why do creationists cling to a falsified scientific theory based on a literal reading of Genesis 1-8.

What is your stance on the idea that there are different types of truth? That a document can be true in one sense but not in another.

Waiting for that quote from Jesus.

Whether something is narrative or poem does not prove the a priori that you bring to the discussion, ie, whether you believe scripture is inerrant.

All scripture will be found to be true on all levels -- hypotheticals, similes and figures of speech excepted. That is my belief. However, I rather suspect that we are going to need the original to make that proof, not the various translations. Nonetheless, the good translations have preserved so much of the content, that I am not concerned with accepting them as inerrant in a virtual sense.

As for a falsified Scripture, I will let Deamiter fight this one for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deamiter
Most things that seem crazy to one makes perfect sense from a different point of view or a different worldview. Even the 'craziest' conspiracy theory nut makes perfect sense out of their own ideas. Though I suppose that was what you were saying too.

The most extreme (as I don't think YEC is particularly crazy either) literalist position is based solely on the assertion that God would have written Genesis 1 and 2 factually therefore they must be factual. If I thought that were true, I would be YEC myself! I do try very hard to avoid assumptions or at the least to test them continuously which is why YEC didn't stick long in my beliefs -- after I was exposed to AIG by high-school peers, I found a whole lot of sense in the YEC position. It was only later when I started testing the assumptions and seeking out sources for the evidence behind AiG's claims that I found the position untenable.

If somebody assumes that Genesis 1 must be factual to be truthful, and also assumes that any other source of truth is secondary to the Bible, then there is almost by definition, no evidence that could change their mind. That is certainly logically consistant -- but the argument that there is some fundemental separation between experiments we can repeat to verify predictions and theories that only predict what evidence we should find of a hypothetical past event is fundimentally flawed and logically inconsistant. I find many YEC arguments like this to be logically flawed, but since a YEC generally assumes that truth in the Bible trumps any other source of truth (as I think I do as well*) AND assumes that Genesis 1 and 2 cannot be true if not factual, any further discussion of why they hold their position is unnecessary as any secondary point that we might disprove is really irrelevant to those two main assumptions and don't touch the basis of the YEC belief.

*Note that the qualification "I think" is solely because I don't have the brainpower at the moment to think through all the ramifications of this claim. I find immense truth in the teaching of Christ and in the compilation of the Bible, but to claim it trumps all other sources of truth really depends on a solid definition of source and of truth. For example, if the Holy Spirit is a source of truth, does it trump the Bible? Is the Bible actually a source of truth to begin with as it must be interpreted (perhaps with the help of the Holy Spirit) etc... It's way too late for me, and I don't have the energy, I just didn't want to leave it looking like my faith in the teaching of Christ was tenuous or simply remove the comment and not mention that half of what I see as basic YEC assumptions is justified.

And while I'm at it, that last sentence sucks because when you talk about "half" it's usually not singular so saying "half is justified" really bugs me. Oh well -- I'm off to bed... again... now if only God will grant me sleep toonight...

 

[busterdog]

True narratives are not always literal, BusterDog. Consider Jesus' parables. Parables are a type of narrative, but most of them are not taken to represent factual, historical events. I'm guessing that we'd agree that they represent spiritual truths, and their being non-literal doesn't influence their inerrancy.

Yes. But, they also tell you what they are right in the text.

We all agree that the story of King Hezekiah is a narrative to be taken literally. The text does not tell us otherwise.

 

[Willtor]

Yes. But, they also tell you what they are right in the text.

We all agree that the story of King Hezekiah is a narrative to be taken literally. The text does not tell us otherwise.

They don't always. Sometimes you just see that a thing was a parable because you happen to know that Christ frequently communicated in that way. But in many of these examples, there are people on these very forums who say that they must be taken literally because the text does not state that they are not literal. Of course, I would never say that you say this. But the issue is that what is apparent to one person is not necessarily apparent to another. You have a sense of a thing being a parable because you know what a parable looks like. You know that the Psalms are poetry because you have seen other poetry and you know what poetry looks like.

I'd imagine that you would agree that sometimes there is confusion on this or that passage or verse due to something not coming through in the translation or on account of a difference in culture. The sort of thing that wouldn't necessarily come through a translation is the use of the english, "Once upon a time..." that indicates the beginning of a story. Somebody who spoke a different language in a different culture might not pick up on that when it was translated. I don't speak greek, but my mom tells me that Luke had Jesus use comparable greek phrases in some places.

Let me put it another way:

I agree the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible. But no matter how confident I am of a particular interpretation of a particular passage, I do not say that my interpretation is inerrant and infallible. I have been wrong often enough to approach my interpretation of every single passage with some humility. One strives to know the mind of God and to do so with deference and to be prepared to be corrected on any occasion. Whether the proper interpretation is literal, or figurative, or anything else, one seeks to know what it might be and to prepare for correction.

That goes for every passage and verse. I think the story of King Hezekiah is to be taken literally, but I am open to correction.

 

[Deamiter]

Woot -- I'm totally on board with the YEC boat! Of course, I don't see any scriptural support for the assumption that Genesis 1 and 2 must be read factually in order to be true, but given that assumption, I understand the position.

But why oh why did you have to go quoting my early morning rambling?!?

 

[shernren]

Sorry, I must have seen that elsewhere.

Given the general tenor of this conversation it's understandable to think we were saying something like that.

I would just add that if you reach certain conclusions about what the Word of God is, for example, that it is inerrant, you must conclude that narrative is to be taken literally.

Really? I wouldn't think so. For the sake of argument, I'll accept that every single letter in the Bible was penned by the hand of God (and that little KJV bibles rain down like manna from heaven every so often, in case we didn't get the point). What then?

I find a narrative in Judges about the trees of the forest trying to elect a king. Do I take that literally and throw out ecology, simply because it is a narrative? Or do I interpret it as a fictional narrative? God penned every letter of that passage into the Bible. But surely He didn't do it to teach me that trees live in monarchies!

I don't see why any conclusions about the inerrancy of the Bible must proceed to its literalness.

 

[busterdog]

Given the general tenor of this conversation it's understandable to think we were saying something like that.



Really? I wouldn't think so. For the sake of argument, I'll accept that every single letter in the Bible was penned by the hand of God (and that little KJV bibles rain down like manna from heaven every so often, in case we didn't get the point). What then?

I find a narrative in Judges about the trees of the forest trying to elect a king. Do I take that literally and throw out ecology, simply because it is a narrative? Or do I interpret it as a fictional narrative? God penned every letter of that passage into the Bible. But surely He didn't do it to teach me that trees live in monarchies!

I don't see why any conclusions about the inerrancy of the Bible must proceed to its literalness.

We both have our own methods to try to determine what is just a metaphor or allegory and what is a literal narrative.

It seems as if the book was written in such a way that, like that law, it has only one perfect expression, and that would be in the mind, grace and action of Jesus Christ. We probably don't have a full treatise because its fulfillment can never be in how well we study and think, but in who we call upon. THat is not to say that man has not moved the goalposts on God, whose word was pretty clear and sufficient expressions of literal events. Man has demanded more proof and clarity on the resurrection, the divinity of Christ and prophetic outworking of the Word. Lots of that is our fault, but then again this is not a treatise on exactly how it all happened.

There is certainly frustration for people who try to define the bounds of literalness.

Those of us pursue it are often moved by the surprising way in which the Word can be literal.

The example of Israel is one such place. Much of the book of Psalms would seem to be talking about a figurative Mount Zion, gates in our heart, thrones in our devotions or any number of spiritual expressions that merely use Israel as a metaphor or object lesson. For many hundreds of years a literal fulfillment was not in view. These were just songs. After 1948? Now Edom, Gog, Persia, et al. are realities. The contest is not just for a nation, but for a particular 13 acres on a particular Mountain in a city with no natural resources.

I try to put things out without demanding that you buy this view entirely. Israel is obviously controversial and in some ways it is asking for trouble. All I am asking is that a bemused notice be taken of the relationship between the psalmists view of the future of Israel and what has started to unfold. THus, you can see why many people are very loath to rule out any literal interpretation whatsoever. In some ways, it is the result of repentance. It is stunning to see how much literalness has been so carelessly ignored for so many years by the believing Church.