To convince a YEC

[vossler]

You sure like playing loosely with words and assigning all sorts of meaning where none was made. I make a statement "There is no doubt about what God says" referring to the actual words of God in the Bible and you run with that and then make this statement:

Vossler, you say this, and then you agree that anyone who assigns infallibility to their interpretation has serious pride issues? Do you really not see the contradiction in your own position here?

No where was an interpretation by me ever discussed, you introduce it and then proceed to assume things from which to make your assertions.

After I provide an explanation you then go on to say:

I am simply addressing what you, yourself, say about your interpretation. You seem to think that if you just take the "plain reading", you are not interpreting. This, of course, is ridiculous, since the "plain reading" depends on your culture, education, point in history, etc. Do you mean YOUR plain reading in 2008, or the plain reading in 1000 BC? I have already shown elsewhere that the ancient near east cultures would have read the early Genesis texts incredibly different than you do, and would think your "plain reading" was not "plain" at all.

It appears to me it is you who seems bent on seeing things in a certain way. Just because my signature says some things you don't agree with you then take it upon yourself to read into it and ascertain how I truly use it and apply it to my own interpretation. If this is your approach to Bible interpretation then I suggest you might be the one who needs to reevaluate how you come to the conclusions that you do.

I certainly hope you are not advocating that everyone who reads Scripture must first take into account how the ANE first read it, then look at how our culture, my own personal education and viewpoint might be different from theirs and apply that to my interpretation. In those rare instances where seriously questions do arise that can be helpful, but the thing is God's Word transcends time and culture, it's meaning stands true through it all. It would appear from what you're saying that you are advocating an approach to Scripture that God never told us to follow and as such it is potentially a very dangerous one.

 

[anonymous1515]

You sure like playing loosely with words and assigning all sorts of meaning where none was made. I make a statement "There is no doubt about what God says" referring to the actual words of God in the Bible and you run with that and then make this statement:
No where was an interpretation by me ever discussed, you introduce it and then proceed to assume things from which to make your assertions.

After I provide an explanation you then go on to say:

It appears to me it is you who seems bent on seeing things in a certain way. Just because my signature says some things you don't agree with you then take it upon yourself to read into it and ascertain how I truly use it and apply it to my own interpretation. If this is your approach to Bible interpretation then I suggest you might be the one who needs to reevaluate how you come to the conclusions that you do.

I certainly hope you are not advocating that everyone who reads Scripture must first take into account how the ANE first read it, then look at how our culture, my own personal education and viewpoint might be different from theirs and apply that to my interpretation. In those rare instances where seriously questions do arise that can be helpful, but the thing is God's Word transcends time and culture, it's meaning stands true through it all. It would appear from what you're saying that you are advocating an approach to Scripture that God never told us to follow and as such it is potentially a very dangerous one.

Hmm, I don't mean to butt in, but what approach to interpreting scripture DID God tell us to follow?

 

[gluadys]

I certainly hope you are not advocating that everyone who reads Scripture must first take into account how the ANE first read it, then look at how our culture, my own personal education and viewpoint might be different from theirs and apply that to my interpretation.

That is exactly what I would advocate. I would hold any interpretation that does not look at how the original author and audience would understand the text to be irresponsible.

In those rare instances where seriously questions do arise that can be helpful, but the thing is God's Word transcends time and culture, it's meaning stands true through it all.

I agree. The meaning transcends time and culture and stands true through it all.

But the "plain text" does not.

 

[Vance]

What Gluadys just said. Yes, of course, we should follow the authorial-intent hermeneutic as our first choice, even Augustine recognized that and advocated it. The actual message from God comes through no matter what, I agree on that entirely. And, not surprisingly, the actual message of Genesis 1 and 2 is something that the YEC, OEC and the TE can all agree upon. Where the YEC gets it wrong is attaching all kinds of other, literalistic meanings to the text that were not really intended by the original human author, like the idea of God creating in six literal days. If the original author or readers would not have read it that way, why should we?

And, I was not basing my comments on your signature quote at all, but what you had posted in this very thread. You must recognize that you ARE interpreting Scripture the minute you pick it up and read it.

 

[busterdog]

Hmm, I don't mean to butt in, but what approach to interpreting scripture DID God tell us to follow?

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Neither of the above would meet the modern standard for proving that literal surface text should be the standard. But neither is there satisfactory guidance for the contrary within the text. For the literalist, the foregoing verses are self evident. For those who are not, I would suggest that they may not be convincing (how could anything be convincing, but a Monty Python like appearance out of the clouds?) but they would seem sufficient to cause great concern about whether we dismiss literalism easily or summarily.

 

[Vance]

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Neither of the above would meet the modern standard for proving that literal surface text should be the standard. But neither is there satisfactory guidance for the contrary within the text. For the literalist, the foregoing verses are self evident. For those who are not, I would suggest that they may not be convincing (how could anything be convincing, but a Monty Python like appearance out of the clouds?) but they would seem sufficient to cause great concern about whether we dismiss literalism easily or summarily.

But again, there is question-begging for what the "surface" text is, and whether that is "literal". Today, we associate "plain" and "surface understanding" with literalism. But even we do not always apply this, giving us a glimpse into how another culture may view it. When we read Revelation, is our first instinct to read it as strictly literal? Of course not, we automatically jump straight to "dragon is figurative for something else", rather than "dragon means dragon". We don't hesitate to do this because even our modern mindset, as strictly literal as we are predisposed to like our "truth", has this basic understanding that not all truths, or even descriptions of events, must be presented using strictly literal language.

And, the idea of "markers" or indicators in the text that something should be read figuratively does not really work either, as I have shown with my "breathed" discussion, where even the literalist will not read 2:7 as meaning that God came down and took human form in order to have human lungs in order to have literal breath. We understand immediately that this is a figurative, evocative and powerful way of describing something that happened, but NOT literal "breathing". It is describing a literal, historical event, but using figurative and symbolic language.

The point is that there is no reason, when reviewing ancient texts, to start with literal historical narrative as the default literary genre. In fact, it should be WAY down on the list of possible genres when discussing these types of accounts by an ANE culture.

 

[vossler]

Hmm, I don't mean to butt in, but what approach to interpreting scripture DID God tell us to follow?

He didn't spell any method out but I like to use this as a guide:

The Westminster Confession I, 9 states:

"The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."

I truly believe this is an accurate and well thought out method to making sure our interpretation of Scripture is complete.

 

[vossler]

That is exactly what I would advocate. I would hold any interpretation that does not look at how the original author and audience would understand the text to be irresponsible.

On the surface that sounds all well and good. However, all that does is give license to each of us coming up with our own interpretation based upon what we saw or understood the original author and audience understood. Most things in the Bible are hardly that complex.

I agree. The meaning transcends time and culture and stands true through it all.

But the "plain text" does not.

Interesting...so the meaning transcends but the plain text doesn't. This steps right into what I'm constantly afraid of, am I taking the plain text and twisting it to conform with my own view of history? I pray not!

 

[Vance]

He didn't spell any method out but I like to use this as a guide:

The Westminster Confession I, 9 states:

"The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."

I truly believe this is an accurate and well thought out method to making sure our interpretation of Scripture is complete.

Yes, when there is another Scripture which actually addresses the same subject, it can be enlightening. But, this will not always be the case. Here is how Augustine suggested we go about it:

Augustine shows the proper humility about this interpretive process that we all can learn from, and he acknowledges that the writing of Genesis was NOT done with a meaning that was "obvious" or "plain". but instead was "obscure":

"40. With these facts in mind, I have worked out and presented the statements of the Book of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability; and, in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better. I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of understanding, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp. . . ."

Next, in Chapter 21 of his analysis of Genesis, he states that if the scientist presents reliable evidence about nature, then we can be assured that it fits with what Scripture really says:

"When they [the unbeliever] are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture."

And I think this is an essential point. We, as Christians, should not DENY the evidence when it is reliable, we should instead show them how that it fits with Scripture, lest they attempt to use their evidence to disprove Scripture. Too often our knee-jerk reaction is “that is contrary to Scripture”, when we really mean “that is contrary to how I have always read Scripture”. Maybe instead, we should consider asking “if that WAS correct, knowing that Scripture is also correct, how could the two work together?”

St. Augustine also discusses the other three factors to consider in interpretation: 1) the author's intent, 2) whether it is consistent with Scripture and faith, and 3) if these other two are not possible to determine, one that our faith demands.

"When we read the inspired books in the light of this wide variety of true doctrines which are drawn from a few words and founded on the firm basis of Catholic belief, let us choose that one which appears as certainly the meaning intended by the author. But if this is not clear, then at least we should choose an interpretation in keeping with the context of Scripture and in harmony with our faith. But if the meaning cannot be studied and judged by the context of Scripture, at least we should choose only that which our faith demands."

There are a couple of very important truths expounded here.

First, he acknowledges that often a wide variety of possible and arguable doctrines can come from a given text. This is contrary to the idea that the true meaning is always "obvious" or "plain".

Second, it is not always clear what the author intended!

Third, it may not even be possible to determine the meaning from the context of Scripture itself. This, then, is pointing to the fact that sometimes it is necessary to consider evidence and argument outside the Scripture.

Lastly, among competing interpretation, we should choose the one our faith demands. So, for me, if I find the evidence against a literally historical reading of Genesis such that my faith demands a figurative reading, and it does not contradict the other factors, that is the one I must follow.

Augustine also warns against the serious danger of reading a text literally that was meant to be read non-literally:

"At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: “for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth.” That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter" [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram] (On Christian Doctrine 3. 5).

 

[vossler]

Where the YEC gets it wrong is attaching all kinds of other, literalistic meanings to the text that were not really intended by the original human author, like the idea of God creating in six literal days. If the original author or readers would not have read it that way, why should we?

I'm amazed that you know Moses never intended Genesis to convey the idea of six literal days. I myself could never be so bold as to claim something contrary to the text without some very compelling evidence.

And, I was not basing my comments on your signature quote at all, but what you had posted in this very thread.

Given that I hadn't really posted anything definitive I'm surprised at how your claim could be made.

 

[Vance]

On the surface that sounds all well and good. However, all that does is give license to each of us coming up with our own interpretation based upon what we saw or understood the original author and audience understood. Most things in the Bible are hardly that complex.
Interesting...so the meaning transcends but the plain text doesn't. This steps right into what I'm constantly afraid of, am I taking the plain text and twisting it to conform with my own view of history? I pray not!

Well, just the opposite is true, actually. Using the authorial intent process ensures that we do NOT rely on our own idea of what the "plain" meaning is, but rely on a more objective standard that we can, with decent scholarship, discover. You seem to think that the "plain meaning" is the same for every generation.

Well, the "plain meaning" of Scripture for over a thousand years was that the Bible described a geocentric universe. How did that "plain meaning" work out?

The real meaning of Genesis seems to have been understood by every generation since it was first told, which had nothing to do with the HOW and WHEN of God's creative work, and we still get that meaning today, loud and clear, even though some Christians do also add in additional meanings that fit their own literalist interpretations that some earlier believers thought, but not all.

 

[gluadys]

On the surface that sounds all well and good. However, all that does is give license to each of us coming up with our own interpretation based upon what we saw or understood the original author and audience understood.

And how does that differ from each of us coming up with our own interpretation based on what we understand the literal meaning to be?

No matter what hermeneutic one is following, it is an error to assume that we can each individualistically interpret the text on our own. I don't support the Catholic idea that the Church is an infallible interpreter of the text, nor do I hold a similar reverence for the Church Fathers as the EO do. But Protestant tradition, whether Anglican, Reformed or Wesleyan does point to the collective wisdom of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit as a corrective to the excesses of private interpretations.

Most things in the Bible are hardly that complex.

Agreed. And no one is suggesting that every single Christian needs to become an expert in ANE culture. As long as this study is part of the training of those gifted and commissioned to offices of teaching and preaching, the rest of us can learn from them.

Interesting...so the meaning transcends but the plain text doesn't. This steps right into what I'm constantly afraid of, am I taking the plain text and twisting it to conform with my own view of history? I pray not!

Then don't trust your own view of history or of the text, but use the resources of the Church and its historical memory to find out the historical meaning of the plain text.

We are not advocating a solipsistic reading of scripture.

Indeed, I think one of the dangers of literalism is that it does seem to flourish in networks that encourage private, solipsistic readings of scripture. Such a practice is opposed in scripture itself which recommends referring to the elders who were commissioned by the apostles and entrusted with their teaching.

 

[gluadys]

I'm amazed that you know Moses never intended Genesis to convey the idea of six literal days. I myself could never be so bold as to claim something contrary to the text without some very compelling evidence.

You owe me a new irony meter, Vossler. I know how often the compelling evidence for the antiquity of the earth has been presented to you in this forum.

I know you handwave it away when you cannot refute it.

You have seen compelling evidence often enough. You just keep repeating the mantra that it is not compelling enough, long after you have failed to show any weakness in it.

 

[Vance]

You owe me a new irony meter, Vossler. I know how often the compelling evidence for the antiquity of the earth has been presented to you in this forum.

I know you handwave it away when you cannot refute it.

You have seen compelling evidence often enough. You just keep repeating the mantra that it is not compelling enough, long after you have failed to show any weakness in it.

Not to mention the fact that he is accepting the literal interpretation of the text itself without any evidence whatsoever that this is how the original authors (Moses or not) would have intended it to be read. Why would a literal interpretation not need any evidentiary support, but a non-literal reading need it?

 

[vossler]

Well, just the opposite is true, actually. Using the authorial intent process ensures that we do NOT rely on our own idea of what the "plain" meaning is, but rely on a more objective standard that we can, with decent scholarship, discover. You seem to think that the "plain meaning" is the same for every generation.

I think that the plain meaning of Scripture is just that, plain. Are there parts that require further study and analysis, of course, but most of Scripture doesn't require that. To be clear, further study and analysis will provide a deeper, richer meaning, but that is usually not in direct contradiction to the initial plain understanding.

Well, the "plain meaning" of Scripture for over a thousand years was that the Bible described a geocentric universe. How did that "plain meaning" work out?

I hear this quite often. Yet when I do my own research, it doesn't bear this claim out. Were there those who interpreted the Bible to say we were in a geocentric world, of course, but my investigation has shown that it wasn't nearly as universal as many would lead us to believe. Either way, it never was a critical matter for the believer.

 

[Vance]

I think that the plain meaning of Scripture is just that, plain. Are there parts that require further study and analysis, of course, but most of Scripture doesn't require that. To be clear, further study and analysis will provide a deeper, richer meaning, but that is usually not in direct contradiction to the initial plain understanding.

But, again, the initial, plain understanding is not always the same, and it definitely is not always literal. To me, my plain reading of the Genesis 1 and 2 texts is that they are figurative and symbolic accounts, since that is what they sound like, not to mention what they would have thought of them at the time. They don't sound in the least like literal historic accounts like what we find in Luke, for example. "Plain" is very relative.

I hear this quite often. Yet when I do my own research, it doesn't bear this claim out. Were there those who interpreted the Bible to say we were in a geocentric world, of course, but my investigation has shown that it wasn't nearly as universal as many would lead us to believe. Either way, it never was a critical matter for the believer.

Right, whether we were to read those texts as literal or figurative was not essential, and so when it turned out that they were not meant to be read literally, Christianity did not come to a screeching halt. But, it did cause a great deal of angst at the time, much as the evolution debate is causing now, and for all the same reasons.

Here is how some Christian leaders responded to the new heliocentrism:

"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."

- Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.

"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"

- John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

- Martin Luther, Table Talk

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin."

- Cardinal Bellarmine 1615, during the trial of Galileo

Yet, Bellarmine was also a bit more liberal in one of his private letters:

“I say that if there were a true demonstration [of Copernicanism] then one would have to
proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary and say rather
that we do not understand them, rather than that what is demonstrated is false.”

What is important about this, for our discussion, is his statement “Scriptures that appear contrary”. This indicates that to him, and presumably others, the Scriptures did, indeed, appear contrary to heliocentrism.

"The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion -- no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced -- YEA, he hath established it."

- John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 93, verse 1, trans., James Anderson (Eerdman's, 1949), Vol. 4, p. 7

and a modern geocentrist:

"God, in His Word, consistently teaches geocentricity."

- Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D., "why Geocentricity?" -- an article that was in press and due to appear in the Baptist Bulletin, circa Sept. 1985.

And another:

Scripture is very clear that the earth is stationary and that the sun, moon and stars revolve around it. . . . If there was [sic] only one or two places where the Geocentric teaching appeared in Scripture, one might have the license to say that those passages were just incidental and really didn’t reflect the teaching of Scripture at large. But the fact is that Geocentrism permeates Scripture. Here are some of the more salient passages (Sirach 43:2-5; 43:9-10; 46:4; Psalm 19:5-7; 104:5; 104:19; 119:90; Ecclesiastes 1:5; 2 Kings 20:9-11; 2 Chronicles 32:24; Isaiah 38:7-8; Joshua 10:12-14; Judges 5:31; Job 9:7; Habakkuk 3:11; (1 Esdras 4:12); James 1:12). I could list many more, but I think these will suffice.

Sungenis, Robert A. “The Geocentrism-Wacko Challenge” 7 May 2002. CAI Website. Retrieved 16 June 2002

On February 24, 1616, the Holy Office’s consulting theologians (called “Qualifiers&#8221 issued their opinion that the proposition that the sun is “the center of the world” was “foolish and absurd, philosophically and formally heretical,” and they declared the proposition that the earth moves “to receive the same censure in philosophy and, as regards theological truth, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

And, a bit of the history given on a geocentric site:

"All branches of the Protestant Church...vied with each other in denouncing the Copernican doctrine as contrary to Scripture," wrote Andrew White. Historian Thomas Kuhn said: "Protestant leaders like Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon led in citing Scripture against Copernicus and in urging repression of Copernicanism.”.

 

[vossler]

And how does that differ from each of us coming up with our own interpretation based on what we understand the literal meaning to be?

What I'm saying is the plain meaning will usually never let us down, it's only when we inject our own individual and bibilically unsupported ideas into it that we run into problems.

No matter what hermeneutic one is following, it is an error to assume that we can each individualistically interpret the text on our own. I don't support the Catholic idea that the Church is an infallible interpreter of the text, nor do I hold a similar reverence for the Church Fathers as the EO do. But Protestant tradition, whether Anglican, Reformed or Wesleyan does point to the collective wisdom of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit as a corrective to the excesses of private interpretations.

I agree!

Agreed. And no one is suggesting that every single Christian needs to become an expert in ANE culture. As long as this study is part of the training of those gifted and commissioned to offices of teaching and preaching, the rest of us can learn from them.

I'm glad you agree. I agree with you assessment as well. However, I see far too many trying to use their own limited knowledge as proof of something contrary to the plain meaning.

Then don't trust your own view of history or of the text, but use the resources of the Church and its historical memory to find out the historical meaning of the plain text.

As I have and will continue to do.

We are not advocating a solipsistic reading of scripture.

That's good!

Indeed, I think one of the dangers of literalism is that it does seem to flourish in networks that encourage private, solipsistic readings of scripture. Such a practice is opposed in scripture itself which recommends referring to the elders who were commissioned by the apostles and entrusted with their teaching.

I hear that term, literalism, thrown about quite often. Yet I don't know of a single person who follows it. I certainly don't.

 

[Vance]

You say you don't follow literalism, but you insist on following the "plain meaning". Usually, those are one and the same among creationists, since the only way to cling to a creationist viewpoint is to cling to a literalist viewpoint. Are you saying that you do not hold a literalist reading of Genesis 1 and 2?

 

[vossler]

But, again, the initial, plain understanding is not always the same, and it definitely is not always literal. To me, my plain reading of the Genesis 1 and 2 texts is that they are figurative and symbolic accounts, since that is what they sound like, not to mention what they would have thought of them at the time. They don't sound in the least like literal historic accounts like what we find in Luke, for example. "Plain" is very relative.

I can see that and all I can say is to each his own. Yet we both know there is only one true interpretation of the text. The problem to me isn't necessarily your interpretation so much as what that interpretation now allows and advocates as truth.

Right, whether we were to read those texts as literal or figurative was not essential, and so when it turned out that they were not meant to be read literally, Christianity did not come to a screeching halt. But, it did cause a great deal of angst at the time, much as the evolution debate is causing now, and for all the same reasons.

I've read some of those quotes you posted before, while other were new to me. Quite interesting how boldly and emphatically some of the great leaders of history saw some things. I do know this, it was a time of strife and much uncertainty and many leaders saw any challenge to the Scriptures as a direct attack on God and His people. Yet if you went back further into the early church and before you would find evidence that many believed the earth was in fact round. I guess it shows that there truly isn't anything new under the sun.

 

[vossler]

You say you don't follow literalism, but you insist on following the "plain meaning". Usually, those are one and the same among creationists, since the only way to cling to a creationist viewpoint is to cling to a literalist viewpoint. Are you saying that you do not hold a literalist reading of Genesis 1 and 2?

I follow the Literal Principle which goes in line with my own signature line. I'm not 'clinging' to anything other than God and His Word.