Is the Bible reliable?

[BobRyan]

Well the LCMS believes, teaches, and confesses a literal 6 day creation.

More info here: http://lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1103

If that's sad or shameful to you, sorry. That's what we believe, and that's what we will teach. You won't win the Synod over.

There are some denominations that take that position -- still

in Christ,

Bob

 

[James Is Back]

If the Bible isn't reliable than we're all in trouble

 

[Astonishing Doctrine]

Genesis 1, being the first chapter, and of the first book of the Scripture, it is the foundation for all that comes after, it being the 'seed' of the whole of Scripture. The literal is the foundation, for all that which will come after, which will include things as parables, metaphors, symbols, and so on.

All of the other Texts of Scripture are based in its very beginning texts and pages. Please note, that this is not a new understanding, even as others have already stated themselves:

Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, Question 74, Article 3, Reply to Objection 6 and 7 - www . newadvent . org/summa/1074 . htm :

"...for all the senses are founded on one — the literal — from which alone can any argument be drawn..."

"... nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense. ..."

Further, we read:

[Thomas Aquinas begins this section by rebutting and refuting Augustine's position]

"...by the "evening" and the "morning" ... But, according to Basil (Hom. ii in Hexaem.), the entire period takes its name, as is customary, from its more important part, the day. And instance of this is found in the words of Jacob, "The days of my pilgrimage," where night is not mentioned at all. But the evening and the morning are mentioned as being the ends of the day, since day begins with morning and ends with evening, or because evening denotes the beginning of night, and morning the beginning of day. It seems fitting, also, that where the first distinction of creatures is described, divisions of time should be denoted only by what marks their beginning. And the reason for mentioning the evening first is that as the evening ends the day, which begins with the light, the termination of the light at evening precedes the termination of the darkness, which ends with the morning. But Chrysostom's explanation is that thereby it is intended to show that the natural day does not end with the evening, but with the morning (Hom. v in Gen.). ...

Reply to Objection 7. The words "one day" are used when day is first instituted, to denote that one day is made up of twenty-four hours. Hence, by mentioning "one," the measure of a natural day is fixed. Another reason may be to signify that a day is completed by the return of the sun to the point from which it commenced its course. And yet another, because at the completion of a week of seven days, the first day returns..."

Further Thomas states, in "Second Part of the Second Part "; "Question 122. The precepts of justice"; "Article 4. Whether the third precept of the decalogue, concerning the hallowing of the Sabbath, is fittingly expressed? - www . newadvent . org/summa/3122 . htm , speaking of the 7th Day, the Sabbath of the LORD thy God and the 'change' made to it by Catholicism:

"I answer that, ...Now the precepts of the decalogue are, so to speak, first and common principles of the Law, and consequently the third precept of the decalogue describes the exterior worship of God as the sign of a universal boon that concerns all. This universal boonwas the work of the Creation of the world, from which work God is stated to have rested on the seventh day: and sign of this we are commanded to keep holy seventh day--that is, to set it aside as a day to be given to God. Hence after the precept about the hallowing of the Sabbath the reason for it is given: "For in six days the Lordmadeheaven and earth . . . and rested on the seventh day." ..."

"...Reply to Objection 4. In the New Law the observance of the Lord's day took the placeof the observance of the Sabbath, not by virtue of the preceptbut by the institution of the Churchand the custom of Christian people...."

All of which is carried the further by their own support of Thomas Aquinas:

"The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
Second and Revised Edition, 1920
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.
Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.
APPROBATIO ORDINIS
Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.
Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ

MARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ"

 

[Astonishing Doctrine]

Genesis 1, being the first chapter, and of the first book of the Scripture, it is the foundation for all that comes after, it being the 'seed' of the whole of Scripture. The literal is the foundation, for all that which will come after, which will include things as parables, metaphors, symbols, and so on.

All of the other Texts of Scripture are based in its very beginning texts and pages. Please note, that this is not a new understanding, even as others have already stated themselves:

Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, Question 74, Article 3, Reply to Objection 6 and 7 - www . newadvent . org/summa/1074 . htm :

"...for all the senses are founded on one — the literal — from which alone can any argument be drawn..."

"... nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense. ..."

Further, we read:

[Thomas Aquinas begins this section by rebutting and refuting Augustine's position]

"...by the "evening" and the "morning" ... But, according to Basil (Hom. ii in Hexaem.), the entire period takes its name, as is customary, from its more important part, the day. And instance of this is found in the words of Jacob, "The days of my pilgrimage," where night is not mentioned at all. But the evening and the morning are mentioned as being the ends of the day, since day begins with morning and ends with evening, or because evening denotes the beginning of night, and morning the beginning of day. It seems fitting, also, that where the first distinction of creatures is described, divisions of time should be denoted only by what marks their beginning. And the reason for mentioning the evening first is that as the evening ends the day, which begins with the light, the termination of the light at evening precedes the termination of the darkness, which ends with the morning. But Chrysostom's explanation is that thereby it is intended to show that the natural day does not end with the evening, but with the morning (Hom. v in Gen.). ...

Reply to Objection 7. The words "one day" are used when day is first instituted, to denote that one day is made up of twenty-four hours. Hence, by mentioning "one," the measure of a natural day is fixed. Another reason may be to signify that a day is completed by the return of the sun to the point from which it commenced its course. And yet another, because at the completion of a week of seven days, the first day returns..."

Further Thomas states, in "Second Part of the Second Part "; "Question 122. The precepts of justice"; "Article 4. Whether the third precept of the decalogue, concerning the hallowing of the Sabbath, is fittingly expressed? - www . newadvent . org/summa/3122 . htm , speaking of the 7th Day, the Sabbath of the LORD thy God and the 'change' made to it by Catholicism:

"I answer that, ...Now the precepts of the decalogue are, so to speak, first and common principles of the Law, and consequently the third precept of the decalogue describes the exterior worship of God as the sign of a universal boon that concerns all. This universal boonwas the work of the Creation of the world, from which work God is stated to have rested on the seventh day: and sign of this we are commanded to keep holy seventh day--that is, to set it aside as a day to be given to God. Hence after the precept about the hallowing of the Sabbath the reason for it is given: "For in six days the Lordmadeheaven and earth . . . and rested on the seventh day." ..."

"...Reply to Objection 4. In the New Law the observance of the Lord's day took the placeof the observance of the Sabbath, not by virtue of the preceptbut by the institution of the Churchand the custom of Christian people...."

All of which is carried the further by their own support of Thomas Aquinas:

"The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
Second and Revised Edition, 1920
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.
Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.
APPROBATIO ORDINIS
Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.
Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ

MARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ"

Thus, as it is written:

1 Corinthians 15:46 - Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

If the Bible isn't reliable than we're all in trouble

 

[elliott95]

The resurrection story isn't very poetic is it? It looks very prosaic to me.

The genre is not normally considered poetry, but the criticism is that it is midrashic.

The questioning is how much is driven by actual events, and how much the prose has been driven by finding explanations for the death of the messiah in Old Testament texts and sayings of Jesus.

I will an example. There is the story of Judasm who in one account hangs himself and in another is that he split himself open on rocks, like an old wine skin that could not contain the new wine.
Another would be the story of Barabbas, which is modeled on a very similar story in the Greek.

It is prose and it is theology to be sure, but how reliable is the history?
After so much of what was considered history in the OT is seen as prose and legend and theology, the same trends are seen in the NT.

It is after all the works of the same Jewish culture.

 

[Astonishing Doctrine]

...It is after all the works of the same Jewish culture.

Look higher:

2 Peter 1:21 - For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Acts 1:16 - Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Acts 28:25 - And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,

 

[elliott95]

.....

......

I don't think it's hard to see a difference between the OT, which likely was written hundreds to thousands of years after the events, and the NT, which was written starting within a few decades, and had a history of being quoted and used that is reasonably documented and starts by the time the late NT document was likely written. Furthermore, it's hard to understand how the Church could have started without some kind of resurrection (I think N T Wright's arguments for the historicity are good ones), whereas the mainstream archaeological explanation of how Israel started is quite plausible.

One thing I note that Standing Up always stresses (and this is how this conversation got started in reply to him) is that the apostolic era is marked off by the two "bookends" of the sons of Thunder, James and John. This is really quite an essential point, for a sense of history absolutely depends on the sources being as primary as possible. Already, even the Gospels are 'developing' from primary sources (to use Borg's term, because it is not likely that any of the gospels are actually the works of the apostles. John for example is testified in other parts of the Bible as being an unlearned fisherman, and his Gospel is one of the most strikingly literate books that there can be.
But Paul in particular, whose eye witness of Jesus was a theophany rather than an encounter with the unrisen Jesus, implies an empty tomb.
Borg of course would disagree, but Paul's account definitely is within a few years after the crudifixion, and is as close to a primary source as there can be.
I appreciate listening to debates, and one of the better ones has been between Borg and William Craig.
We might see the difference between the OT and the NT in terms of method and immediacy of the events being written about, but what we also see is a style of writing that is much, much more about developing a theological point that about anything that would pass as an historical account.
Christians often see the prophecies of the OT being fulfilled in the New, but the less extraordinary explanation is that adept and knowledgeable Jewish Christians wrote the gospel accounts in order to conform to the prophecies of their holy books.
Crossan's account of that is particularly good.

The point is that for most of Christian history, the historicity of the Flood, of Exodus, of Jonah in the belly of the fish, was just assumed. Miracle may not have been mundane, but it was accepted as normal. Once miracle after miracle and event after event from the OT is explained away, or seen as poetry, it is only natural for people to raise their eyebrows at the idea of miracles in general.

 

[BobRyan]

Look higher:

2 Peter 1:21 - For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Acts 1:16 - Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Acts 28:25 - And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,

Some may argue that the Holy Spirit figured out a few more details or became more "accurate" in the NT.

I prefer to think He was always - all-knowing and accurate.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If the Bible isn't reliable than we're all in trouble

well... there you have it. Well said.

I like this post as well -- #183

 

[elliott95]

Look higher:

2 Peter 1:21 - For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Acts 1:16 - Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Acts 28:25 - And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,

Nevertheless, those chosen to write to Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit did so through the Jewish culture.

 

[MKJ]

The fringe groups were making headway no doubt - but it was not being adopted by the Christian universities and accepted as doctrine in mainline Christianity until after the mid-19th century.

Even the atheists admit " Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (Dawkins 1986, 6).



How nice for us in that case.

I welcome it.

in Christ,

Bob

Christians were talking about what was meant by "day" back in the early Church, and saying it could not easily be understood in the normal sense.

Anyway, Dawkins is an idiot, and actually quite a bad atheist who doesn't even understand the philosophy of science, so really his ideas about what makes atheism respectable are pretty stupid too.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The point is that neither the schools nor the churches of mainilne Christiantiy were going for "not really 7 day creation week" until after the idea was accepted more generally in science and then put into public schools.

That simply isn't true. Many, many Christians read Genesis 1 in a variety of non-literal ways well before the advent of modern geological science, or the modern evolutionary synthesis, or modern astrophysics.

Most of the church fathers, following Origen and culminating in Augustine, read Genesis figuratively. Only Basil of Caesarea seems to have been a literalist.

Quite frankly, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any officially young earth, six day creationist church prior to the nineteenth century. And prior to that point, while there were young earth six day creationists (Luther, for example), they never had the sort of control over churches that allowed them to exclude alternative (majority!) readings.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Anyway, Dawkins is an idiot, and actually quite a bad atheist who doesn't even understand the philosophy of science, so really his ideas about what makes atheism respectable are pretty stupid too.

1. In all truth, Dawkins' isn't wrong on that particular remark. The transition late Enlightenment thinkers like David Hume, who thought that theism was philosophically incoherent but couldn't develop a rounded atheism, to Bertrand Russel, who while not an active atheist could hold to a coherent nontheist worldview, was only really made possible by Darwin's discovery of evolutionary biology.

Not that evolutionary biology makes atheism philosophically necessary. It simply withdrawals what was once a major objection to non-theism.

2. That said, Dawkins really is an idiot. His work on genetics is a genuine contribution to the field (although as I understand it, it is not been fully appropriated into the standard model), but his writings on religion and atheism are pseudo-intellectual drivel. As liberal Finnish theologian Veli-Matti Karkkainen put it, "I don't find them interesting because they are philosophically illiterate." And that's coming from a person who is genuinely interested in constructive dialogue with all varieties of nontheism.

 

[MKJ]

1. In all truth, Dawkins' isn't wrong on that particular remark. The transition late Enlightenment thinkers like David Hume, who thought that theism was philosophically incoherent but couldn't develop a rounded atheism, to Bertrand Russel, who while not an active atheist could hold to a coherent nontheist worldview, was only really made possible by Darwin's discovery of evolutionary biology.

In what way do you see evolution doing this? In the sense of how complexity could come out of simple states?

 

[James Is Back]

Are we discussing OEC vs YEC now?

 

[elliott95]

Dawkins, Harris, and the late Hitchens all make their arguments against the six day creation theology. That makes them uninteresting, and rather quaint.

Every Nicene Christian on the other hand must be a creationist. Fundamentalist arguments and disagreements within Christianity are arguments over triflings and trivialities, and are therefore just as uninteresting as if Dawkins was the one making the counter-case.

I have no cause against fundamentalists. Belief in the Creator on the other hand is essential to Christianity and Judaism.

 

[BobRyan]

Dawkins, Harris, and the late Hitchens all make their arguments against the six day creation theology. That makes them uninteresting, and rather quaint.

Possibly - but they admit to their "external-to-the-text" need to do it. Many will admit that they are not opposing the 7 day week of Genesis 1 because they can't read the text and see it there -- rather they oppose it for purely external-to-the-text reasons.

And in the case of TE -- they then come back and try to justify what they did - as if the text will back them up.

Every Nicene Christian on the other hand must be a creationist.

That should be said - followed by a quote.

I have no cause against fundamentalists. Belief in the Creator on the other hand is essential to Christianity and Judaism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Are we discussing OEC vs YEC now?

sorta.

OEC includes T.E.

If YEC includes both the idea that the earth rocks were created at the same time that life was created, and also the idea that Gen 1:2-2:3 really only covers the creation of life and starts out with the rocks already present (formless and void with water covering the surface of the deep) --

--- then yes this is YEC vs OEC.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Every Nicene Christian on the other hand must be a creationist. /quote]

What kind of a creationist? Because technically all you need to be a creationist is believe that God created the universe. You don't have to be a creationist who does not accept evolution......to be a creationist.

So I agree, as Christians we should believe that God created the world