This is a sequel to the thread do you trust 'science'. This remains the question that divides Christians on the matter of Creation. Who do you trust. Scripture states plainly that the earth was created in six days, is around 6000 years old, and was destroyed by a world wide flood. To suggest otherwise is to contradict the word of God. Of course Bible believing Christians have no issue with true science.
Do you trust GOd's word?
- Thread starter Micaiah
- Start date
- Status
fragmentsofdreams
Critical loyalist
I trust God. What I don't trust is you. You would have me destroy my intellect and change Scripture into a shallow parody of its true depth. I realize that you may not understand why I feel this way, but I want to emphasize to you that our disagreement is not due to a lack of trust of God and Scripture on my side.
Upvote
0
fragmentsofdreams
Critical loyalist
You are right Job. How can one say that it is plain that Scripture says the Earth is 6000 years old when coming up with a number like that requires a lot of work with the numbers in Scripture.
Upvote
0
Micaiah,
You are correct in stating that the PLAIN interpretation of Scripture is that creation took 6 days, the world is 6000 years old, and the Noachian flood was worldwide. However, a plain interpretation does not equate with a LITERAL interpretation and is not the only interpretation which holds to the inerrancy of the Word of God. A plain interpretation infers the most common meaning of a particular word in modern-day usage. But it is widely accepted by biblical scholars that the Hebrew word yom (day) can be interpreted as an indefinite length of time as well as a 24 hour period, and that eretz (earth) can refer to land or a country as well as the entire planet earth. As conversant as you are on these topics, I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you haven't already heard, but Dr. Gleason Archer, one of the scholars involved in translating the New American Standard Bible, has concluded that the word yom "could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal 24-hour day."
To answer your original question, I trust the Word of God absolutely. But I do not trust myself (or any other human being) absolutely to interpret God's word correctly 100% of the time.
"Scripture is inerrant: the Lord makes no mistakes; what He proposes for our belief is what we ought to believe. Sadly enough, however, our grasp of what He proposes to teach is infallible. Hence we cannot simply identify the teaching of Scripture with our grasp of that teaching; we must ruefully bear in mind the possibility that we are mistaken."
Alvin Plantiga
One (or maybe even both) of us may be mistaken in our interpretation of Genesis. That's just fine. I'm just glad to know that, because Christ died on a cross, one of these days we'll shake hands in heaven and not even care about the scientific tenability of evolutionary theory because God's glory will be all we notice.
You are correct in stating that the PLAIN interpretation of Scripture is that creation took 6 days, the world is 6000 years old, and the Noachian flood was worldwide. However, a plain interpretation does not equate with a LITERAL interpretation and is not the only interpretation which holds to the inerrancy of the Word of God. A plain interpretation infers the most common meaning of a particular word in modern-day usage. But it is widely accepted by biblical scholars that the Hebrew word yom (day) can be interpreted as an indefinite length of time as well as a 24 hour period, and that eretz (earth) can refer to land or a country as well as the entire planet earth. As conversant as you are on these topics, I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you haven't already heard, but Dr. Gleason Archer, one of the scholars involved in translating the New American Standard Bible, has concluded that the word yom "could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal 24-hour day."
To answer your original question, I trust the Word of God absolutely. But I do not trust myself (or any other human being) absolutely to interpret God's word correctly 100% of the time.
"Scripture is inerrant: the Lord makes no mistakes; what He proposes for our belief is what we ought to believe. Sadly enough, however, our grasp of what He proposes to teach is infallible. Hence we cannot simply identify the teaching of Scripture with our grasp of that teaching; we must ruefully bear in mind the possibility that we are mistaken."
Alvin Plantiga
One (or maybe even both) of us may be mistaken in our interpretation of Genesis. That's just fine. I'm just glad to know that, because Christ died on a cross, one of these days we'll shake hands in heaven and not even care about the scientific tenability of evolutionary theory because God's glory will be all we notice.
Upvote
0
This AIG LINK gives an in depth discussion on the usage of the word day in the book of Genesis.
You recognise that the word day used in the first Chapter of Genesis when plainly interpreted refers to a solar day. If Scripture had intended the period of each day of Creation to be understood as many days, it could have describe it in other ways. Can you suggest other ways the author could have written Genesis to make it more clear that a solar day was intended without being redundant or over technical?
You recognise that the word day used in the first Chapter of Genesis when plainly interpreted refers to a solar day. If Scripture had intended the period of each day of Creation to be understood as many days, it could have describe it in other ways. Can you suggest other ways the author could have written Genesis to make it more clear that a solar day was intended without being redundant or over technical?
Upvote
0
We are not talking about my interpretation of Scripture. We are discussing the interpretation plainly accepted by the authors of Scripture including Christ and Paul. They and other authors of Scripture spoke of the people and events of Genesis as being real.
Upvote
0
Sorry if this is off-topic, but I keep seeing a repeat of "man's interpretation" in regards to Genesis. I don't really understand what there is to "interpret." God said he made the world and everything in it in six days. That's what happened, then.
Yeah, I do think that some things require some form of interpretation, but still - God's word is just that, God's. He knows what we can and can't interpret, and he wouldn't have said what he said if he didn't think we could handle it (which we can if we fully depend on Him).
Trusting a scientist or a philosopher over what God says? Pish posh. One more reason why grace is my feet and faith's my eyes...
Yeah, I do think that some things require some form of interpretation, but still - God's word is just that, God's. He knows what we can and can't interpret, and he wouldn't have said what he said if he didn't think we could handle it (which we can if we fully depend on Him).
Trusting a scientist or a philosopher over what God says? Pish posh. One more reason why grace is my feet and faith's my eyes...
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Not at all off topoic and it is good to hear from another who is prepared to trust the word of God instead of the proud imaginations of man.
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,914
- 1,529
- 18
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Yeah, like the way Christ plainly accepted the belief that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds.
He talked to people in terms of the understanding they had. That doesn't mean that the historical bits are accurate, because He wasn't *talking* about the historical bits.
We are indeed talking about human interpretations when we rip Genesis out of the context it was written in and turn it into a tawdry history; in doing so, we eliminate any reason to study the theological implications of the story, because it only makes sense to look for other meanings if it's not a history.
Upvote
0
Interesting point. Do you know the size of a mustard seed spoken of here, and the size of the smallest seed on earth?
I believe the context of Genesis clearly indicates we understand it as a historical record. Care to go through the record verse by verse and state those events and people you consider are real and those that are fantasy?
I believe the context of Genesis clearly indicates we understand it as a historical record. Care to go through the record verse by verse and state those events and people you consider are real and those that are fantasy?
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,914
- 1,529
- 18
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Every myth ever written reads like a historical record if you don't recognize the mythic qualities and poetic language. The careful repeating structure ("and the evening and the morning were the Nth day", used before there *WERE* days) is *classic* myth.
Furthermore, in Genesis 1, all humans are created at once, after the animals, and in Genesis 2, Adam is created, *then* animals, *then* Eve.
If you compare these stories to other myths (and I think most of us will agree that other creation myths are just that - myths), you'll see similar styles and composition - but the *message* changes. The point of Genesis is to tell us what God is like. The actual question of the process by which worlds form is purely irrelevant.
As to verse by verse, I would guess that it's all myth (which is *NOT* the same thing as fantasy!) up through around the time of Abraham, possibly further than that. By the time of Exodus, we're getting into events and people that may well have happened, but I would assume that the Jews did a certain amount of propaganda in their "history"; that was how it was done.
I don't see it as mattering. It doesn't matter to me who Seth married, or how elaborate the contortions are needed to make a given reading work. Frankly, even apart from any physical evidence, the sheer nonsense people have to invent to marry Adam's kids off, and the conflicts between Genesis 1 and 2, make it clear that we're looking at a myth. So... The question is, what *can* I learn from this? Why does God want me to have this story? I don't need to know how old the world is to be saved, so if there's a message worth reading there, it's not the history.
Read as a myth, Genesis sets the stage for salvation. Read as history, it's rambling and incoherent.
If I must choose between a God who had a plan to save us all along, and a God who can't even get the order of events right in a simple bit of history, I think I'll follow the former, thanks.
Upvote
0
And by what measure do you decide what is myth and what is not? Lucaspa thinks Abraham was myth from what I can gather. Who can we trust?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
fragmentsofdreams
Critical loyalist
No one ever said that understanding Scripture fully was easy. One figures out what parts are historical by looking at the genre the authors choose and the context that they give. It is also important to understand that ancient histories had different standards and expectations than modern histories.
Upvote
0
The reason we HAVE to interpret Scripture is that is wasn't written in English (or French, or Spanish). It was written in Hebrew (and Aramaic and Greek). So the words we read in our KJV, NASB, NIV, NLT, or whatever other version we use, were translated at some point in history by human beings, who may or may not have chosen words to accurately reflect the meaning that God intended in those originally inspired words.
I believe in the historicity of Genesis, and that calling it "myth" is going too far. Many theologians and Bible scholars maintain that a literal (which is not always the same as "plain") interpretation of Genesis supports the old earth view held by most scientists.
I believe in the historicity of Genesis, and that calling it "myth" is going too far. Many theologians and Bible scholars maintain that a literal (which is not always the same as "plain") interpretation of Genesis supports the old earth view held by most scientists.
Upvote
0
Care to name examples of those theologians and their commentary on the verses in question. The plain, or in this case literal interpretation of the length of days during creation and the age of earth inferred from genealogies is inconsistent with the time required by those who accept evolution.
Upvote
0
Ok, a very intersting point a friend of mine made.
Read verse 1 of Genesis Chapter one. Now read verse two. Now three. How much "time" is occuring during this? Perhaps something that would show the earth as aged?
Read verse 1 of Genesis Chapter one. Now read verse two. Now three. How much "time" is occuring during this? Perhaps something that would show the earth as aged?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Some interesting thoughts to chew on:
Day 1: heavens and earth, dark and light
Day 2: sky
Day 3: land and seas, vegetation
Day 4: sun, moon and stars
Day 5: sea creatures, birds
Day 6: animals and man
Day 7: rest
John 1:1-2 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."
2 Samuel 22:31 "As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless."
Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is flawless..."
2 Corinthians 4:2 "Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."
2 Timothy 3:13-16 "while evil men and imposters will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching , rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
John 8:43-47 "Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
For someone to believe in God, you have to believe in the word of God (John 1:1). If a person has issues with the Word of God then, whether they admit it or not, they have issues with God Himself. If you do not hear what God says, then you do not belong to God (John 8:47). God cannot lie, His Word cannot be wrong. It is common for Christians to believe that God created us through evolution. However, as a Christian you should use the Bible to prove it, since it is the living Word of God. God said that on Day 3 He created vegetation. For God to have used evolution, (and to assume that each day was really thousands and thousands, if not millions of years long) that vegetation could not have survived without the sun, which wasn't created until Day 4. And I'd hate to think that God rested for the entire 7th day if it lasted as long as some people think it did.
For Chrisitans who think it doesn't matter what we believe about evolution, I believe that it does matter because as Christians we need to realize that the father of lies is trying to get us to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God (John 8). If Genesis isn't "completely" accurate, then maybe Matthew isn't either, or Romans, or Isaiah, or Job... And if we can't trust any of these to be accurate, then how can we trust that Jesus is the Son of God, and for that matter, how can we trust that God is God?
If we say that the Bible isn't accurate, then we are saying that God is a liar.
*********
Seebs, the Bible does contain two different creation accounts, the first being the chronological one, the second being man's perception of it. In Hebrew, there is no confusion. It is a misunderstanding from the translation.
Day 1: heavens and earth, dark and light
Day 2: sky
Day 3: land and seas, vegetation
Day 4: sun, moon and stars
Day 5: sea creatures, birds
Day 6: animals and man
Day 7: rest
John 1:1-2 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."
2 Samuel 22:31 "As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless."
Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is flawless..."
2 Corinthians 4:2 "Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."
2 Timothy 3:13-16 "while evil men and imposters will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching , rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
John 8:43-47 "Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
For someone to believe in God, you have to believe in the word of God (John 1:1). If a person has issues with the Word of God then, whether they admit it or not, they have issues with God Himself. If you do not hear what God says, then you do not belong to God (John 8:47). God cannot lie, His Word cannot be wrong. It is common for Christians to believe that God created us through evolution. However, as a Christian you should use the Bible to prove it, since it is the living Word of God. God said that on Day 3 He created vegetation. For God to have used evolution, (and to assume that each day was really thousands and thousands, if not millions of years long) that vegetation could not have survived without the sun, which wasn't created until Day 4. And I'd hate to think that God rested for the entire 7th day if it lasted as long as some people think it did.
For Chrisitans who think it doesn't matter what we believe about evolution, I believe that it does matter because as Christians we need to realize that the father of lies is trying to get us to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God (John 8). If Genesis isn't "completely" accurate, then maybe Matthew isn't either, or Romans, or Isaiah, or Job... And if we can't trust any of these to be accurate, then how can we trust that Jesus is the Son of God, and for that matter, how can we trust that God is God?
If we say that the Bible isn't accurate, then we are saying that God is a liar.
*********
Seebs, the Bible does contain two different creation accounts, the first being the chronological one, the second being man's perception of it. In Hebrew, there is no confusion. It is a misunderstanding from the translation.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
