A simple question

[rmwilliamsll]

Ok, let's put it this, do you think it is ok for one to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior when they have not read about Him in the Bible? (so that they do not have a good understanding of Who He is and What He did)

Would you concil a non-believer to put off accepting Jesus as their Savior until they have studied about Him deeper?

the thread is wandering from the OP

A simple question

For those of you who feel that science has more authority in the question of origins than the Bible does, why do you feel this way?

certainly the relationship of faith to reason is involved in the thread but i'm not sure your question doesn't belong in GA or even GT. i personally have little to say about how people become Christians. i can talk about how i did, or maybe even how my wife did, but further than that is speculation on my part. that is why i usually stick to the question in terms of church membership which is a visible and corporate act, not strictly an internal and private one as in regeneration.


....

 

[Critias]

I was going off what you said. You believe one needs to have a deeper understand in order to reject or accept something. I simply wanted to know if you think this is applicable to the Bible.

Does one need to be a "scholar" before they receive Jesus as their Savior?

Does one need to be knowledgable in the Bible before they receive Jesus as their Savior?

Or can one simply believe without a deep knowledge; being acceptable by your terms?

If so, then a deeper understanding of creation vs evolution is not needed in order to accept creation in six days, as the Bible states it, by faith.

I personally reject your idea that one needs to have a deeper understanding of something before it can be accepted. I reject it (needing a deeper understanding before acceptance) because it negates faith.

 

[gluadys]

What else should a poster do besides put up text?

Explain the intended application. Why should readers have to guess why the poster sees the text as relevant and how it is to be applied to the case?

This is the problem with all forums. The reader of posts can add their own meaning to what is written and also create the feel of post. The reader can suggest that the author is mean, rude, upset or angry when the author is not.

Exactly. We are not mind-readers, nor emotion-readers. So there is an obligation on the poster not to expect that.

So then, you admit that the evolutionary teaching is absent in the Bible? That the Bible does not teach nor hint about a billion year creation?

Would you agree that the Bible says God created the world in six days?

The bible does not teach evolution, just as the bible does not teach that the earth orbits the sun or even that the earth is a sphere. The bible does not teach any science which was not commonly known in the time-frame and culture of the biblical writer. And from time to time it does make reference to what was considered "scientific" notions of the time. It would be going too far to say the bible teaches such out-of-date science, but it accepts it as a matter of course and makes no effort to refute it. This is another indication that the bible has no purpose of teaching science.

The bible does teach that God's measurements of time are not ours. I would not call that teaching or even hinting at a billion year creation, because that is not the context of the scriptures in which these statements are made. Nevertheless, since it is true in other contexts that God's measurements of time are not ours, it is probably true of creation as well.

6 days, yes, but given the variation in God's time and ours, what that means is open to interpretation. The first creation account is tied to the Sabbath. Sabbath as a concept does not apply only to a 24-hour period but to any sequence of labour followed by liberation from labour. This is why the law of Moses requires freeing slaves, cancelling debts and leaving the land fallow every seven years. Then there is the Jubilee provision of the Great Sabbath after seven x seven years. There is no reason the creation cannot be part of an immense universal rhythm which we acknowledge in terms of a small-scale diurnal pattern as a mnenomic of the greater cycle. The command, after all, is to "Remember" the Sabbath.

 

[gluadys]

You stated this above:

"That is why I insist that scientific truth cannot possibly disagree with the Word of God, since, to the extent we have a true understanding of creation, that truth is the Word of God" -- Gluady's post #267

Does mainstream science have a true understanding of creation? How do you know this to be most certain? Do you not have some trust that it is so?

Trust? Yes, and the level of trust is a function of one's confidence in the evidence. Biologists tend to rate the trustworthiness of the evidence for evolution in the same league as trusting that the sun will rise tomorrow. Is there a margin of error? Yes, but it is very slim.

Is Science on the same level with God's Word?

That is like asking if theology is on the same level with God's Word. No of course not. Science is a disciplined study of God's creation, just as theology is founded on a disciplined study of the scriptures.

Neither science nor theology are on a level with God's Word. But both nature and scripture are revelations of God's Word.

 

[Critias]

Trust? Yes, and the level of trust is a function of one's confidence in the evidence. Biologists tend to rate the trustworthiness of the evidence for evolution in the same league as trusting that the sun will rise tomorrow. Is there a margin of error? Yes, but it is very slim.



That is like asking if theology is on the same level with God's Word. No of course not. Science is a disciplined study of God's creation, just as theology is founded on a disciplined study of the scriptures.

Neither science nor theology are on a level with God's Word. But both nature and scripture are revelations of God's Word.

So you have trust or faith in the interpretations given by scientists when concerning evolution?

I have seen many here put it into words that "scientists interpretation" is equal to creation itself speaking. Do you agree?

Who has a greater chance of being correct, one lead by the Holy Spirit or one who refused to be lead by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Critias]

Explain the intended application. Why should readers have to guess why the poster sees the text as relevant and how it is to be applied to the case?

WHy can't readers, when they don't understand, ask the poster questions concerning it rather than tell the poster what he/she meant?

Exactly. We are not mind-readers, nor emotion-readers. So there is an obligation on the poster not to expect that.

And there is an obligation to the reader not to impose their meaning and their emotion into the post of the author.

The bible does not teach evolution, just as the bible does not teach that the earth orbits the sun or even that the earth is a sphere. The bible does not teach any science which was not commonly known in the time-frame and culture of the biblical writer. And from time to time it does make reference to what was considered "scientific" notions of the time. It would be going too far to say the bible teaches such out-of-date science, but it accepts it as a matter of course and makes no effort to refute it. This is another indication that the bible has no purpose of teaching science.

The bible does teach that God's measurements of time are not ours. I would not call that teaching or even hinting at a billion year creation, because that is not the context of the scriptures in which these statements are made. Nevertheless, since it is true in other contexts that God's measurements of time are not ours, it is probably true of creation as well.

6 days, yes, but given the variation in God's time and ours, what that means is open to interpretation. The first creation account is tied to the Sabbath. Sabbath as a concept does not apply only to a 24-hour period but to any sequence of labour followed by liberation from labour. This is why the law of Moses requires freeing slaves, cancelling debts and leaving the land fallow every seven years. Then there is the Jubilee provision of the Great Sabbath after seven x seven years. There is no reason the creation cannot be part of an immense universal rhythm which we acknowledge in terms of a small-scale diurnal pattern as a mnenomic of the greater cycle. The command, after all, is to "Remember" the Sabbath.

COuld it be that God wanted the reader to understand that creation took place in a period of six days that are described as having an evening and morning?

Where in Genesis 1-3 does it talk about man observing the Sabbath? This teaching does not come about until the giving of the Law.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Where in Genesis 1-3 does it talk about man observing the Sabbath? This teaching does not come about until the giving of the Law.

this strongly illustrates the worse thing about YECism, its distortion of Gen 1 into modern science and history.
Gen 1 has as its main purpose the declaration that the LORD God created the heavens and the earth. its second point is to establish the Sabbath. the whole structure is to show the superority of the LORD God over all the other gods (stars, moon, star especially), the provision via Providence of all things (the motif of the kingdoms and the rulers) with the demonstration of God's power in that He created the Sabbath as a culmination and memorial to His kingship.



see framework interpretation authors like kline, blocher, hyers for more details.
however it should be obvious that the Sabbath is the structure of the entire chapter.

 

[Critias]

this strongly illustrates the worse thing about YECism, its distortion of Gen 1 into modern science and history.
Gen 1 has as its main purpose the declaration that the LORD God created the heavens and the earth. its second point is to establish the Sabbath. the whole structure is to show the superority of the LORD God over all the other gods (stars, moon, star especially), the provision via Providence of all things (the motif of the kingdoms and the rulers) with the demonstration of God's power in that He created the Sabbath as a culmination and memorial to His kingship.



see framework interpretation authors like kline, blocher, hyers for more details.
however it should be obvious that the Sabbath is the structure of the entire chapter.

Indeed God did create the Sabbath, but this isn't the question. When did God give the Law stating that the Sabbath was to be observed by all men? Is it in Genesis, before Moses' time, or was it in the fourth commandment in the Ten Commandments given to Moses to give to the people?

Can you support your assertion that God instituted the observance of the Sabbath, for all men, in Genesis 1-3; before Moses' time?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the discussion is whether the Sabbath is a creation ordinance or mandate. but that is not what i said, i said only that the very structure of Gen 1 is Sabbath orientated, not that it teaches an observation of the Sabbath as in Israel.

Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

the giving of the Mosaic law is anchored in the Creation.

for the record, i think the Sabbath is given only to Israel. hence one reason i am not Sabbatarian. but then again i don't think Adam was the first man, only the first man created in a relationship with God who was the forefather of all the Hebrews.


....

 

[GenemZ]

Our bibles are the same. But our thinking about the bible is not. We read the same words, but come to different conclusions about what they mean.

Do you have a supply of White Out?

Genesis 2:7
"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."


Now.... would you please stop with the generalities? Be specific. How do you reconcile that passage with what you believe about the evolutionary process that you claim led to the arrival of homo sapien on the scene? You must have a conclusion.


God showed us that he transformed the serpent into a different function as creature. So, he would have had no problem in describing how he transformed Mr. Chimp into Adam. He had no need to create a "myth" which would mislead future generations.

Are you ready to start explaining what you believe? Or will you hide behind simple generalities, as usual?

PS chimps have never evolved into humans.

A very intelligent chimp told me that was the case. Who was I to question?

Thank you...... GeneZ

 

[Scholar in training]

You didn't answer post number 264 three pages back, Genez.

 

[gluadys]

Ok, let's put it this, do you think it is ok for one to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior when they have not read about Him in the Bible? (so that they do not have a good understanding of Who He is and What He did)

Given that the majority of Christians up to the 20th century were illiterate and could not read the bible, reading per se cannot be a requirement of accepting Jesus Christ.

However, all through Christian history illiterates have been taught from the scriptures by those who could read and who had been instructed by their teachers how to interpret the scriptures --- going back to the first generation which was instructed by Jesus himself e.g as he instructed the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

So while I would not require reading the bible, I would say a person needs instruction in the scriptures to know what it means to accept Christ. "Hearing the gospel" might be a better term than "reading the bible".

I also note that the episode of the Emmaus road also shows that reading the scriptures is not sufficient. The disciples Jesus was speaking to were not ignorant of the scriptures, but they were ignorant of how the scriptures of the OT pointed to Jesus. So even though they knew the scriptures, they still didn't know how to interpret them. (Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch makes the same point. Reading alone is not enough; one needs instruction in interpreting the meaning.)

Would you concil a non-believer to put off accepting Jesus as their Savior until they have studied about Him deeper?

Jesus himself counselled caution before making a commitment.

 

[gluadys]

Does one need to be a "scholar" before they receive Jesus as their Savior?

No. I have been a Christian as long as I can remember, going back to when I was about 5. I have seen a 7 year old make a serious and thoughtful profession of faith. However, my faith has matured a lot since then; I have had many experiences of deeper conversion that have brought me into a deeper relationship with Christ than the naive faith of my childhood.

Does one need to be knowledgable in the Bible before they receive Jesus as their Savior?

Not particularly. They certainly don't need to be able to argue apologetics. But they do need to know enough to trust in God's love for them as expressed in Jesus. Saving knowledge of Jesus is more about love than intellect. Otherwise those who are very young, or with problems related to intellectual development could not become Christians.

However, all Christians have a responsibility not to remain children in the faith, but to develop their understanding as far as they have the capacity to do so. Jesus did say to love God with all our mind, (among other things).

If so, then a deeper understanding of creation vs evolution is not needed in order to accept creation in six days, as the Bible states it, by faith.

Now you are shifting the goal posts. You are not talking any more about knowing and believing in Jesus (which is necessary to salvation) but about having faith that a literal interpretation of Genesis is a correct interpretation.

Everyone interprets Genesis to the best of their ability and everyone has faith that their own interpretation is correct. So it is incorrect to imply that someone who accepts the literal intepretation has faith that others don't.

Furthermore, unlike believing in Jesus, which is primarily an act of love and trust, interpretation of scripture is an act of the intellect and it requires exercising one's intellect. Child-like faith is appropriate in a personal relationship to Jesus; it is not an appropriate response to an intellecual challenge. We are enjoined to study the scriptures.

 

[gluadys]

So you have trust or faith in the interpretations given by scientists when concerning evolution?

No, I have trust in the evidence in God's creation. And trust that God has provided sense and reason to be used to know and understand it. If you can give me a more comprehensive and more coherent explanation of the evidence, I am ready to listen. But all I hear from YECist is that I should distrust God's creation in nature and in myself. I should distrust the image of God in me which allows his creation to speak to me.

I have seen many here put it into words that "scientists interpretation" is equal to creation itself speaking. Do you agree?

I would say that scientists' interpretations help us to hear the word of God in nature more clearly, just as a good interpreter helps us understand a language that is not familiar to us. Similarly a good teacher helps us to understand the word of God in scripture more clearly.

Who has a greater chance of being correct, one lead by the Holy Spirit or one who refused to be lead by the Holy Spirit?

I hope it is not your intention to imply that Christian scientists who listen closely to nature are refusing to be lead by the Holy Spirit. How do you know it is not the Holy Spirit who is teaching them how to interpret nature?

 

[GenemZ]

You didn't answer post number 264 three pages back, Genez.

I did not?

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17054413&postcount=279

 

[gluadys]

WHy can't readers, when they don't understand, ask the poster questions concerning it rather than tell the poster what he/she meant?

The primary responsibility rests with the poster to communicate. It should be taught as part of good netiquette that one does not post bible verses at random without presenting one's thoughts about them and why it seemed appropriate to present them.

If the reader still has questions, that's fine.

COuld it be that God wanted the reader to understand that creation took place in a period of six days that are described as having an evening and morning?

Only if the context in which it is presented is intended to be a chronological account of the history of creation. There is ample reason to conclude that Genesis is not intended to be a chronological account.

Where in Genesis 1-3 does it talk about man observing the Sabbath? This teaching does not come about until the giving of the Law.

Genesis is not about commanding that the Sabbath be observed but about establishing why the Sabbath is observed.

 

[Scholar in training]

They did not write "about God." They wrote what God wanted them to write in what was to become Scripture. This reality evades you completely.

To say this is to deny the very real aspect of man's bias coming into Scripture. Do you think that God intended for people to own slaves, and smack them around as long as they got up in a day or two? Or did he do it because the people were hardhearted enough, and wouldn't have agreed to a set of laws too difficult to follow?

Do you think that God is rightly described in Psalm 137? That the One who takes vengeance on Babylon is happy while doing so? I'm sorry, but I read in Ezekiel that God does not take delight in the death of the wicked. He rains on the just and unjust, but he doesn't fruitlessly taunt people.

You can't seem to separate faulty interpretation, from what is being interpreted.

Then kindly tell me how the passage in Joshua is supposed to be interpreted.

 

[gluadys]

Do you have a supply of White Out?

Yes, but I don't keep it by me when reading scripture. I never found it to be a necessary tool of bible study.

Genesis 2:7
"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."


Now.... would you please stop with the generalities? Be specific. How do you reconcile that passage with what you believe about the evolutionary process that you claim led to the arrival of homo sapien on the scene? You must have a conclusion.

Let's start with the word "formed". As Matthew Henry, a famous biblical commentator who lived a century before Darwin, noted, formation is a process. It indicates that the creation of humanity was not instantaneous but a procedure which took time. There is no indication in the text of how much time.

It also says humanity was created from the earth. In Hebrew there is a play on words here as "earth" and "human" (adamah & adam) are formed from the same root. Jewish commentator, Arthur Wasilow suggests an English translation which would better show the Hebrew thought here would run along the lines of "And the LORD God formed an earthling from the dust of the earth..."

The use of earth also indicates the creation of humans was not miraculous. God took a natural substance and shaped it through a time-consuming process. He did not pull us out of a hat or snap his fingers to make us appear in an instant. Rather he designed a process that would allow us to emerge from the earth.

Later the text also speaks of animals also being formed from the earth.

So there is a relationship between earth, humans and other forms of life.

Earlier the text gave the reason for creating humanity; "because there was no human to till the earth..." and later in the text it says God placed the earthling he had created in the garden he had planted "to care for it." So we see that we are made from earth for earth and its inhabitants. Another link of humanity to the web of life on earth.

As for "breath of life" much depends on the interpretation of this phrase and the rest of the verse. Biologically it simply means that our life comes from God. Without breath we are simply earth; with breath we are alive.

He had no need to create a "myth" which would mislead future generations.

The purpose of a myth inspired by God is to reveal truth, not to mislead. I find nothing in the creation myth of Genesis 2 which is misleading.

A very intelligent chimp told me that was the case. Who was I to question?

Intelligence is no guarantee of accurate knowledge. Smart chimps can be as wrong as smart humans who speak without using their intelligence to learn something about a subject before they pontificate on it.

 

[Critias]

the discussion is whether the Sabbath is a creation ordinance or mandate. but that is not what i said, i said only that the very structure of Gen 1 is Sabbath orientated, not that it teaches an observation of the Sabbath as in Israel.

Is Genesis 1 Sabbath orientated or is about God's awesome power to create such a world for us?

Is Genesis 1 about God being the Creator of all things or about resting on Saturday?

Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

the giving of the Mosaic law is anchored in the Creation.

for the record, i think the Sabbath is given only to Israel. hence one reason i am not Sabbatarian. but then again i don't think Adam was the first man, only the first man created in a relationship with God who was the forefather of all the Hebrews.


....

The giving of the Mosaic Law used creation as a point of understanding and setting Genesis as a factual account of God creating in six days. "Just as God worked six days and rested on the seventh, so shall man."

Do you have Biblical support to show that there were other "men/women" before Adam?

 

[GenemZ]

To say this is to deny the very real aspect of man's bias coming into Scripture. Do you think that God intended for people to own slaves, and smack them around as long as they got up in a day or two? Or did he do it because the people were hardhearted enough, and wouldn't have agreed to a set of laws too difficult to follow?

Matthew 19:7-8 niv
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

Mankind was coming out of great darkness. Hearts of men back then were not like we find today. The Holy Spirit has been transforming cultures where Christianity thrives slowly over the years. It took many years to rid many cultures of slavery. Yet, in parts of the world it exists today.

Just the same, slavery was a means to pay off a debt. For some, it was a way to a meal ticket and board. It was not seen like it is today. The Holy Spirit was not indwelling men and transforming them back then. It was a different mind set in many ways.

Do you think that God is rightly described in Psalm 137? That the One who takes vengeance on Babylon is happy while doing so?

God was rightly described in the following, as well. This is about the future.

Revelation 14:14-20 niv
"I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one "like a son of man" with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, "Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe." So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested.
Another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, "Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth's vine, because its grapes are ripe." The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia (about 200 miles).

I'm sorry, but I read in Ezekiel that God does not take delight in the death of the wicked. He rains on the just and unjust, but he doesn't fruitlessly taunt people.

God does not delight because it means that the one who is wicked had rejected him. God would have rather had him live and believe. Yet, God delights in his perfect justice. Killing off those who were going to murder others causes one to rejoice.

Are you aware in certain Arab countries that young children in schools are taught to hate, and taught to want to kill Jews? Killing off that generation is a solution that political correctness would not allow for today. But, back then? It was good to get those who had implacable hatred to destroy you, out of the way. It made one happy to know that those who would have grown up to kill your children are now dead.

It would be a matter of kill, or be killed. Just like a farmer rejoices when he kills the wolves who were killing off his flock. He will also rejoice if he can kill off the young ones before they get too big to cause trouble. Certain evil cultures were like animals in they way they hated and would destroy you.

Then kindly tell me how the passage in Joshua is supposed to be interpreted.

Which passage in Joshua? You mean where God made the sun stand still?


Joshua 10:12-14
On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day."

Notice the moon? The moon orbits around the earth. The earth orbits around the sun. Technically, if the earth stood still? The moon would not stop. God was doing something quite interesting at that moment in time. In a sense, God froze the universe. Not just the earth. No big deal for God.


So, God can part the Red Sea? Walk on water? Turned water into wine? So? He can speak the words and create the entire universe? What's the big deal if he made the sun's/earth's movement to stop for a while? Its his trainset. He can make it do as he pleases.

It does not say how he made the sun stand still. Does it? It simply says that it stood still in the sky. What was causing the lack of movement is not mentioned. If it said explicitly that God made the sun stop moving around the earth? Then you would have some merit badges due. It only says it stood still in the sky. That was how it appeared to all. It was a statement of relativity. Not one of scientific analysis.

I could just picture what would happen if time travel were possible, and a legalistic technically correct scientist witnessed to Jesus walking on water. "Hey! Stop! You can not do that! Now! Stop breaking the law of physics!"

Jesus would have just smiled and maybe kicked some water in his face.

Grace and peace, GeneZ