Can anything change your mind?

vossler said:

Thanks for posting a clear and easy to understand view (even though I asked for your own words) of how you see Genesis.

Click to expand...

Like I said, I've stated my position in my own words countless times before. I'm just glad I've finally found someone to quote who can get through!

It makes very clear the points I've made

Click to expand...

Which points are those, specifically? Let's talk details.

Here is a much shorter quote along the same lines, from one of the most useful books in this area:

Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament

http://www.amazon.com/Inspiration-Incarnation-Evangelicals-Problem-Testament/dp/0801027306http://www.amazon.com/Inspiration-Incarnation-Evangelicals-Problem-Testament/dp/0801027306

Here is one quote, as cited in the comments:

"Therefore, the question is not the degree to which Genesis conforms to what we would think is a proper description of origins. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of Genesis to expect it to answer questions generated by a modern worldview, such as whether the days were literal or figurative, or whether the days of creation can be lined up with modern science, or whether the flood was local or universal.... It is wholly incomprehensible to think that thousands of years ago God would have felt constrained to speak in a way that would be meaningful only to Westerners several thousand years later. To do so borders on modern, Western arrogance....To argue, as I am doing here, that such biblical stories as creation and the flood must be understood first and foremost in the ancient contexts, is nothing new. The point I would like to emphasize, however, is that such a firm grounding in ancient myth does not make Genesis less inspired; it is not a concession that we must put up with or an embarrassment to a sound doctrine of scripture. Quite to the contrary, such rootedness in the culture of the time is precisely what it means for God to speak to his people.... This is surely what it means for God to reveal himself to people - he accommodates, condescends, meets them where they are."

I am only partway through the book, but so far it is very solid, both historically and theologically.

Mallon said:

Like I said, I've stated my position in my own words countless times before. I'm just glad I've finally found someone to quote who can get through!

Click to expand...

I guess its because I'm not able to effectively communicate at the level you do.

Which points are those, specifically? Let's talk details.

Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, I'm not here to argue or discuss ad nauseum the points you've laid out. I've done that before and it no longer interests me. I understand them, I have no questions concerning them or how you came to them. I just appreciate seeing them spelled out clearly for all to see so that everyone can differentiate between your view and my own.

Vance,

Thanks for finding a source that in many ways summarizing your views too. I believe it to be very helpful to the points being made.

vossler said:

Vance,

Thanks for finding a source that in many ways summarizing your views too. I believe it to be very helpful to the points being made.

Click to expand...

It is often easier when someone else says something we are thinking much better than we can. Whether you agree with it or not, it could help at least see where we are coming from.

And, what is important to realize is that TE's (or EC's as come prefer) are not compromising Christians, we do not have a lower view of Scripture, or less faith in what God says. Whatever we think God is saying, then that is what we wholeheartedly believe. We are all trying to get the "what God is telling us" part right, as best we can.

We think you are getting what God said wrong, and that it can lead to many distractions from the true Gospel message and some serious stumbling blocks.

You think we are getting what God said wrong, and think it could be a slippery slope to greater errors.

I think what we MUST do is realize that, whatever we decide in answer to this question, it is just our fallible, human answer, and thus it is dangerous to be dogmatic about it.

Vance said:

I think what we MUST do is realize that, whatever we decide in answer to this question, it is just our fallible, human answer, and thus it is dangerous to be dogmatic about it.

Click to expand...

I think you are wrong here. It is thoughts like this that lead to the post modern way of thinking and keep people from affirming the Truth.

vossler said:

I think you are wrong here. It is thoughts like this that lead to the post modern way of thinking and keep people from affirming the Truth.

Click to expand...

But that is just it, we DO affirm every essential Truth.

And, there are problems with both the Modernistic (scientific) approach of the literalist (who, ironically, have bought into the very approaches they often oppose in science) as well as post-modernism.

And, no, TE's are not post-modern at all. Post-modern says that there are no absolute truths, or that they can not be found. TE's agree entirely that there ARE Truths, and that we must do everything we can to find them. And that is just what we are doing. But, there must be a degree of humbleness about the fact that in the seeking out of these absolute truths, we are going to be still *be humans*, and thus, be fallible.

Some things are, indeed, certain and we would agree on the fact that they are absolute truths. Other areas are NOT clear in Scripture, as Augustine said, and as even the Westminster Confession acknowledged. What they said is that what is essential for salvation is, indeed, clear to everyone who reads Scripture, if they are honest about it. But, beyond that, devout, Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians can, and will, and have, and do, disagree.

And, unless you are willing to say that you, and those who agree with you on every single point of Scripture and doctrine (assuming you could find one), have it ALL right, and thus everyone else has it wrong, you must admit that there ARE things you have wrong about Scripture.

The spectre of geocentrism really does raise its ugly head over and over in this debate. They thought they had it right, that they had "the Truth". But they were wrong.

vossler said:

I think you are wrong here. It is thoughts like this that lead to the post modern way of thinking and keep people from affirming the Truth.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that your interpretation of the Bible is infallible, and thus "Truth"? Because that sounds much more dangerous to me. Recognizing that we might be wrong is simply the humble position to take (not post-modernistic at all). Saying that we possess God's insight into Genesis is... self-deification, no?

Vance said:

TE's are not post-modern at all. Post-modern says that there are no absolute truths, or that they can not be found. TE's agree entirely that there ARE Truths, and that we must do everything we can to find them.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but sometimes it seems there are as many opinions about Truth as there are TEs.

And, unless you are willing to say that you, and those who agree with you on every single point of Scripture and doctrine (assuming you could find one), have it ALL right, and thus everyone else has it wrong, you must admit that there ARE things you have wrong about Scripture.

Click to expand...

Of course there are, the point is that I try to keep the analysis between the lines while TEs don't. This should then keep you out of the ditch.

vossler said:

Maybe, but sometimes it seems there are as many opinions about Truth as there are TEs.
Of course there are, the point is that I try to keep the analysis between the lines while TEs don't. This should then keep you out of the ditch.

Click to expand...

Unless the literal interpretation puts you in the ditch to start out with. The problem is that your entire approach is based on the proposition that a literal historical narrative approach will tell you the basics and then "interpretation" can go a level deeper, or possibly go wrong.

But, our point is that the literal historical narrative approach to some texts will be wrong from the very beginning, and that it is an interpretation in and of itself. You are INTERPRETING the text in a literal way. I see no value at all in using that as a default, and rather think that the historical/literary approach should be the default. That will point to what the original authors and readers would have thought as the default, then go from there.

Vance said:

Unless the literal interpretation puts you in the ditch to start out with. The problem is that your entire approach is based on the proposition that a literal historical narrative approach will tell you the basics and then "interpretation" can go a level deeper, or possibly go wrong.

Click to expand...

I don't see this as a problem. It certainly keeps you from the pitfalls of the no lines approach.

But, our point is that the literal historical narrative approach to some texts will be wrong from the very beginning, and that it is an interpretation in and of itself. You are INTERPRETING the text in a literal way. I see no value at all in using that as a default, and rather think that the historical/literary approach should be the default. That will point to what the original authors and readers would have thought as the default, then go from there.

Click to expand...

I think you're confusing the Literal Principle with Letterism.

vossler said:

I don't see this as a problem. It certainly keeps you from the pitfalls of the no lines approach.
I think you're confusing the Literal Principle with Letterism.

Click to expand...

Very possibly, which I suppose is the equivalent of confusing historical/literary approaches with a "no lines" approach.

Ultimately, based on your continued use of such terms, it seems you are having trouble getting your head around the idea that an approach that does not assume literalism as a default is one which is not just "make it up on your own".

Vance said:

Ultimately, based on your continued use of such terms, it seems you are having trouble getting your head around the idea that an approach that does not assume literalism as a default is one which is not just "make it up on your own".

Click to expand...

You are the one using the term literalism, I've never used it so I can't comment on it's meaning. I suspect it is the same as letterism but until you define it I won't really know. I've claimed the Literal Principle for which I've earlier provided a definition. If you can't recall it's essentially my signature line.

Vance said:

Very possibly, which I suppose is the equivalent of confusing historical/literary approaches with a "no lines" approach.

Click to expand...

I got lines and you assume entirely too much about evangelicals and fundamentalists. For one thing, virtually the entire New Testament from Matthew to Acts is stickily interpreted as concurrent historical narratives. Every single test for an historical narrative applied to the New Testament wittiness applies to the Genesis narratives after chapter 12. That includes the many supernatural events recorded by prophets and priest and denied vigorously by the secular clerics of modern academia.

You have a very serious problem Vance, it's doctrinal and epistemological. A blind man can see the difference between you and the fundamentalist/evangelical or our day. The problem would be finding anything we have in common. You claim to be opposed to philosophical naturalism but I see very little difference between you and the Darwinians.

Friendship with the world is enmity against God or have you forgotten that?

Ultimately, based on your continued use of such terms, it seems you are having trouble getting your head around the idea that an approach that does not assume literalism as a default is one which is not just "make it up on your own".

Click to expand...

Genesis offers ten historical narratives in logical succession and bears none of the requisites of a figurative interpretation. The Scriptures are not subject to private interpretation, have you forgotten that?


I don't know how you may try to reconcile the essential supernatural element of Scripture and salvation to your 'interpretation'. I do know this, the secular clerics of our day are opposed to every aspect of traditional Christian theism.

My point is just this, we do well to be reconciled with one another if we indeed share a common faith. Make no mistake, the secular humanist sees no difference between faith in the risen Savior and a belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

The question is not whether you think Genesis is literal, if vossler takes it literally or if I think it's scientifically verifiable. The question is whether or not the prophet Moses or the Apostle Paul took it literally.

I know they did and I do not hold to a Liberal interpretation of Scripture:


Inspiration, not Interpretation

You might want to think about it Vance.

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy said:

I got lines and you assume entirely too much about evangelicals and fundamentalists. For one thing, virtually the entire New Testament from Matthew to Acts is stickily interpreted as concurrent historical narratives. Every single test for an historical narrative applied to the New Testament wittiness applies to the Genesis narratives after chapter 12. That includes the many supernatural events recorded by prophets and priest and denied vigorously by the secular clerics of modern academia.

Click to expand...

You mean the history of a historian that, as William Ramsay puts it,

seizes the critical events, concentrates the reader's attention on them by giving them fuller treatment, touches more lightly and briefly on the less important events, omits entirely a mass of unimportant details, and makes his work an artistic and idealized picture of the progressive tendency of the period?

Glad to see that someone's hatchets are simultaneously as sharp and as pointless as ever.

vossler said:

You are the one using the term literalism, I've never used it so I can't comment on it's meaning. I suspect it is the same as letterism but until you define it I won't really know. I've claimed the Literal Principle for which I've earlier provided a definition. If you can't recall it's essentially my signature line.

Click to expand...

The last time I showed you that your signature line was inconsistent with your real approach to the Bible (here, if you don't recall: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43874661#post43874661), you told me you had nothing to say in response. Is that still true?

shernren said:

You mean the history of a historian that, as William Ramsay puts it,

seizes the critical events, concentrates the reader's attention on them by giving them fuller treatment, touches more lightly and briefly on the less important events, omits entirely a mass of unimportant details, and makes his work an artistic and idealized picture of the progressive tendency of the period?

Glad to see that someone's hatchets are simultaneously as sharp and as pointless as ever.

Click to expand...

Notice that given the opportunity to affirm the reliability of the New Testament witness you chose again to inflict a satirical and pedantic rant.

shernren said:

The last time I showed you that your signature line was inconsistent with your real approach to the Bible (here, if you don't recall: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43874661#post43874661), you told me you had nothing to say in response. Is that still true?

Click to expand...

I'm always amazed at how TEs can take the simple and make it so complex. You cite a Scripture from Genesis and then proceed to provide a scientific analysis that I'm just not interested in arguing. Science seems to be the answer for TEs concerning any theological question that in any way challenges evolution. I would submit that the Bible itself provides all the answers we need. So if you can show me a biblical, exegetical analysis that supports your view and then we may have something to discuss.

After taking another look at your critique I can't see how my approach to reading Scripture is inconsistent to my signature line. So your right, I have nothing to say on this matter.

mark kennedy said:

Notice that given the opportunity to affirm the reliability of the New Testament witness you chose again to inflict a satirical and pedantic rant.

Click to expand...

All I've done is quote the Sir William Ramsay you quote so often. When you quote him you make him sound like a defender of the faith; when I quote him it is just a "satirical and pedantic rant"? My.

In any case. Yes, I do affirm the reliability of the New Testament witness, and I used to lead classes in my church based on these presuppositions (which I am currently physically unable to do, obviously). No, I do not believe that Genesis 1-11 is meant to be a historical narrative, and I believe that for various reasons both Scriptural and scientific, such as the clearly analogical nature of the days in Genesis 1, the fact that there is no mention of inheritance of the curses in Genesis 3, the clear absence of second-order process descriptions in the Bible contrasted with creationists' varying degrees of compromise in incorporating them into their pseudo-scientific frameworks, and the clear independence of the early church's hamartiology and soteriology from Adam and the Genesis account as recorded in the same Gospels and Acts. Again I affirm the historical veracity of the Gospels and Acts, affirm that Jesus historically died and rose from death, believe in the Nicene Creed, in a literal fulfillment of eschatology in which the present earth and universe will be destroyed and superseded by a new reality where those saved by Jesus will enjoy eternal rest while those unsaved will suffer eternal punishment.

By your theory that Darwinianism is nothing more than a dogmatic, pseudo-scientific presuppositionalist rejection of the historicity of the New Testament, I am either a flagrant liar, hopelessly deluded, or simply non-existent. Which is it now? You've come in here with both barrels blazing; try turning some fire on me if you dare.

vossler said:

I'm always amazed at how TEs can take the simple and make it so complex. You cite a Scripture from Genesis and then proceed to provide a scientific analysis that I'm just not interested in arguing. Science seems to be the answer for TEs concerning any theological question that in any way challenges evolution. I would submit that the Bible itself provides all the answers we need. So if you can show me a biblical, exegetical analysis that supports your view and then we may have something to discuss.

After taking another look at your critique I can't see how my approach to reading Scripture is inconsistent to my signature line. So your right, I have nothing to say on this matter.

Click to expand...

It's really simple.

The first part of your signature line is inconsistent with the way you read Scripture because common sense is individualistic and according to the common sense of most people, miracles do not happen and people do not rise from the dead. Therefore something has to modulate common sense, and the only remaining factor for input is context.

The second part of your signature line is inconsistent with the way you read Scripture because you always rely on physical evidence and their accompanying scientific interpretations to read Scripture. I demonstrated this with the starlight transit time difficulty in Genesis and I can demonstrate this with any extended narrative passage of Scripture you care to name. Therefore, since any pertinent physical evidence and accompanying scientific theory must become part of the context of reading any passage of Scripture, evolution and its evidence must also be a part of the context of reading any passage of Scripture to which they are relevant, unless evolution can be shown to be scientifically wrong independent of Scripture. After all, to reject evolution a priori as context of Scripture, even before opening the first page of Genesis, and then declare evolution inconsistent with Scripture is merely circular argumentation. Since you have rejected the physical evidence for evolution and its accompanying scientific explanation, you have rejected part of the rightful context of Scripture, and are thus reading Scripture neither according to common sense nor to proper context, but merely according to your own presuppositions, which you have absorbed from a culture in which creationism is culturally fashionable.

Mind you, in my critique on the other thread I had made nothing complex. It was the creationists of various shapes and stripes which had made things complex for the starlight-transit-time problem, most of whom profess to looking for the "plain meaning" of Scripture; I was just looking at their complexity and commenting on why it exists. Indeed, I proposed a very simple solution: assume that light has an infinite speed and that the stars are very close, and then there is no problem whatsoever. Unfortunately creationists don't seem to "trust the Bible" enough to reject "problematic" science!