Climbing Mount BIAS!

[vossler]

General revelation and special revelation are both of God. They do not contradict so there's no question of one superceding the other.

I won't comment on that because I'd rather comment on something we agree on, like your next statement.

We don't even need theories now to behold it, we just look in awe and wonder!

Is this an example of denying the authority of God's revelation? Do you not believe that Creation is the handiwork of God? Is the handiwork of God not authoritative?

It is authoritative only in the sense that it proves His awesome splendor and majesty, not in the sense that it tells us anything about our origins that contradicts what Scripture has already said.

For the fallacy that evolution has no practical use see this thread (amongst many others). Creationists have to face facts, we have a better understanding of biology, genetics, medical science etc etc because of the theory evolution.

I would most strongly disagree, but in the end my disagreement carries no weight and therefore is meaningless to you and other evolutionists. I have no problem with that! It's obviously important to you and motivates you, so in the end this will be something that each of us carries to our graves and God will have to clear up.

No, but you already knew that. If you were more interested in actually learning about the other side of this debate you would just use google.

Believe me I've spent more time than I ever wanted to learning about the other side of this debate. The time was only productive in that I understand the issue, just not the sell out. I'm praying that God uses the time and effort in a way that will justly glorify Him.

What's more suprising than your attempting to lower the debate by trying to associate the opposing view with the gnostic gospels is that some Creationists are oblivious to some basic biblical principles, the reformation controversy over justification is another.

Since you knew what it wasn't but don't seem to know what it is, the Creation Mandate is a term given to the command (hence the term 'mandate' in Creatio Mandate) God gave Adam in Gen 1:28 when he had finished his work of creation (hence the term 'Creation' in Creation Mandate).

In my experience evolutionists are always coming up with some new means or terms to justify their beliefs. To be honest I thought this was another one. I stand corrected!

 

[vossler]

There is no problem with this. There is a problem with believing that any interpretation is acceptable. You need to draw some better distinctions.

How do you draw distinctions when there is no means to do so? We all justify our beliefs with the idea that we have a corner on the truth.

Holding a particular understanding doesn't make it true. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.

My point exactly!

On what basis can you possibly claim that nature (general revelation) and scripture (special revelation) can possibly contradict each other?

I don't make any such claim that they do. Evolutionists do!

What gluadys said is quite clear. You think your interpretation is synonymous with scripture. It is not. Until you realise that your literal interpretation is just that...an interpretation, you will make no headway in this discussion.

Therefore my 'interpretation' is essentially meaningless. Since the Bible has been relegated to individual interpretation, there can be no uniformity of belief or truth. Each of us, you and I, must realize that all we have is an 'interpretation' which really carries no weight in the grand scheme of things.

That is not what is being claimed! We are all equal in the respect that we can hold our own interpretation (are we not free to read the scriptures for ourselves?) but that doesn't mean that any interpretation is correct. I for one will not be made a slave to someone else's interpretation, otherwise what use is the Holy Spirit to me? Be very careful what you are claiming here, it sounds like you would want to deny the Holy Spirit his work or are arguing for some kind of priestly authoraty of the Roman catholic kind.

But you're asking me to admit my interpretation is mine, not yours or anyone else's and as such carries no weight. It would appear that we're each to go our own ways allowing the Holy Spirit to guide each of us individually in whatever direction He leads us.

I promise not to argue any more points on this thought. It's obvious that I'm not capable of conveying them in any sufficient way that can be edifying.

 

[Assyrian]

As you're free to believe.

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

The contradiction is based on man made measurements, not God's.

It is a contradiction between man made measurements of God's creation, and man made hermeneutics giving a man made interpretation of his word. At least the scientists check their instruments, measurements and calculations.

Can't an interpretation go by what the Word of God actually says and therefore not be an interpretation?

Probably not.

Like I've alluded to earlier with gluadys, with so many interpretations of the same text and each thinking they're right, is it any wonder that post modernism has crept into the church?

I think we had multiple interpretations and everyone thinking they were right long before postmodernism. At least now we can understand the reasons for the differences better and should be more open to understanding why our own particular interpretation may be wrong.

Of course there will be controversies in certain areas, it's natural. The thing is today more and more of Scripture has been opened up to private interpretation and that is clearly displayed here at CF.

Very Berean that, people checking scripture for themselves. It is also very scriptural to question traditions that have been handed down to us, which brings us back to my point about the odd set of traditions that froze in the middle of the nineteenth century, accommodating a spherical earth and heliocentrism but insisting on a six day creation and global flood. Which you haven't addressed.

If so, it doesn't contradict Scripture.

It certainly contradicted the accepted literal interpretation of scripture of the time, a 'plain sense of Scripture that made common sense'.

The Psalmist proves that God will not neglect or abandon the world, from the fact that he created it. A simple survey of the world should of itself suffice to attest a Divine Providence. The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle אף, aph, denoting emphasis, is introduced — Yea, he hath established it.

Who knows, maybe you actually are, I hope that's true. Not for me, but for yourself. I can say that after a couple of years here at OT, I've seen very few examples of anyone being receptive.

Could it be the scriptural and scientific cases for young earth creationism are not really convincing?

On this we obviously disagree.

Disagree?

As a non-scientist I could never do that. To me the fact that it takes a scientist to do so should cause a red flag, obviously it doesn't and it will always be an obstacle between you and I.

Well you could start with the scriptural case for a literal six day creation.

If you don't have a scientific background I wouldn't expect you to come up with the scientific evidence, though there are YECs who do have the training, but they can't come up with decent evidence either.

I disagree that it taking a scientist to come up with scientific evidence raises any red flags. You would go to a doctor for medical advice and a mechanic to sort out you car. After all, it was an astronomer who showed the earth moved around the sun.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I really don't understand why this discussion is so difficult to grasp.

The text of any book is not the same thing as the meaning that people get out of it. Text is not interpretation. In order to read something you must interpret it. The big point is that anyone's interpretation of Scripture is not the same thing as the very words of the text itself. It is a mental picture of the meaning of that text for that person.

That point has nothing to do with postmodernism, to relativism, to the status of any particular interpretation etc. It is just an observation that we READ texts, we derive meaning from them, and in doing so we have something different than the text in our heads. We have our interpretation, our meaning, our understanding of the text in our consciousness, not the very text itself.

The one exception i can imagine is if you memorize a text in a language that you do not understand, memorizing it as a sequence of sounds. But even then it is the sounds in your head, not the text itself, since you don't understand the words then there is no meaning necessarily associated with them.

Such an important point, yet such reluctance to admit that one's interpretation is not the same thing as the very text itself.
wow.

 

[vossler]

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

I'm not ignoring anything, just acknowledging your right to believe.

It is a contradiction between man made measurements of God's creation, and man made hermeneutics giving a man made interpretation of his word. At least the scientists check their instruments, measurements and calculations.

Far too many man made elements occurring here that would allow for any sort of trustworthy answer.

Probably not.

Hence my post on "Thou shalt not lie" earlier.

I think we had multiple interpretations and everyone thinking they were right long before postmodernism. At least now we can understand the reasons for the differences better and should be more open to understanding why our own particular interpretation may be wrong.

I don't believe for a minute we're somehow better off because of this. It's just given us more avenues of thought to choose from.

Very Berean that, people checking scripture for themselves. It is also very scriptural to question traditions that have been handed down to us, which brings us back to my point about the odd set of traditions that froze in the middle of the nineteenth century, accommodating a spherical earth and heliocentrism but insisting on a six day creation and global flood. Which you haven't addressed.

I believe I have addressed these, but in case I haven't, here's my best shot.

Six day creation is based upon the very words of the Bible itself, no extra biblical evidence is necessary.

There are a lot Scriptures that can be used to support this one Scripture, but for brevity I'm giving the shortest answer.

Exodus 10:11 states:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

It is my 'interpretation' that God created heaven and the earth in six days.

Let's look to Scripture again for evidence of a global flood.

Genesis 7:17 - 24 states:

The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days.

It is my 'interpretation' that it was global, somehow the words, in my opinion, seem to convey that. You're obviously free to interpret it any which way you like.

Could it be the scriptural and scientific cases for young earth creationism are not really convincing?

I don't know about you, but its pretty convincing to me.

Well you could start with the scriptural case for a literal six day creation.

see above.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Exodus 10:11 states:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

It is my 'interpretation' that God created heaven and the earth in six days.

Matthew 26:26 states:

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' "

It is the 'interpretation' of Catholics and many others that the bread is Jesus' body. Yet, I'm pretty sure you don't accept that interpretation, even though it's just as plain as your interpretation of Exodus 20:11.

(For the record, I don't hold to transubstantiation or consubstantiation myself. I think that both the bread and the six days are symbolic of something real, yet something beyond human understanding without bringing it down to our level.)

 

[theFijian]

That point has nothing to do with postmodernism, to relativism, to the status of any particular interpretation etc. It is just an observation that we READ texts, we derive meaning from them, and in doing so we have something different than the text in our heads. We have our interpretation, our meaning, our understanding of the text in our consciousness, not the very text itself.

Exactly. If there is no interpretation of the text then the letters are nothing more than a string of characters, purely data. Data must be processed (interpreted) to become information. Scripture must be interpreted to convey any meaning.

Such an important point, yet such reluctance to admit that one's interpretation is not the same thing as the very text itself.
wow.

Quite.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

The Bible says thou shalt not lie, yet you can get probably 20 different interpretations of what that simple commandment means, probably 10 right here on OT. Each person will insist theirs is correct.

What is ironic is that rather than stating the command, you gave one of the probably 10 interpretations we could get of it, and yet you mistake your interpretation for the command itself. The actual command is more specific than your interpretation. It reads, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:16, ESV).

Now, perhaps instead of paraphrasing you were just quoting the first part of a commandment. In that case, you may have been referring to either Leviticus 18:20 or 18:22, both of which contain commands beginning with "thou shalt not lie", though neither has anything to do with lying in the sense of telling a falsehood.

 

[theFijian]

It is authoritative only in the sense that it proves His awesome splendor and majesty, not in the sense that it tells us anything about our origins that contradicts what Scripture has already said.

But Creation (note the word I used, CREATION) does not contradict Sripture. (Note: I am not using the words SCIENCE or THEOLOGY here!) They are both the revelation of God and do no contradict. Curiously you earlier contradict yourself:

General revelation and special revelation are both of God. They do not contradict so there's no question of one superceding the other.

I won't comment on that because I'd rather comment on something we agree on,

You still do not understand that scripture is studied/interpreted to give us our theology, just as Creation is studied/interpreted togive us our science.

I would most strongly disagree, but in the end my disagreement carries no weight and therefore is meaningless to you and other evolutionists. I have no problem with that! It's obviously important to you and motivates you, so in the end this will be something that each of us carries to our graves and God will have to clear up.

It motivates me because it is shameful for Christians to speak authoritively on something they don't know anything about and don't want to know anything about. St Augustine thought this too.

Believe me I've spent more time than I ever wanted to learning about the other side of this debate. The time was only productive in that I understand the issue, just not the sell out. I'm praying that God uses the time and effort in a way that will justly glorify Him.

You are not spending enough time because you still do not understand basic hermeneutical concepts despite the efforts of people here.

In my experience evolutionists are always coming up with some new means or terms to justify their beliefs. To be honest I thought this was another one. I stand corrected!

Your experience is coloured by your prejudices against your brethren.

How do you draw distinctions when there is no means to do so? We all justify our beliefs with the idea that we have a corner on the truth.

You justify your own beliefs don't you? Why am I not allowed to do the same? Why is it you want to deny others the right to hold their own view, no matter how wrong it may be? Are you coverting to Roman Catholicism?

On what basis can you possibly claim that nature (general revelation) and scripture (special revelation) can possibly contradict each other?

I don't make any such claim that they do. Evolutionists do!

I do not claim that Creation and Scripture contradict and I would argue anyone who claims they do. Assuming you are talking about Theistic Evolutionists, your statement is an outright falsehood which you should retract.

Therefore my 'interpretation' is essentially meaningless. Since the Bible has been relegated to individual interpretation, there can be no uniformity of belief or truth. Each of us, you and I, must realize that all we have is an 'interpretation' which really carries no weight in the grand scheme of things.

You have turned Roman Catholic. Why does your interpretation carry no weight? Are you expecting someone else's beliefs to get you into heaven? How can we possibly go to heaven unless we accept Christ for ourselves...(ie we assess the truth claims of scripture for ourselves)

But you're asking me to admit my interpretation is mine, not yours or anyone else's and as such carries no weight. It would appear that we're each to go our own ways allowing the Holy Spirit to guide each of us individually in whatever direction He leads us.

Hallelujah! Praise God that he allows the Holy Spirit to guide me to his truth and I don't have to rely on someone else for their interpretation! If you think your assessment of the truth of Bible carries no weight then I fear for your salvation. I know my assessment of the Bible has lead me to the truth therein and I am eternally thankful to him for that!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Six day creation is based upon the very words of the Bible itself, no extra biblical evidence is necessary.

the very word 'yom' is understood only with reference to things seen and experienced in Creation apart from the Scriptures.

does it mean 'daylight hours' or '24 hour day'?
(Gen 1:5 uses it both ways in the same verse)
how do you know which one, or both, or something else?

is it a universal or a local term?
(Gen 1:2 makes it a universal term, yet my common sense experience believes that the world is divided into 24 time zones)
ie when it is day in Israel is it day everywhere in the world? or is day a local term? how do you know?

is the term being used symbolically in some way or is it being used in a plain and literal fashion? How do i decide?

And this is just for 1 word. At every point many extrabibiblical ideas are NECESSARILY entering into your analysis. And we haven't even brought up the crucial ideas that you are not reading the Bible in it's original language and with reference to it's original hearers. Everything you read is already being filtered through translators minds.

 

[vossler]

Thanks for diverting this point.

What is ironic is that rather than stating the command, you gave one of the probably 10 interpretations we could get of it, and yet you mistake your interpretation for the command itself. The actual command is more specific than your interpretation. It reads, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:16, ESV).

Alright, I quoted it from memory and didn't actually look up the verse.

Around here I've got to remember that's very important.

So, rather than get into a lengthy discussion as to what false witness is or isn't, (I don't even want to imagine that)let's keep it simple and use Exodus 20:15 which states:

Thou shalt not steal.

Again, a rather simple command, at least it would appear, yet we wouldn't get a definitive answer as to what that really means today because we all have 'our interpretation' of it.

 

[XTE]

Thanks for diverting this point.
Alright, I quoted it from memory and didn't actually look up the verse.

Around here I've got to remember that's very important.

So, rather than get into a lengthy discussion as to what false witness is or isn't, (I don't even want to imagine that)let's keep it simple and use Exodus 20:15 which states:

Thou shalt not steal.

Again, a rather simple command, at least it would appear, yet we wouldn't get a definitive answer as to what that really means today because we all have 'our interpretation' of it.

We still use the term "steal" quite frequently. "False witness" on the other hand.....eh....not so much...

It is subject to interpretation for such reasons.

You didn't want to touch "False witness" and did want to "Steal" because you know it's easier. Then you contradict yourself actually in the last paragraph saying "keep it simple" first, then "yet we wouldn't get a definitive answer as to what that really means today because we all have 'our interpretation' of it." Is it simple or impossible? Bad example.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Thou shalt not steal.

Again, a rather simple command, at least it would appear, yet we wouldn't get a definitive answer as to what that really means today because we all have 'our interpretation' of it.


the concept of 'to steal' is almost completely a derivation of the society that you are a part of.

is plagarism stealing?
how about using someone else name on your book?

is borrowing a library book stealing?
is downloading music stealing?
is copying the neighbor's house plan stealing?

is eminent domain stealing?
is singing "happy birthday" at your daughter's birthday party stealing?
is reading outloud to your kids from a copyrighted book stealing?
is private property in land stealing?
is war related property changes stealing?

is socialism stealing?

is libel stealing someone's reputation?
is forgetting to return someone borrowed stealing?
how about if you return it damaged? how about if you offer to pay for the damage?

is driving without auto insurance stealing?
how about not having life insurance, or a nursing home policy, or an adequate retirement plan?

is excessive taxation stealing? how about any taxes? how about income taxes?
is property tax selling your home stealing? is grazing cows on your land to avoid property tax stealing? how about lying about how much you paid for the land or your auto to avoid use taxes? or sales tax?



doesn't appear at all simple to me.
i'll bet you can not even define theft or to steal in our society.

and that is just modern society by itself. how about where it hits other cultures.
is Sudanese slavery stealing? how about the Christian groups that buy back the slaves freedom?
is selling your kids into sexual slavery stealing?
is going on a sex holiday to Thailand stealing?
is government ownership of land stealing? how about government ownership of factories?
or roads, are toll roads theft or are publically funding highways?
How about the TV usage tax? or VAT? or car taxes based on gasoline comsumption or weight of the vehicle?
are laws prohibiting ownership of guns theft? how about if they come and take your gun for not registering it?

 

[vossler]

But Creation (note the word I used, CREATION) does not contradict Sripture. (Note: I am not using the words SCIENCE or THEOLOGY here!) They are both the revelation of God and do no contradict.

On that point I agree 100%

Curiously you earlier contradict yourself:
You still do not understand that scripture is studied/interpreted to give us our theology, just as Creation is studied/interpreted to give us our science.

I understand this fully, I think the misunderstanding, if it truly exists, is the means to how we come to our science. Is it observation solely or extrapolation? I believe in the former while evolutionists believe in the latter.

It motivates me because it is shameful for Christians to speak authoritively on something they don't know anything about and don't want to know anything about. St Augustine thought this too.
You are not spending enough time because you still do not understand basic hermeneutical concepts despite the efforts of people here.

Consider me funny, but I believe if the Bible states something I'm allowed to speak on it with authority.

Your experience is coloured by your prejudices against your brethren.

No my experiences have colored my view of the brethren.

You justify your own beliefs don't you? Why am I not allowed to do the same? Why is it you want to deny others the right to hold their own view, no matter how wrong it may be? Are you coverting to Roman Catholicism?

Of course you're more than welcome to justify your beliefs, I have nothing against this at all. I have no ability or power to deny you or anyone else here of anything.

I do not claim that Creation and Scripture contradict and I would argue anyone who claims they do. Assuming you are talking about Theistic Evolutionists, your statement is an outright falsehood which you should retract.

Do you believe in six days? If not they contradict.

You have turned Roman Catholic. Why does your interpretation carry no weight? Are you expecting someone else's beliefs to get you into heaven? How can we possibly go to heaven unless we accept Christ for ourselves...(ie we assess the truth claims of scripture for ourselves)

Is that what I am, Catholic? The things you learn here in OT.

Hallelujah! Praise God that he allows the Holy Spirit to guide me to his truth and I don't have to rely on someone else for their interpretation! If you think your assessment of the truth of Bible carries no weight then I fear for your salvation. I know my assessment of the Bible has lead me to the truth therein and I am eternally thankful to him for that!

I've never said my assessment of the truth carries no weight.

 

[vossler]

the concept of 'to steal' is almost completely a derivation of the society that you are a part of.

is plagarism stealing?
how about using someone else name on your book?

is borrowing a library book stealing?
is downloading music stealing?
is copying the neighbor's house plan stealing?

is eminent domain stealing?
is singing "happy birthday" at your daughter's birthday party stealing?
is reading outloud to your kids from a copyrighted book stealing?
is private property in land stealing?
is war related property changes stealing?

is socialism stealing?

is libel stealing someone's reputation?
is forgetting to return someone borrowed stealing?
how about if you return it damaged? how about if you offer to pay for the damage?

is driving without auto insurance stealing?
how about not having life insurance, or a nursing home policy, or an adequate retirement plan?

is excessive taxation stealing? how about any taxes? how about income taxes?
is property tax selling your home stealing? is grazing cows on your land to avoid property tax stealing? how about lying about how much you paid for the land or your auto to avoid use taxes? or sales tax?

Thanks for completely proving my point. I couldn't have done it better myself.

So if something such as stealing is so hard to define, is it any wonder why we can't agree on anything else.

Now an aside...I think if you asked non-Christians what stealing was I believe they could answer it better than Christians.

 

[vossler]

We still use the term "steal" quite frequently. "False witness" on the other hand.....eh....not so much...

It is subject to interpretation for such reasons.

You didn't want to touch "False witness" and did want to "Steal" because you know it's easier. Then you contradict yourself actually in the last paragraph saying "keep it simple" first, then "yet we wouldn't get a definitive answer as to what that really means today because we all have 'our interpretation' of it." Is it simple or impossible? Bad example.

Isn't it amazing, Christians dissecting the words stealing and lying, ready to argue what it is or isn't. Wow!

And some of us still think that issues like creation are doable.

Is it any wonder why our witness is hurt.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So if something such as stealing is so hard to define, is it any wonder why we can't agree on anything else.


hence the need for lawyers to interpret the law which is written

Isn't it amazing, Christians dissecting the words stealing and lying, ready to argue what it is or isn't. Wow!

And some of us still think that issues like creation are doable.

Is it any wonder why our witness is hurt.

has nothing to do with being a Christian or not. Our society itself has extraordinarily difficult time defining theft, especially in the arena of intellectual property.

Just for the record:
reading a copyright book outloud is against the copywrite laws for you have not purchased performance rights, it is defined as theft to read to your kids at night.

singing "Happy Birthday" without paying royalties is also illegal and defined by law as theft of intellectual property.

 

[Assyrian]

I'm not ignoring anything, just acknowledging your right to believe.

Very kind of you , but acknowledging my right to believe this does not answer the point I made that your hermeneutic is an extra scriptural authority that determines how your interpret the bible.

Far too many man made elements occurring here that would allow for any sort of trustworthy answer.

Including of course the elements of man made hermeneutic and man made interpretation.

Hence my post on "Thou shalt not lie" earlier.

I realise the thread has move on thou shalt not steal (does this include the spoils of war, what about the spoils of an unprovoked war?), but with thou shalt not lie, we have Lev 19:11 You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. Does that mean it was alright for Israelites to lie to non Israelites? Are there circumstance when it was ok to lie to Babylonian soldiers asking you to betray you own people? Christians lied to protect Jews from the Nazis in occupied Europe, was that right?

With both of these examples we have first to actually interpret it as a commandment, and then we need to see who it was addressed to, and interpret whether it applies to us today. Not all the OT commands do.

I don't believe for a minute we're somehow better off because of this. It's just given us more avenues of thought to choose from.

I would still be a Catholic if I hadn't read the bible for myself and started making my own stumbling interpretations that I preferred to the one I was being taught.

I believe I have addressed these, but in case I haven't, here's my best shot.

Six day creation is based upon the very words of the Bible itself, no extra biblical evidence is necessary.

There are a lot Scriptures that can be used to support this one Scripture, but for brevity I'm giving the shortest answer.

Exodus 10:11 states:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

It is my 'interpretation' that God created heaven and the earth in six days.

Your interpretation is that he created the world in six literal days, which is a bit different from what Exodus tells us. You do realise the word day is used quite flexibly in scripture.

In this passage God illustrates the sabbath command with a reference to his own creation of the world in six days. Now does an illustration of a command have to be a literal illustration? Apparently not. We see a different illustration of the same Sabbath command in Deut 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. Does this mean God literally has arm sand hands? No it is a type of metaphor, an anthropomorphism. Interestingly we find the six day creation in Exodus right in the middle of another anthropomorphism.

Exodus 20:11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.
Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

God was refreshed after his rest? This is an anthropomorphism where God describes himself as if he were a weary labourer. But God doesn't really get tired.


If your six day creation is right in the middle of a metaphorical illustration, it is rather hard to show that these were six literal days, certainly Moses did not seem to take God's days as literal 24 hour days (Psalm 90:4).

Let's look to Scripture again for evidence of a global flood.

Genesis 7:17 - 24 states:

The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days.

It is my 'interpretation' that it was global, somehow the words, in my opinion, seem to convey that. You're obviously free to interpret it any which way you like.
I don't know about you, but its pretty convincing to me.
see above.

The problem is that the word for 'earth' here is erets, which more often simply means 'the land' someone lives in. There is nothing in the passage which actually says the whole planet was flooded, just the land Noah lived in a land that was filled with violence, which was destroyed in a flood, all the high hills were covered in water, and every living thing there died.

 

[vossler]

Very kind of you , but acknowledging my right to believe this does not answer the point I made that your hermeneutic is an extra scriptural authority that determines how your interpret the bible.

The fact that I think is also extra biblical, how reliable is that? Not very!

Including of course the elements of man made hermeneutic and man made interpretation.

But of course!

I realise the thread has move on thou shalt not steal (does this include the spoils of war, what about the spoils of an unprovoked war?), but with thou shalt not lie, we have Lev 19:11 You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. Does that mean it was alright for Israelites to lie to non Israelites? Are there circumstance when it was ok to lie to Babylonian soldiers asking you to betray you own people? Christians lied to protect Jews from the Nazis in occupied Europe, was that right?

Again, this just further illustrates my point, no one knows what stealing is, lying or anything else for that matter because we all have our 'interpretations.' How convenient!

With both of these examples we have first to actually interpret it as a commandment, and then we need to see who it was addressed to, and interpret whether it applies to us today. Not all the OT commands do.

Here you make sense, I'll go with that.

I would still be a Catholic if I hadn't read the bible for myself and started making my own stumbling interpretations that I preferred to the one I was being taught.

I'm certainly not advocating that people not read the Bible for themselves.

Your interpretation is that he created the world in six literal days, which is a bit different from what Exodus tells us. You do realise the word day is used quite flexibly in scripture.

Not when used with a ordinal number and evening and morning.

In this passage God illustrates the sabbath command with a reference to his own creation of the world in six days. Now does an illustration of a command have to be a literal illustration? Apparently not. We see a different illustration of the same Sabbath command in Deut 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. Does this mean God literally has arm sand hands? No it is a type of metaphor, an anthropomorphism. Interestingly we find the six day creation in Exodus right in the middle of another anthropomorphism.

Exodus 20:11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.
Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

So are you saying that God couldn't be literal and metaphoric at the same time?

God was refreshed after his rest? This is an anthropomorphism where God describes himself as if he were a weary labourer. But God doesn't really get tired.

True, it was for our benefit.

If your six day creation is right in the middle of a metaphorical illustration, it is rather hard to show that these were six literal days, certainly Moses did not seem to take God's days as literal 24 hour days (Psalm 90:4).

It's not my six day creation, its God's and He didn't give us any indication that it was metaphorical. I don't see Psalm 90:4 in any way shape or form as you are using it.

The problem is that the word for 'earth' here is erets, which more often simply means 'the land' someone lives in. There is nothing in the passage which actually says the whole planet was flooded, just the land Noah lived in a land that was filled with violence, which was destroyed in a flood, all the high hills were covered in water, and every living thing there died.

I believe that this says exactly that, the whole planet was flooded.

And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.

Like I've tried to say, we can take the simple and make it so complex, it's a wonder we believe anything at all.

 

[steen]

Thanks for diverting this point.
Alright, I quoted it from memory and didn't actually look up the verse.

Around here I've got to remember that's very important.

So, rather than get into a lengthy discussion as to what false witness is or isn't, (I don't even want to imagine that)let's keep it simple and use Exodus 20:15 which states:

Thou shalt not steal.

Again, a rather simple command, at least it would appear, yet we wouldn't get a definitive answer as to what that really means today because we all have 'our interpretation' of it.

Ahd the bible is not consistent either. F.ex. when the Israelites kill off a bunch of people and take Israel, are they "stealing" the nation"?

So what does the Bible mean with "thou shalt not steal" (in our American/English translation of the words)?